it's a great movie. if you don't like it: boo-hoo.
-
feodoric — 13 years ago(February 16, 2013 08:14 PM)
I just finished watching "Paris, Texas". Although I had it in my possession (having bought a 2-film boxset with "Wings of Desire" as companion DVD) since a little while already, I had postponed viewing it precisely because "Wings of Desire" had been a beautiful experience visually, except for the complacent continuous, self-important babbling which makes of every speck of daily experience a transcendental existentialist orgasm In other words, I could not care less for the narration but was hypnotized by the beauty of the cinematography. Isn't that the essence of cinema, anyway? The images should always be treated as the single most important aspect of a film, but "Wings of Desire" attempted to create a sort of cinematographic essay with a Sartre clone trying to infuse higher significance to nothingness But please don't get me wrong: I gave it a 8/10, so it was far from a bad film by far and large. It's just that it does not shine as brightly as quite a few others and is NOT the masterpiece that so many people see in it.
Now, back to "Paris, Texas". Running out of ideas about which film I should watch on this Saturday evening, I finally decided to give a try to that other Wenders product, still apprehensive And to my big surprise, I was transfigured (I don't think the word is too strong) by the superb, brilliant cinematography, and at last, I could relate and invest myself into the story. I knew about certain critics already concerning Harry Dean Stanton being miscast. Although this prior knowledge might have influenced me in my judgment, I could not agree more: Stanton is a concrete wall as far as creating empathy goes. It's not the actor's fault, it's a purely physical thing. There are only a few actors who might have done a decent job in playing this role, and Stanton was unfortunately not one of them. The result is that we have an absolute cinematographic masterpiece which leaves one frustrated in the end. When treated with such magnificent images and with credible players and with a story that holds water and had my undivided attention for over 2 hours, I think I am entitled to a conclusion worthy of the visually and emotionally stunning road that leads us to this strip room of all truths
What should have been the crowning achievement of that movie, namely a scene where the viewer can relate to both characters and understand ("feel" would be a better word for it) the infinite sadness of Stanton and the unexplained disappearance of Kinski's character, is ultimately, to use the OP's words, a letdown. Stanton is unable to convey the complex emotions that leads to make the profoundly human gesture of leaving his son into the hands of his estranged woman. Worse, I felt a little hostility towards his shallowness and cowardice. The two long scenes in these bleak parlor rooms required expressive, talented actors to allow the viewer to be a part of the experience. In the end, neither Stanton nor Kinski (had she had a different family name, would she? oh well) manages to play this most important part of the story, and I was truly disappointed.
Still, I give it a 9/10, which is a testimony to how fantastic everything else really is with "Paris, Texas". If anybody still wonders if the time spent watching that movie is worth it, my answer is yes, by all means. Just be warned that this is NOT the perfect gem that a lot of posters claim it to be. It has a few important flaws, but they shouldn't deter you from enjoying the film very much.
And yes, I would wish for a remake by a director who cares not only for the aesthetics, but also for the connection one has to make with the actors when a movie centers on the tragedy of the human experience and on universal values or emotions such as love, parenthood, insecurity, despair, loss (or grief), etc. In a certain school of thought, the cold, impersonal depiction of tragedy is done on purpose, i.e. to "objectively" present the facts without judging their moral aspects. We all recognize what amounts to a certain disconnection with the more fragile and controversial aspects of human nature, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to agree with such an attitude. One of the most challenging things in life is to defend one's convictions. It asks for a courage that an artist is not always ready to have or show. But if said artist truly believes in the importance of what he is trying to depict in images and words, he should present us with believable actors who are able to express their emotions, whatever they are. I cannot see what in the world the so-called "objectivity" of a director, who uses actors to simply mutter sentences which should be bursting with emotions and complex feelings, hopes to achieve.
The Wenders fan club will disagree just like any fan club since the subject of their admiration must be the perfect genius in every single thing he does. I don't belong to any fan club, not even to groups that revere "idols" of mine such as Hitchcock and Kubrick, prec -
bluesky84 — 11 years ago(May 12, 2014 07:28 PM)
Good review. Although it would be difficult for a director is she/he wanted to re-make this film (or create a sequel). There is no shortage of films that deal with family conflict and loss, but I really like Wenders' version because he uses unique filming locations, which has symbolism (empty, lonliness).
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
Hamasaurus68 — 13 years ago(March 02, 2013 02:47 PM)
I agree, too. Decent story, could have been a hell of a lot shorter. That a movie of this type ran over two hours is lunacy. Cut it to 90 minutes. There were times in the movie when I was yelling"Cmon' let's get moving!"
As far as the acting goes'walking around like a retard'this seems to be a guy that is trying to get a grip on his past and snapped. Would you rather he hop and skip happily? You have to remember, this is 1984these new 'offbeat' film characters and 'offbeat' films of this type were relatively new.
Stockwell 'dialed it in'?Two things:
1)Stockwell is a decent actor, not a great one
2)The role itself didn't have much to work with.
Looking like the kid 'didn't care'I don't know, if he ended up being whiny and unreasonable, that would be exactly what the audience expected. Not only that, a kid would have to be aloof just to pack up bags and leave town with his newly
found daddy.
As a side notein the early days, I couldn't stand Natassja Kinski. Her features were gawky and alien looking when she was younger. This was the film where she had grown into a quite beautiful woman.
As far as the scene where travis says what happenedI think you just don't understand filmmaking. So he's supposed to just say "Hey, I'm Travishere's your kid"? Not only that, after everything that happened, he didn't know how she would react if he just told her who he was. He kind of eased her into it.
Also, When she asked if it was him the day before and he lied and said noshe said that she heard his voice in every man she talked to behind the mirror over the years. -
bluesky84 — 13 years ago(March 25, 2013 11:50 AM)
It really is great; too bad you didn't see it that way. The scenery in the first half can really be appreciated. The second half features the suburbs of the Southland, it said in one of the essays that most of the diners near the freeways will eventually be gone/replaced by the major fast food chains. Such a shame.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
b_havag — 12 years ago(June 05, 2013 12:02 PM)
Somewhere in this thread a guy remarked how stupid it is to reply to people who don
t like their favourite films that they didnt get it, because it is perfectly possible to do so and still dislike the film. I wholeheartedly agree, there is a difference to an objective and a subjective view, or in other words; your favourites doesnt have to be the films you consider the best. That being said, to say that he didnt get it is the only way to describe the OPs view of Travis and his son.
The comment about Hunter remarking that he was "Just lucky I guess" being bad: How articulate do you expect an 8-year old to be? This is a completely believable and fitting line.
Travis walking around like a retard. Hes an heartbroken, sad and confused amnesiac. Of course hes closeted! It takes time to make him open up, and he does so more and more as the film progresses, just like one should expect it to be.
By the time you get to the scene where Travis tell us what happened Im certain YOU are retarded, or just a troll. EMOTIONS man! He hasnt seen a woman he loved more than himself for many years, a woman he mistreated badly, and you think it would be believable for him just to tell her where the kid is? It wouldnt be enough for her to believe it and go to the hotel, it would tell the viewer he didnt care for her or his son. The scene reveals why he is such a damaged man, and it is evidence of Stantons great performance in that it shows that his portrayal has been perfect throughout. It was a moving and intelligent way to reconnect with his wife with him and their son without scaring her away. Kinskis acting fulfills the breathtaking scene. -
AndreaCats — 12 years ago(June 09, 2013 09:27 AM)
Yeah, totally agree with the OP and with other comments on the contradictions of the movie characters, not credible and not interesting. For sure I don't relate with them, but normally that doesn't mean I cannot still appreaciate a movie.
I couldn't really find any theme in this movie that could make it worth this high IMDB rating.
Maybe I "didn't get it" but I didn't read anything among the positive comments that could change my mind. -
Redux006 — 12 years ago(October 05, 2013 02:55 AM)
You're right about the buildup. There was so much mystery and suspense developed around what happened that by the time they finally reveal it to us all it can do is fall flat. Also another thing that bugged me were the pregnant silences. I hate when movies do this, it's a cheap way to try and achieve depth, Drive uses the same tactic. One character will ask a straightforward question, then the other will hover on the edge of answering for like five minutes, then say nothing at all or just give some short cryptic reply. Directors think this is "cinematic", and it is, and that's all it is. It's a trope of "intelligent" movies and is totally alien from how real-life human beings actually interact. It's basically a cheap trick to sidestep writing insightful dialog. Like if you make a horror film, if you can't create a scary monster, then you just avoid showing it and give brief glimpses of it to allow the audience to invent something scary in the gap for themselves. Similarly when making a movie of the "intelligent film" genre, if you can't write intelligent dialogue, then just insert pregnant silences and the audience will invent something deep and intelligent in the gaps.
-
bluesky84 — 11 years ago(July 29, 2014 06:03 PM)
She would probably know his voice if he was one of the first people there (like soon after she started working there) but it was four years later so she probably didn't really care anymore.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
oh_no_mrbill — 11 years ago(August 23, 2014 07:55 PM)
I think part of it is being able to empathize with the main character. His silent beginning, wandering in the desert, totally oblivious to the world, too broken by some horrible thing in his past to rejoin society. The movie evokes a certain loneliness of spirit that I immediately identified with, so maybe it's a personal thing. It's a highly personal film, and I can definitely see why people might not get into its rhythm. I personally thought it was one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life.
-
thepartydjz — 11 years ago(December 17, 2014 08:52 PM)
This film is introspective, the slower parts give you a chance to think. Does that mean people that do not enjoy it are stupid, well probably not, however it might mean that they require more action or a faster moving plot.
Personally I love a film that makes you think, it's 10 times more absorbing and enjoyable than fast paced action or joke-a-minute slap stick comedies, no thinking required.
Harry Dean is so charismatic in this, if you don't see it I feel sorry for you, it's subtle indeed. For instance the scene where he wins over Hunter, dressed in some new stylish clothing walking along the street. -
BigWhiskers — 11 years ago(December 17, 2014 10:40 PM)
I caught this on TCM tonight , had never seen it before and I have to agree with the OP.
A rather dull plodding letdown. The re abandoning of the kid at the end of the movie after establishing a relationship with him
seemed like such a copout on the writers part , listening to the tape recording he leaves for the son was so cruel and hypocritical too. Telling his son that he loved him more than his own life but he had to leave again . Yeah mom will take care of you, she's basically a whore with problems of her own. Why did the dad even bother getting back with his kid , just to hurt him all over again when the kid wanted to be with him . I would hope that if he really loved his son as much as he said that he would try and get help
To deal with his inner demons and come back to be in his sons life. I know I'd regret it for the rest of my life .
So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey -
danielscissorhands — 11 years ago(December 29, 2014 12:54 AM)
I agree. Really liked the movie up until Harry Dean Stanton's monologue at the end.
Did he say that he tied her to a stove, and she set the trailer on fire and left with Hunter? Or had she already left, but he was too drunk to notice, and then he burned down his own trailer? The latter makes more sense.
Were the cowbell he tied to her and the belt he tied her up with a metaphor?
Anyway, both of them are terrible parents.
And for him to abandon the kid again and not only that but to leave him with a mother he had no idea if he could trust.. that was ridiculous. If he couldn't take care of Hunter, then he should have left Hunter with his brother.
This movie had potential, but it fizzled out.
8.1 out of 10 on IMDB?
