Beautifully filmed rendition of the nobler side of human nature?
Or...
Over-romanticised gloop with dodgy racial overtones and a gurning big-footed nutter in the lead role?
Le conflit se commence... bonne chance, tout le monde!
― Will McKenzie, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Madchen, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
I do think the racist slur which has been attatched to it is a bit of a red herring. Its like saying Notting Hill is racist because it has no black characters in it. There certainly isn't a white only rule for the extras in the film, and when you look at it there really aren't that many core characters. Its as much a film about Paris as Notting Hill is a film about London - all the touchstones are there but its not making any grand gestures.
Certainly one of the films of the year, just because of its extraordinary rythmn.
― Pete, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
As for the movie - there is something fairly nauseating about the idea that there is someone above us all who alone puts the world to rights by doing good deeds (and takes revenge on our behalf when we are mistreated). I did quite enjoy Amélie tracking down and drawing in her potential lover, but once she had him I couldn't work out what she was doing in the last 20 minutes...
― Jeff, Thursday, 11 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Mike Hanle y, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
I agree with you, Pete. I don't think it's a film that is trying to make political points one way or another.
But the 'race' thing in France isn't just about the casting. Serge Kaganski (the guy who raised the issue in the first place) first argued about how the cleaned up, glossy 'look' of the film (to be honest, it doesn't really look like 1997, does it?) looks more like the 1930s films of Marcel and Carne. He pointed to how this ties in to the false-nostalgic rhetoric of Le Pen. It a bit difficult to write a synopsis of Kaganski's argument here, but it's at:
http:www.liberation.com/quotidien/debats/mai01/20010531c.html
Personally, I think Kaganski seems to be playing devil's advocate for the hell of it. He has certainly raised his public profile!
― Will McKenzie, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Pete, Friday, 12 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― gareth (gareth), Sunday, 14 March 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)
Another reason for a completely hetero chickie such as myself to go for the film -- the gorgeousness of Matthieu Kassovitz. ;)
― Many Coloured Halo (Dee the Lurker), Sunday, 14 March 2004 00:31 (twenty-one years ago)
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 14 March 2004 01:33 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Sunday, 14 March 2004 01:55 (twenty-one years ago)
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 14 March 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)
Cold and pointless?!? Gareth, areth thou krazee? I loved the film. Even though I am not much of a fan of european films (hah!), I fell completely in love with the sound, images and message. It's just so utterly sweet.
― jesus nathalie (nathalie), Sunday, 14 March 2004 13:55 (twenty-one years ago)
but not great twee
― stevem (blueski), Sunday, 14 March 2004 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)
first 15 minutes were great though.
andy
― koogs (koogs), Sunday, 14 March 2004 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 14 March 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)
So two misfits with strange likes find love through the best efforts of their attemtps to sabotage their own happiness through painful shyness. What's not to like?
― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 15 March 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Monday, 15 March 2004 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)
El Diablo to thread.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 15 March 2004 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)
― Amity (Amity), Monday, 15 March 2004 02:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 15 March 2004 06:41 (twenty-one years ago)
fckn best thing ever. and yeah 'true romance' is tweer. and still ace.
― piscesboy, Monday, 15 March 2004 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)
― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Monday, 15 March 2004 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Monday, 15 March 2004 19:15 (twenty-one years ago)
What supervenes over everything else is the relentlessportrayal of a cartoonish heroine. Watching this again, there is some kind of lack of respect in the infantile way the camera almost gloats over the heroine's innocence. It's a little off, a little bit creepy. Only a true misogynist could even entertain the existence of a gamin like Amelie.
― moley, Saturday, 18 August 2007 12:29 (seventeen years ago)
It's the shots of her feet that get me. Her halting, innocent shuffle makes me feel more manipulated than anything else I've ever seen. Appalling movie.
― Just got offed, Saturday, 18 August 2007 12:39 (seventeen years ago)
Yes, yes! What an idiot that woman is. Only poverty and bourbon kept us alive through this preposterous piece of pretentious poppycock. Pah! Amelie, I fart in your general direction.
― moley, Saturday, 18 August 2007 13:34 (seventeen years ago)
i can't remember this film, thank the lord.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Saturday, 18 August 2007 13:48 (seventeen years ago)
it's OK
― blueski, Saturday, 18 August 2007 13:52 (seventeen years ago)
http://images.wikia.com/muppet/images/thumb/f/f8/Fromthebalcony.JPG/300px-Fromthebalcony.JPG
― stevie, Saturday, 18 August 2007 14:57 (seventeen years ago)
love it. still.
yers fancy-pants all o yers.
― pisces, Saturday, 18 August 2007 17:11 (seventeen years ago)
Never seen this before last night.
For someone who's meant to be be really kind, she's a bit mean to her dad. She steals his gnome!
And considering everyone's been telling me "it's about Paris" for the past six years, you don't really get to see much of it. Well, Montmartre you do. And bits of the Metro.
― James Mitchell, Sunday, 25 May 2008 10:15 (seventeen years ago)
I really can't abide this film.
― chap, Sunday, 25 May 2008 16:56 (seventeen years ago)
I vaguely remember reading an interview with Jeunet concerning his portrayal of Paris, where he said it was ridiculous to critize the film on these grounds. That it is a fairy tale, and is set in a fairy tale Paris where everything is simple and there's no dog shit on the ground.
It seems like a lot of the criticism of Amelie is directed at the setting and characters and plot and so on. But it makes no claim to be otherwise, and can and should be enjoyed as light, clever fantasy, as a fairy tale romance. The whole arc of the film is watching Amelie's eventual detachment from her twee little fantasy world, and while it may have been more interesting to have city itself grow a bit in turn, it doesn't ruin the film to have the simpler story. The film is only in part about Paris, and not the real Paris, the one that's on your parent's decades-old postcards. If this is not your thing -- it isn't mine, really -- so be it, but I don't understand the level of animosity directed towards it.
― Jacob, Sunday, 25 May 2008 17:40 (seventeen years ago)