Silk (2007)

Did you people see the same film I saw?

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Have you ever had a conversation with somebody whose voice was so monotone, so breathy, that they almost put you to sleep while you stood there and listened to them? That's the case with Michael Pitt here, whose low speaking narration pretty much gave me a headache from the temples because of its exaggerated gentility. He's a handsome young man, but his screen presence is a negative here, perhaps explaining as to why I never heard of him. With Keira Knightly being a more well known star, I'd expected her to be the lead, but like the Japanese beauty (Sei Ashina) whom Pitt becomes obsessed with, barely gets to say a word. Gratuitous moments of "gentle, loving sex" become simply eye rolling as another crescendo of oh so sweet music plays over the ecstasy that only the characters feel. I hate long recitals of poetry, but that would be more fascinating than the pace that this creeks by in. It's a sight to behold photography wise, but in other aspects, oh what a bore! The music strives too hard to be profound and the long bouts of silence between dialog makes it a struggle to get through. I would have liked more political exposition of the closed 1860's Japanese society, but limited attempt is given to aide the viewer in getting any real example of what had really gone on during that time period. Only Alfred Molina seemed to try to give some passion, and he's rather wasted.Too many films post millennium think that all they need is an exotic setting, romantic characters, and a mist of a plot to have a movie. What ends up happening is that the audience is lost either in the sleepy mood music or too busy looking at the art direction, and any attempt at real cohesion ends up missing. This us one reason I have stopped going to the movies and even caring about the award season, because in the attempt to be artistic or profound, they've just become an empty emotional shell of pretty colors and nothing to really grip its audience.

Beautiful images are not enough when it comes to movies, and this film is a major example of that. The very first scene of this film, that of a naked woman slowly being revealed from the mists rising from a hot spring, is very moving, artistic even, and filled with promise. We start to speculate, who is this woman, how does she tie in with the plot, what will she mean for our main character. Unfortunately scenes like this are pretty much all we get from this film. There is a plot, certainly, but the plot alone is not enough. An exciting plot is usually enough when we're dealing with an adventure or an action film, though in those cases good characters are also needed.This film, however, is a period piece, a historical drama, and those film, above all else, need good characters and excellent dialogue, because there's rarely anything else in them. Unfortunately this film has neither. The dialogues are barren, banal and lacking any insight worth sharing. I found my attention wandering whenever the characters were trying to have a conversation, because they weren't saying anything meaningful. These conversations offered us no insight into the characters, they were just there to hurry the plot along. But I could have overlooked that if the characters had showed any real promise. They did not, and they were easily the worst part of this film. The main character wasn't actually the worst offender, he was just about average. Rather all the side characters lacked any kind of personality, the Japanese above all else. And that's because they rarely talked at all or if they talked, they didn't talk about anything important. The scenes in Japan were nothing more than gorgeous scenery and silent mood pieces. And that simply wasn't enough. The scenery was beautiful to look at, but even it wasn't anything spectacular or new. I've seen them before in other period pieces set in Japan, many times over.Though, as far as characters go, I must say that the character of Baldabiou (Alfred Molina) was actually pretty entertaining. He felt like a real person. Unfortunately he was the only one of his kind.And then there's the drama, which also fails, because while the main character has our sympathies, it's hard to care for his relationship problems, when we never learn anything about the women in his life. They are there, sure, but they very rarely say anything and quite frankly the romance gets almost completely bypassed to make room for the pretty pictures of snow-topped mountains and steaming hot springs.So is it worth seeing? Depends on what you're looking for. If all you need is a film with moderately interesting plot and good-looking scenery, this might be for you. If you require believable and three-dimensional characters, engaging drama and new world views, I'd stray as far away as possible.

A trader from Japan arrives in a small English village in the mid-19th century. He is not particularly handsome or charismatic, he can't even speak English, but the town leader's vivacious, sultry wife, played by Keira Knightley, falls in love with the Japanese man and urges him to take her away. Why? Because any Japanese man who turns up has to be better than what the British male has to offer. The Japanese man is haunted by a glimpse he caught of Keira naked, slowly immersing herself in river water. Finally, he realises it is all an illusion, and that the woman he truly loves is his recently deceased Japanese wife. His wife then replaces Keira in his dreams of the river, but decently clothed...You don't buy it, do you? Then why are we expected to swallow it in reverse? This is a lusciously shot, lyrical, understated piece of orientalist claptrap. Michael Pitt takes insipid to new levels, and Sei Ashina has to put up with a credit as 'The Girl,' probably because they couldn't get away with calling her 'Asian Eye Candy.' Not surprisingly, Sei Ashina is a newcomer - no experienced Japanese actress worth her salt would have taken on such a demeaning role. Ashina will forever live down her involvement in this film, I fear.This should have been a breakout film for the wonderful Miki Nakatani, but she is lost in a stilted role. Koji Yakusho is as forceful as ever, and as such is mis-cast - why would any woman leave this guy, especially for a simpering Eurobrat? The reveal at the end shows, ironically, the film this should have been. The woman wronged, the woman whose love should define this film, is Hélène. The whole thing should have been re-written from her perspective. Hervé's infatuation with a pretty girl he saw on his travels should have been just that, a minor issue in a great love story. Focussing on Hervé's delusional obsession is regrettable. Implying that the Japanese woman had reciprocal feelings is feeble-minded.In sum, great actors in cinematic locations and a story with bags of potential wasted by mindless Eurocentrics.

What a sad flop, with the best of intentions. The message to the viewer is overly clear, it shouts: this is an artistic, slow and sensuous movie, contrasting Oriental philosophy with Western greed for speed and immediate effects. Well, yes, we get this rather soon, and then we suffer through the rest… Perhaps slow movies are not exact equivalents of slow food, after all. There are some redemptive traits, though. The film could be see as an illustration of Joyce Carol Oates's observation that "prolonged happiness is a prison from which the self yearns to escape at any cost". People cannot stand a prolonged happiness, and the protagonist says so much himself. Another (attempt at) redemption: perhaps the movie is about the temptations of Orientalism typical for the era portrayed: the Western men, bored to tears, looking for any kind of adventure that the exotic Orient could offer them. Because if it is a love story, it is Hélène's love story, but if so, it is underdeveloped. The other "love story" is too ridiculous even to consider.Finally: it is true that seeing it in with a full screen can help; I have watched it as DVD, and although it was a very good screen, it could not reproduce the immersion effect possible on a large screen only.