Review
So apparently I was wrong about Balthazar
having a biblical ass, it turns about it was Balaam who had a story worthy ass.
Either way I don’t think this affected my viewing of the movie all that much.
While on the topic of biblical connections,
I wonder if Balthazar the name, is supposed to allude to the donkey being wise
[since one of the three wise men was called Balthazar]. However I wonder if the
director decided to be extremely daring and the donkey an analogy for Jesus.
The mother who seems to be a little pragmatic… or perhaps just more agreeable
than the other characters does call him a saint, and he is carrying around
everyone’s burden. The only problem with that idea is that he does run away from
the drunk, which is rather un-messiah like. I also noticed a lot of attention
was given to the sounds in the background, I wonder if that’s important. I have
a pretty strong feeling the movie is supposed to show you all the various
archetypes- the prideful father, the worrisome mother, the wayward youth, the
confused young girl, the rich but malevolent uncle etc- in that sense I think
the movie did quite well. I guess the rigidity was just in place to reinforce
the archetypes.
The film was atypical, it was rather unique
in tone and manner [film style, sound etc] it didn't seem to follow the usual
manner of storytelling, it avoided all the overblown sentimentality that films
about animals have and it was refreshing. I would say I quite like it
especially since it did cover quite a lot of archetypes and topics [bad
friends/ company, injustice, tragedy wrongdoing]. Everything felt symbolic of
something, there seemed to be just around everything in the film, from unjust
authority figures to unfeeling lawyers. Despite all this I felt quite annoyed
with the film after I saw it as I thought it was trying hard to avoid being
straightforward. Why, when you have something to say,
make it so hard to figure out? Would anything have really been lost if the film
was a little more easy to figure out? Shakespeare wrote plays that were meant
for an audience of commoners, I don’t see anyone holding that against him. I
just feel annoyed by how I am unable to figure out what exactly the movie is
trying to be.
It isn't those normal annoying buckets of
sentimentality that most movies about animals are. The story is unique, the
characters [although stiff] well done and the ambiance/sound very detailed and
interesting. So is that it? Is it just a well made movie with a very un-Hollywood
story? That tries to drive home how the
characters, who have similar counterparts in just about every movie or books
you see, are actually a little over exaggerated and foolish[In all those books
and movies]. If it is, well it’s still a good movie, but I have a headache
that’s screaming about symbolism but I don’t see it, maybe that’s a joke.
No comments:
Post a Comment