Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

39/100

Boasts one gruesomely effective setpiece (Susie unwittingly mangling Olga's body via dance) and one creepily memorable moment (a hypnotized/spellbound cop's sexual humiliation). Plus I wrote of the original that "Argento seems a bit torn regarding how to make witchcraft scary," and that's certainly not an issue here. Otherwise, ugh. Some folks automatically bridle at the word "pretentious," but rethinking Suspiria as a Holocaust drama can hardly be described any other way—this is very much the Guadagnino I'd previously kinda hated, subordinating everything to facile provocation and empty showmanship. (Time will tell whether Call Me by Your Name is an anomaly or represents an alternate mode to which he'll frequently return.) Dakota Johnson makes a poor substitute for Jessica Harper, playing Susie as an ambitious cipher; this ultimately "makes sense," for those who care a whit about either version's nonsensical narrative, but voids the movie of any real tension. Likewise, Swinton's Strangelove routine works thematically, but still creates a flatline every time Klemperer is onscreen. (One might also note that this character muddles the intended feminism: He's punished for not believing a threatened woman, but in a context where disbelief is perfectly rational.) Couldn't even really enjoy the batshit finale, which goes so far over the top + on for so long that it soon becomes numbing. Extra demerits for the borderline-offensive epilogue, for Thom Yorke's anti-Goblin keening, and for squandering Sylvie Testud.

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Yes... demerits for Thom Yorke!

Anonymous

I think CMBYN is one of the best films of the decade and also didn't much like anything else Guadagnino has made; after this, especially, I think of him as an immensely talented man who really needs other people to keep him in check. But I doubt that he himself realizes this.

Anonymous

I found this quite middling until the Thom Yorke slow jam began over all the carnage at the end. Completely turned the tide for me against it. I am very curious to hear about your A Star is Born W/O (I haven't seen it yet and I'm not especially eager to catch up with it)

gemko

I don’t really have anything of interest to say about A Star Is Born. Watched 40-whatever minutes, nothing about it impressed me enough to want to continue. (That’s the case with most W/Os.) As opposed to the ’54 version which is never not phenomenal.

Anonymous

Suspiria is my favorite movie of the year so far, that being said, I totally get why some people don't like it. But what I find interesting here is that it made me think a lot of Aronofsky's "mother!", which I didn't much like but was YOUR favorite of last year. Did you see any common ground between the 2 films? What do you think mother! did best?

gemko

Well, right off the bat, <i>mother!</i> isn't imposing ostensible gravity onto a pre-existing horror classic. Even were I unaware of the Argento, though, I just consider Aronofsky a far superior filmmaker to Guadagnino, whose work I apparently like only when he tones it way the fuck down. For example, the sustained freakout toward the end of <i>mother!</i> is formally exhilarating—I once compared it to a rollercoaster plummeting you through a haunted house at 200 mph—whereas I could not fucking <i>wait</i> for <i>Suspiria</i>'s laborious <i>grand guignol</i> finale to end. Probably just a matter of taste.