Thanks for the tip Dr.K - I shall check it out

Dr K.



While I agree with the majority of your views, on this film however I'm going to have to disagree. Strongly. Very strongly. I caught this in a screening at the cine lumiere.



This film was such a pretentious piece of utter self indulgence. While it looked very nice and I agree that it does have a very moody feel, there is nothing else. This is a shallow, empty and dull dull dull dull dull film.



There are far better films out there that have raised questions about the nature of identity that have done this very same thing. The performances don't bother me, that's fine. the atmosphere is good but there has be something more than atmosphere to recommend a film. It is not a little gem. This does not make cinema exciting. It makes cinema boring and paints a picture of filmmakiers who are showing off saying "ooh look how and arty we can be".



It is a terrible movie. You cannot compare a film like this to Wolverine (while I admit wolverine is rubbish) that was something totally different. There have been better arthouse films that have taken the subject matter so much better. A french film called Le Grand Voyage for example. Please Doctor K. in the future for the benefit of mankind, do not ever again recommend films that are complete and utter pretentious self indulgence piffle that belongs in an art gallery and not in a cinema, any cinema. There are better films than this that do it so much better.



I have lost some respect for you Doctor K.

With this sort of movie - a moody, silent piece that attempts to explore something basic in a resonant way - I always feel inclined to think that it amounts to little more than an exercise for the directors.



To me, their job is to present a work that possesses something meaningful to convey to the audience, rather than give them a series of deathly-quiet, panning, motif-ridden shots.



They're only compelling in their shapeless ambiguity, which means that the film could mean practically anything and invite any reaction (which might explain the polarised critical reception).



As a person aspiring to be a director himself, I can't help but feel that - if I was at all responsible - it simply wouldn't be good enough.

Thanks alot Mark, ill be sure to check it out, keep up this little budget shoutout if you will.

Weather or not it was through any fault of the directors fault, i got a very similar impression of the effects and techniques you described there in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (still one of my all time favorite films).

Gah! Another great-looking British film I won't be able to catch while I'm here in the USA. So annoying when Americans tease me about the lack of great films coming out of the UK, when all they get to see is tripe like Run Fatboy Run and Lesbian Vampire Wotsits.

Dear Mark,



Are you familiar with the web-slang shorthand; TLDR?

It stands for 'too long, didn't read' and you occasionally see it posted beneath an article or lengthy blog entry. The thing is, I find this uncomfortably divisive, because I hate the laziness of skipping to the end, but I also KIND of identify with its sentiment (to my shame, but hey, what can you do).



Films like Helen (I haven't seen it yet, but I will) also have this effect on me, so much so that in the back of my mind I want to mark them with TSDW (too slow, didn't watch). I had this very problem with Brick. While I loved the concept and style in general, I just found myself so impatient the whole time, waiting for the next scene to start. Yes I KNOW it's awful, I know I should have more patience, but surely it's not entirely my fault. A film has a duty, right? A responsibility NOT to bore you.



I'm not saying that Helen will be boring. I'm not saying that all films which use this slow technique are boring (I have yet to see a dull Ken Loach film, for example). I just think (in accordance with Ram-Jam above, I believe) that pauses and puddles of inertia for their own sake are sort of pointless, and a little bit of a self-important display.



Also, don't be too hard on Wolverine. I had a crappy day at work, and fancied some schlock. Huge-Act-Man entertained me thoroughly with his distinctive torso and lack of shyness. I came away from the cinema feeling entertained and better. And the martial arts stuff is pretty damn slick.



Best, Jo



PS How much am I setting myself up to get 'TLDR' posted beneath my comment?

JoWontGo: TLDR



Except that by saying that, it shows that I did.

looks great, i hope that they'll show it in the 'director's chair' screen at our cinema.

this film was rubbish, it was slow pan after slow pan after slow pan after slow pan after slow pan after slow pan after slow pan... it was about as interesting and exhilarating as reading this sentence.



every shot just felt like another step to giving up. the entire film just gave up. eg. the sequence that counted out the steps that the victim had taken on her journey to oblivion, started (from 1-5ish) with something happening in the frame, birds, trees etc. then it gave up, and each step after just felt rough, fed up and not bothered. admittedly the filmmakers do seem to have kept feeling of fatigue and melancholy throughout the film, occasionally hitting on some beautiful scenery, however i don't feel they should be praised for this. i mean, the makers of wolverine retained the sense of...shouting a lot throughout their film, and no one praised them.

I haven't see this yet, but I'm worried about the choices made in this clip of you - you look very red in face like you are about to blow a fuse. Hopefully it was just bad lighting :)

I went to see Helen on Sunday after hearing your recommendation. I liked it, so thanks, although I do have one caveat. I thought it was a tightly put together, complex and intelligent film and it is beautiful to look at. I also liked the subtle way the main characters were drawn. Clearly it's not the film of the year, but that's okay, it doesn't have to be.



I totally disagree with the people who have said the film is boring and self indulgent. The slowness and delicacy of the camera work gives the film, as far as I see, at least four things: 1) it really evokes a sense of the fragility of the traces that Joy's life leaves behind 2) it evokes a sense that the characters in the film are pretty helpless in the face of a situation that is clearly going to keep to it's own pace 3) the long shots don't let you escape from difficult moments and 4) the quietness gives the audience time to think about and digest what's going on. Zombie_flesheater says that the shots of the numbers in the park was sloppy; this was actually one of my favourite sequences, marking out one of those fragile traces, displaying the slowness of possible action and allowing the audience to know that somewhere off screen Helen was fleshing in the role of Joy.



My one problem with the film was with the easy way it associated growing up in care with a life of abject joylessness and hopelessness. I realise that this isn't really a problem with the film itself as it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that Helen had been living a miserable life without any hope or may have been suffering from depression or whatever and I'm not saying this is poverty porn (it doesn't attempt to elicit a cheap emotional response after all), just that it supports a rather condescending, one dimensional view of the lives of disadvantaged people that is too prevalent, in British culture at least, to be dismissed as incidental.



Sorry, that was way too long.