I Googled S & E's reviews and discovered a few things. Firstly, that the entire review is a little longer than the reactions given on the Blue Velvet DVD. This is a little sad for the audience because there are more comments made by both reviewers that give more details for the separate reactions. Ebert apparently not only had a problem with Rosselini's nudity, but he was highly offended by the idea that any of the sadism of the movie could be accompanied by "campy and adolescent dialogue," implying that there is something funny and clownish about the whole thing. Secondly, upon finding the BV review, I found other reviews and was especially intrigued by the pair's assessment of Misery(1990). They both loved that movie and felt that the humor in that movie made it all the more scary/twisted and enjoyable!
I feel that this is fairly hypocritical stand to take. While Siskel felt uncomfortable, but ultimately enjoyed BV, he takes outright delight in Kathy Bates as an overzealous fan who easily crosses back and forth between good and evil, while not knowing what to make of Frank and not really caring what to make of Frank. He calls Misery a "most enjoyable, if sometimes gruesome entertainment." Ebert loves Bates's "sweetness and humor" in her role and doesn't see any conflict with this notion as she breaks James Caan's legs with a sledgehammer after strapping him down to the bed and sliding a block between his ankles.
I found this interesting, but not really sure what to make of it. I'd love to discuss this further.
0 comments:
Post a Comment