Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

Bertolucci: 'The Dreamers': Fucking Classic

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Out this Friday in the UK. Can't praise this too highly. Shame all the press will go to 'School of Rock' (I'm psyched about that too) cos this is a real treasure. Sex, left-wing politics, cinephilia -- this film has it all.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't trust you about this Bertolucci revival business cause you liked guffy old 'The Sheltering Sky'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

My post from the "Venice (the city)thread:

Oh, and I saw Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" while I was there. Granted in Italian. I thought it was a dud, although the girl is incredibly beautiful. The sex hype is a bit...well...hyped. It's got a lot of graphic sex, but in some ways, Bertol. pulls his punches. Ultimately a bit conventional.

HOWEVER, if someone has seen this in a language he/she actually speaks, please let me know if the dialogue is so good that the film is rendered worthwhile. I'm all ears!

-- Skottie (n...), October 17th, 2003.


― Skottie, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:00 (twenty-two years ago)

When did I rep 'The Sheltering Sky'? I think it's underrated, and the last 20min are exceptional, but it's no 'The Conformist'.

This is much better.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Upon reflection, I'm not sure if it has all that much graphic sex, it has a lot of unapologetic nudity, which isn't really the same thing. Unless you're american. And I am. Sort of recalls Tuomas's comments on various threads about americans and discomfort with skin, their own and others. Because the two male leads show all their talents to the cameras, this movie is controversial. That's kind of lame. Still sticking to earlier comment that the girl is spectacular, however.

― Skottie, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)

can't wait to see it! amateurist already has I think.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

On the Elephant thread, Enrique:

Vraiment, and then he came BACK with this one which roxxor. 'Last Emperor' and 'Sheltering Sky' were good too.

-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), November 7th, 2003.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I'll stick with 'good'.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

anna was v keen on it too.

― toby (tsg20), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I shdn't have mentioned the sex in my first post, cos that is being dwelt on far too much. It's a funny, light film, which feels more youthful than anything I've seen in a long time (by a director of some four decades' standing).
I've written about Bertolucci and 1968 before, and tried hard to get something down about this (you could call it a situationist film, from a certain angle), but can't really get concise. Because of its references, it's intertexts, I suppose I'm this film's Ideal Viewer, but I think it's one of the best films of recent years.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I am very happy to see Michael Pitt rebound from his Dawson's Creek defection.

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 23:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't this based on a Gilbert Adair nov (uh-oh)?

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 23:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Really cute european boys are naked in it then? I must pencil this in.

― Sean (Sean), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 06:52 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.cinefile.biz/dreamer1.jpg

― Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 07:09 (twenty-two years ago)

"Henry Parker"

http://ihatethehead.s5.com/castshots/gallery/mp/hank6.jpg

― Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 07:16 (twenty-two years ago)

yup, you see all the naughty filthy bits, both of the boys and the girl to boot. And blood.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 4 February 2004 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah it's based on an adair novel, there's an article by him about it being adapted for screen in the current sight & sound.

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Michael Pitt was on Dawson's Creek??? I only know him from Bully and Hedwig! (And liked him very much in both...)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:11 (twenty-two years ago)

(Also, apparently he's friends with Gus Van Sant, who originally wanted to cast him in Elephant. The fact that the students in Elephant are all nonprofessional actors is partially because Pitt was busy shooting The Dreamers.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Jen's younger (freshman) admirer then boyfriend in the third season, whom she met on the football field. Very moody and brooy, hated Wilmington, was above it all, has nothing good to say about DC, views the experiment as an embarassment. Lives in a "gritty" apartment in BK now.

― Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:16 (twenty-two years ago)

http://ihatethehead.s5.com/castshots/gallery/mp/hank3.jpg

― Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Now I'm picturing him whining to Gus Van Sant about the Creek.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Jen and Henry:

http://www.dawsonscreekitalia.homestead.com/files/304_jen_henrydcreek.jpg
http://www.dawsonscreekitalia.homestead.com/files/312_jenhenry.jpg
ihttp://www.dawsonscreekitalia.homestead.com/files/312_jenhenry2.jpg

I actually liked him on the show, he was kind of a dweeb but I thought he and Jen had good chemisty. He was a real sweet/innocent boy which was what she needed at that time. After a get-back-together kiss at the end of the season though, he broke up with her by e-mail in the fall. I think they explained his absence away by saying he went to full-time football school or something...

― Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, he was good. And in Bully. I keep expecting him to pop up playing Leonardo Di Caprio's younger brother in something.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 09:17 (twenty-two years ago)

this movie was bullocks

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 09:27 (twenty-two years ago)

No, it fucking rocked. So nerr. Better than any Godard film since 1967.

Why an 'uh-oh' for Adair upthread? He's very talented.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 12:59 (twenty-two years ago)

There was a very good profile of Adair by Kevin Jackson in the Independent's 'Talk of the Town' magazine last weekend, which persuaded me to give him another chance. I never really took to him when he was the IoS film critic - he seemed like such a frightfully prissy Europhile, and his 'Mythologies'-style exercise seemed to take all the fun out of Barthes. Plus 'Surfing the Zeitgeist' is the worst title for a book I have ever seen, though I now understand this was intentional. Would anyone recommend any Adair (nb: not 'A Void')? His book 'Flickers' looked intriguing.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 13:06 (twenty-two years ago)

FLIckers is a beautiful coffee table book, but I dunno if there's much copy in it. He wrote something lengthy in the 80s that Jarvis Cocker checked recently, but I can't remember the title.

He *is* a prissy Europhile, but with a pretty wicked sense of humour -- I can't think of any UK critics, generally of the middlebrow-liberal slant, I enjoy more than him.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 13:14 (twenty-two years ago)

''but I think it's one of the best films of recent years''

big thing to say without explaining why. its a bad sign.

(I am anticipating this :))

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 13:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't explain in the space of a post why I think that, soz. Manages to graft tired movie/reality confusion tropes on to semi-serious political project. Makes Marx, Freud, and Godard fuck like beasts in the Rue d'Ulm. That sort of stuff.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Independent's 'Talk of the Town' magazine

I love that magazine and we don't get in Scotland bah.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I haven't bought the Indy in a long long time. What day is 'Talk of the Town'? Isn't 'TotT' a New Yorker section anyway?

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a (loosely) London focussed supplement with the Independent on Sunday. Presumably not distributed outside the M25.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

(full of interesting little articles by freelancers on various things, a bit like that newish G2 page. More illustrations than photos, IIRC)

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:27 (twenty-two years ago)

(As the name implies, it is a complete rip-off of the NYer - right down to typography.)

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha -- here is my one and only chance to 'do a suzy' and drop the name of someone I know who works ver high up at the IoS. There we go. Done.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Who doesn't know someone at the IoS?!

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Well indeed, I know three people there, but one of them is very high up indeed. Don't rain on my parade!

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Amateurist, come back and explain yrself!

Meanwhile, Pitt gets the Avedon treatment:

http://www.newyorker.com/images/critics/040209cr_r12923_p198.jpg

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I open my mailbox today and the first issue of my recently renewed Time Out is there--with our boy topless on the cover.

With his girlfriend:

http://content.clearchannel.com/Photos/male_celebrities/michael_pitt_girlfriend_Law.jpg

― Mary (Mary), Thursday, 5 February 2004 02:39 (twenty-two years ago)

movie is ostensibly about something, right?

[shades eyes, gives long searching look upthread]

or no?

― rejoinder, Thursday, 5 February 2004 03:56 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.cinefile.biz/dreamer3.jpg

― Mary (Mary), Thursday, 5 February 2004 04:37 (twenty-two years ago)

do you still have this sunday's talk of the town, nipper? any chance of a photocopy of said article? last sunday was the first time i didn't buy the IoS for about six months :-(

― toby (tsg20), Thursday, 5 February 2004 07:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry Toby, it got chucked out - I imagine the PF may still have it though.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 5 February 2004 08:34 (twenty-two years ago)

He has the same "face like a slapped arse" look as early Bryan McFadden.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 5 February 2004 09:09 (twenty-two years ago)

i have read the review of this film in uncut. says that it is pretentious pie-in-the-sky rubbish about three bourgeois wasters playing trivial pursuit with film trivia while fucking each other, while outside paris is burning.

so if this is just red adair's biography then i'm not sure i want to waste my time on it. i will wait for the weekend reviews.

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 5 February 2004 09:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Toby - check your email (assuming the hotmail one works)

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 5 February 2004 09:33 (twenty-two years ago)

no worry JtN, n.'s sorted me out.

― toby (tsg20), Thursday, 5 February 2004 09:46 (twenty-two years ago)

The uh-oh upthread was because the only novel by Adair that I've read - Love and Death on Long Island - was a total dud, predictable, self-satisfied, Nabakov re-written by a "frightfully prissy europhile". Adair also LOATHES popular music - he once wrote a moronic review of 'Lipstick Traces' where he cldn't understand WHY Marcus might give Johnny Rotten the time of day, let alone treat him sympathetically/critically.

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Thursday, 5 February 2004 10:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 101 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.
i cant believe that i didnt mention how much i hated this movie.

i agree with amateurist on the most part.

there was no point, lots of nudity, and a couple of really nasty scenes.

my least favorite movie of the year... and i have seen "win a date with tad hamilton"

― todd swiss (eliti), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 05:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw it last night. It was okay, it was good. Actually it was really good considering the alternatives, since my wife picked it out and her criterion for movie selection is, no exaggeration, to pick movies the boxes of which have actors wearing as little clothing as possible (eg: Night Encounter 4 or Silk Stalkings 17, etc).

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 08:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Saw this months ago. Really loved it though I usually hate Bertolucci. I'm a bit surprised by the negative reactions to the dreamers I've seen on this thread..

Obstensibly it's an interesting indictment of the cinephile generation but it speaks to universalities beyond the subject and historical context. The protagonist is initially intrigued by the exotic, sexy brother and sister duo until he becomes gradually aware that his friends have a destructive dependency on each other.

The narrative progress of the main character's gradual disillusionment and the increasingly fragile mental state of the brother/sister was very compelling; eventual tragedy casts a growing shadow over everything.

The end was interesting because it suggests that political activism replaces cinephilia as a means of avoiding real life for the siblings. In this way, the end reminded me of something once said by Boyd Rice about how "politics is for people who can't run their own lives." The film implies that cinema and politics could be interchangable in that last sentence.

― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 08:07 (twenty-one years ago)

The Michael Pitt video performance of "Hey Joe" mentioned up thread sounds very interesting considering that he's apparently set to play Kurt Cobain in the new Gus Van Sant film.

― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 08:10 (twenty-one years ago)

two months pass...
This is out on DVD now. It 'contains strong sex'. It also contains some extras, like commentary from Bertolucci and Adair and someone else, and a 'featurette' about the events of May 1968. I am wondering if anyone knows if it's any good, the featurette. It also contains a video of Michael Pitt and his Rock Buddies in action. (I see that this has already been biggied up above.)

For the time being, I shall put it on my 'four for twenty pounds' list.

I like this film a lot better as time goes on.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Monday, 18 October 2004 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

two months pass...
Wasn't this rated NC-17 for the intensity of the Chaplin-Keaton argument?

Nuts to Bertolucci for scotching the boy-boy sex (in the novel apparently). Pitt was stiff (heh) throughout, but at least he looked good with menstrual blood on his lips.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 12 January 2005 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

ten months pass...
Naked boys on the screen = nervous clothed boys in the audience

the dreamers


Imagine, "rampant faggotry" with no m2m sex even.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 6 December 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

*sigh*

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 6 December 2005 16:30 (twenty years ago)

yeah they cut out the gay scenes which were in the novel.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 6 December 2005 16:30 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...
Phwooar! Bertolucci Bird Goes Bond!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4722848.stm

(The Dreamers is now available for £5 from Fopp. I see upthread that this is something I have been waiting for.)

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 17 February 2006 11:57 (twenty years ago)

B-b-but teh film is DUD. £5 is too much for this. I'd pay £2 for the credit sequence maybe.

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 17 February 2006 12:37 (twenty years ago)

It's a classic of fucking, but as a film it's a dud.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 17 February 2006 14:24 (twenty years ago)

She is the new Bond girl.

I think she is a bit too blotchy.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 17 February 2006 14:49 (twenty years ago)

Gawd, she's beautiful. Based on the cast choices so far I think this new Bond film may, surprisingly, be good. And classy.

― Jay Vee (Manon_70), Friday, 17 February 2006 15:15 (twenty years ago)

this page is certainly worth looking at

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 17 February 2006 15:25 (twenty years ago)

The Dreamers is neither classic nor dud (tho some of the criticisms that the '68 riots are peripheral to the young characters strike me as stupid -- duh, they're too horny and film-obsessed to care til they can't ignore em), but the Garrel boy is hotter in Ma Mere, a much worse film. And fuck any more fucking Bond films, you lonely masturbators.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 February 2006 15:39 (twenty years ago)

Hey, I always have company when I masturbate!

― July Jones, Friday, 17 February 2006 16:24 (twenty years ago)

this was prob the most disappointing film i've seen in the last couple years. all the 'film geek' talk - chaplin vs keaton etc - was hopelessly contrived and lame. amateurist is right. forrest gump was better.

best bits: seeing the clips of "bout de souffle," "mouchette" et al and thinking "god i wish i were watching that instead."

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 17 February 2006 20:40 (twenty years ago)

J.D. otm. The sex is also stupendously unerotic. Watching the film was like submitting to the gnarled clutches of a dirty old man who insisted on beating me off himself.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 17 February 2006 20:45 (twenty years ago)

Ma Mere is way hotter than The Dreamers, on the whole.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 17 February 2006 21:51 (twenty years ago)

You mean hymen-blood fingerpainting isn't a deep and meaningful symbol of the bourgeois blah blah blah blah

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Saturday, 18 February 2006 01:11 (twenty years ago)

Enrique is OTM in this thread. This is a very good film, and I thought it was smarter and less patronising than everyone else seems to think.

I think it's mistaken to try to attribute some clear motivation to e.g. the sister's actions, unless the motivation is (as Enrique sez above) simply the living of life as a cinematic fantasy - sex, suicide and sedition are all of a type therefore.

I had a further theory on this film which I expounded quite enthusiastically in the months after seeing it, but i'd have to watch it again to remember what it was.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Saturday, 18 February 2006 14:51 (twenty years ago)

Oh come on, Morbius. Bond should never END!

― Under the paving stones, Paul Scholes (nordicskilla), Saturday, 18 February 2006 17:28 (twenty years ago)

FINNEY-MILLER ACCORD 2006

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 20 February 2006 09:48 (twenty years ago)

one year passes...

Hmmm, this is on IFC tonight.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 31 January 2008 00:21 (eighteen years ago)

DON'T DO IT YOU WILL REGRET IT

― milo z, Thursday, 31 January 2008 00:49 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, but EVA GREEN'S SQUEAKY BITS.

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 31 January 2008 01:30 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.robbscelebs.co.uk/noops540_18/noops_dreamers_eva_green_hdtv.html

there, now go write a letter to your dear mum.

― wanko ergo sum, Thursday, 31 January 2008 01:35 (eighteen years ago)

too much fucking sex in this movie. it's like watching a frustrated junior high student's fantasy about what life is supposed to be like

STUPID

― Surmounter, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:22 (eighteen years ago)

the Italian boy's cute!

too much cooter and period blood though.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:24 (eighteen years ago)

i didn't say he wasn't cute. i'd rather just watching him in a fucking porn tho.

― Surmounter, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:24 (eighteen years ago)

yea grammar is good.

― Surmounter, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:25 (eighteen years ago)

you'd think he and Michael Pitt would fuck already; all we get is some brief (but hot) barefoot footsie in the last third.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:33 (eighteen years ago)

Ah this movie. The lovers. The dreamers. And me.

― Eric H., Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:34 (eighteen years ago)

Oh wait, I was thinking of a different movie.

― Eric H., Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:34 (eighteen years ago)

lol this movie is the worst - not even hot chix can save it

― jhøshea, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:37 (eighteen years ago)

I saw this when I was in my absurdly stupid & naive "omg May 68 is the greatest & most important thing etc" phase, and I loved it.

Should see it again to see if I still dig it.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:44 (eighteen years ago)

it is dreadful

― wanko ergo sum, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:48 (eighteen years ago)

except for parts

― wanko ergo sum, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:48 (eighteen years ago)

lol i didn't even know that was a pitt!!

― Surmounter, Thursday, 31 January 2008 03:54 (eighteen years ago)

lol I was playing poker and forgot to turn it on

― Rock Hardy, Thursday, 31 January 2008 05:22 (eighteen years ago)

Bertolucci was making trash for the last 15 years or so imo.
this one is no exception
a flattering and fake "art" movies.

― Zeno, Thursday, 31 January 2008 05:48 (eighteen years ago)

making a movie out of allusions to godard movies is like baking a cake made out of mushed up old cookies
-- amateur!st (amateurist), Sunday, 8 February 2004 00:38 (3 years ago

this is my favorite thing ever said on a film thread

― J.D., Thursday, 31 January 2008 07:48 (eighteen years ago)

the most embarrassing thing about this movie was how it came from someone you knew to be once adept in conveying conveying cinematic eroticism, "artfully" but not glibly. this was like watching an old man jack off to old notions of cinematic power - and their adolescent presentation, amongst these adolescents, makes *the ideas* seem adolescent.

which is a shame and not true at all, for cinema really can inspire social change, reflect political unrest, what-have-you. but here it all becomes narratively obtuse, and masturbatory in every sense

and like my fellow f4gs have said, anyone watching this for m2m akshun will just wind up with blueballs. better to just google images of the actors you find attractive, and rewatch "The Conformist" again

― Vichitravirya_XI, Thursday, 31 January 2008 12:17 (eighteen years ago)

yea this movie was terrible

― Mark Clemente, Thursday, 31 January 2008 13:11 (eighteen years ago)

vichi otm

mark otm

― Surmounter, Thursday, 31 January 2008 13:23 (eighteen years ago)

Not terrible, but not very good either... it had a couple of things going for it... eh? eh?... knowhorrimean, missus... phwoar... eh?

― Tom D., Thursday, 31 January 2008 13:26 (eighteen years ago)

it was pretentious and unintelligent, and the only thing it had going for it was flesh, which i can find more of

somewhere else.

― Surmounter, Thursday, 31 January 2008 13:59 (eighteen years ago)

^^yes.

― Mark Clemente, Thursday, 31 January 2008 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

I think it is good.

I think I thought it was bad upthread.

We have the DVD.

I think it is pretty good, you know.

― PJ Miller, Thursday, 31 January 2008 18:52 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login