I got to see this movie, despite living in Britain where it is hard to find, because a friend imported the French DVD. I have been a-waiting a long time; I wasn't let down. I've been thinking about it for many days. It has haunted me the way the novel did when I first read it. But it has problems.
Good stuff first? You know all about it. The acting is truly spot on. Argento throws herself into the role with the kind of wild abandon that one would expect of Sarah, her character. The Sprouse twins work wonders in their role/s -- they're least irritating and most heartbreaking child actors I have ever seen. The cameos are most fun to watch, particularly Marilyn Manson. I had no idea Marilyn could appear so weak and pathetic. He's a good actor then. Maybe he should further look into that, since his music career may be declining.
Also, Argento has a great eye. The film's crazy pyrotechnics constantly threaten to become wearing or tedious, but they never do -- every canted camera angle, every stop-motion effect and every speeded-up piece of film is judged just right, impressionistically offering us insight into Jeremiah's soul and his imagination without becoming self-consciously silly. I disagree with the many critics who despise the film's OTT style. I think it's one of it's strong points.
I didn't even mind the ending that much. Of course the brutal, bleak ending of the novel leaves more of a lasting impression, but the film's ending is still downbeat -- Jeremiah's back on the road with his mother, so the abuse and the suffering and the heartache will continue. The novel extended this; in the final of the short stories, we learn that Jeremiah is a broken-down and deeply disturbed wreck when he reaches 15. But the film gives us no reason to think that this won't still be the case.
But yes, there are problems. Sarah's character changes in translation. In the book she was more vicious, more repulsive, but also somewhat deeper. We are given reasons for her rotten behaviour -- she has been conditioned by past violence. This is not even hinted at in the film, where we know nothing of her character's history.
The rape scene, one of the most horrific passages in the book, is oddly glossed-over here, which makes it offensive for all the wrong reasons. What was (not graphically) described in the book as deeply painful, and as something that lasted hours, passes us by quite harmlessly in the film. It joins that trend of recent indie films which try to make paedophilia seem less damaging than it actually is. Or perhaps that isn't so and I'm overreacting. But that's how it seemed to me.
Ultimately, Argento (and Leroy) want us to pity these monstrous characters, presumably because they 'know no better than what they do'. But that won't wash unless we're given some reason to pity them, something other than blind faith. In a film that numbs us with the depiction of adults as child abusers and nothing else, where should our sympathy come from? Are we really supposed to forgive the paedophile's actions because he apologises to Jeremiah after raping and abandoning him? Or is it because the poor poor guy was heartbroken after Sarah dumped him, and just needed some loving attention? No, there must be more. Much much more.
The most important downside is that while we watch the movie through Jeremiah's eyes, we are not given his insight, his commentary, which was for me the most important aspect of the book. We can all imagine what it would be like to be dragged across all of Southern America, watching our psychotic glurmo of a mother screw different violent men when she isn't torturing us, but Leroy's poetic narration, clinging as best as possible to childlike innocence, made it seem all the more horrific and all the more incredible at once. Argento's Heart is Deceitful is a successful film, but it sorely misses Leroy's voice.
Good stuff first? You know all about it. The acting is truly spot on. Argento throws herself into the role with the kind of wild abandon that one would expect of Sarah, her character. The Sprouse twins work wonders in their role/s -- they're least irritating and most heartbreaking child actors I have ever seen. The cameos are most fun to watch, particularly Marilyn Manson. I had no idea Marilyn could appear so weak and pathetic. He's a good actor then. Maybe he should further look into that, since his music career may be declining.
Also, Argento has a great eye. The film's crazy pyrotechnics constantly threaten to become wearing or tedious, but they never do -- every canted camera angle, every stop-motion effect and every speeded-up piece of film is judged just right, impressionistically offering us insight into Jeremiah's soul and his imagination without becoming self-consciously silly. I disagree with the many critics who despise the film's OTT style. I think it's one of it's strong points.
I didn't even mind the ending that much. Of course the brutal, bleak ending of the novel leaves more of a lasting impression, but the film's ending is still downbeat -- Jeremiah's back on the road with his mother, so the abuse and the suffering and the heartache will continue. The novel extended this; in the final of the short stories, we learn that Jeremiah is a broken-down and deeply disturbed wreck when he reaches 15. But the film gives us no reason to think that this won't still be the case.
But yes, there are problems. Sarah's character changes in translation. In the book she was more vicious, more repulsive, but also somewhat deeper. We are given reasons for her rotten behaviour -- she has been conditioned by past violence. This is not even hinted at in the film, where we know nothing of her character's history.
The rape scene, one of the most horrific passages in the book, is oddly glossed-over here, which makes it offensive for all the wrong reasons. What was (not graphically) described in the book as deeply painful, and as something that lasted hours, passes us by quite harmlessly in the film. It joins that trend of recent indie films which try to make paedophilia seem less damaging than it actually is. Or perhaps that isn't so and I'm overreacting. But that's how it seemed to me.
Ultimately, Argento (and Leroy) want us to pity these monstrous characters, presumably because they 'know no better than what they do'. But that won't wash unless we're given some reason to pity them, something other than blind faith. In a film that numbs us with the depiction of adults as child abusers and nothing else, where should our sympathy come from? Are we really supposed to forgive the paedophile's actions because he apologises to Jeremiah after raping and abandoning him? Or is it because the poor poor guy was heartbroken after Sarah dumped him, and just needed some loving attention? No, there must be more. Much much more.
The most important downside is that while we watch the movie through Jeremiah's eyes, we are not given his insight, his commentary, which was for me the most important aspect of the book. We can all imagine what it would be like to be dragged across all of Southern America, watching our psychotic glurmo of a mother screw different violent men when she isn't torturing us, but Leroy's poetic narration, clinging as best as possible to childlike innocence, made it seem all the more horrific and all the more incredible at once. Argento's Heart is Deceitful is a successful film, but it sorely misses Leroy's voice.