An extremely articulate and well-observed film from Wayne Wang, about what it means to have power - financial power, sexual power - and how shallow this power truly is, especially when it's detached from anything resembling true involvement, genuine passion. Both characters are obsessed with The Game, and they are both very good at it. Peter Sarsgaard and Molly Parker are both superb, letting us see enough of their characters' inner workings to completely understand them without showing too much, losing the edge. Each has what the other thinks he/she needs, and the film is basically a discourse on negotiation - what you will give up to get what you desire? Issues of control are central to the theme, and the cool thing is, both characters know it and they get off on that more than the actual sex itself.
Add a Review
-
Rogue-3212 July 2002
-
Euphorbia18 September 2002* Possible Spoilers Ahead *
There is a lot more to this sad story than its publicists seem to have realized, and I think much of the credit for this must go to the two lead players, especially to the beautiful and audacious Molly Parker. In Florence she has created a young woman richly endowed with natural gifts, none of which she values, or strives to tie together into an actual personality -- a life -- and who thus must be a dark opposite to the highly skilled actress portraying her. No doubt Miss Parker has encountered many real-life Florences, as have I, and when reaching for their center, found nothing.
Florence has radiant natural beauty, which she either ignores or tries to hide with makeup and blank gazes. She has natural intelligence which has never been challenged or developed. She has human warmth and feminine sensitivity, which she hastens to suppress every time they surface unbidden. She might even have musical talent, but I suspect that drumming, like stripping, is something she can do with her emotions on idle and her brain in neutral.
Peter Sarsgaard's Richard is in even worse shape as a human being. He is a one-trick pony, a software engineer burned out after a year of work that netted him over $1 million, mainly through the entrepreneurial and stock-trading efforts of others. But neither the money nor the work is real to him, and by the time shown in the movie he is essentially ignoring both. Money and job are just forces of nature from which he passively draws sustenance, like the atmosphere and the internet.
Not only does Richard not know what he wants, he (like Florence) does not know how to want. He imagines he wants to be in love with Florence, but he has not the slightest curiosity about who she is. He enjoys the immediate gratification of looking at her and holding her (one would have to be dead not to), but flagrantly misses every opportunity the script presents to ask her what she wants or hopes or dreams -- or even if she has achieved orgasm. Each time she reaches out to him, beyond the terms of their 'contract,' he fails to reciprocate in any meaningful way, reminding her of why she wrote it in the first place.
Strong women sometimes choose intelligent, handsome, but centerless men like Richard as their first husbands because they seem malleable, easily turned into profitable providers and fathers of healthy children. But too often they turn out merely to be Silly Putty, like Richard, unable to hold any shape at all.
Looking ahead, I could see Florence some day putting the pieces of herself together into a real life, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. But Richard? Never.
This is an intelligent and thought-provoking movie. Is it entertaining? Not really. It cuts awfully close to the bone for a lot of folks, including me. Is it erotic eye-candy, as the promoters would have us believe? Again, not really -- except that looking at Molly Parker without makeup (either with or without clothing) is worth a lot more than the price of admission. 7/10 -
JohnRayPeterson6 March 2012There's a reason this movie is unrated. The criteria for an R rating are likely overstepped. Seriously, all one needs to do to get a sense of what you're going to be watching is read the IMDb full storyline. Common sense prevailing, you know you'll be seeing nudity, erotic scenes, and that's why most will choose to see the movie. Yes, there's a fairly good character study story developed and both Molly Parker and Peter Sarsgaard do a good job of delivering performances that make it such. But let's face it, I'm not the only one that decided to view the film for the character study as an afterthought. Carla Gugino thrown into the mix helped seal the deal for me. I have to warn the prospective viewers that you'll be seeing as much, if not more, of Sarsgaard's bottom than that of Parker's. I wonder if that could be considered a double spoiler.
-
rajax20 June 2004Center of the World is one of those movies that sticks in your mind. Not for the straight-to-video look, and not for the sex scenes (during which Wang mostly focuses on the characters' faces rather than bodies). It's the characters that keep you thinking well after the credits.
Richard Longman (Sarsgaard) starts out as a stock character: the nerdy, socially inept computer millionaire who doesn't know how to get a girlfriend. But Sarsgaard, brilliant as usual shows us his many layers. He gets aggressive with video games; he's instinctively caring, assuming a strong "masculine" role (though it's obvious he's not the strong one). He's a big kid who just wants some intimacy, but doesn't understand the basic complexity of human connection. On the other hand, he's seduced by the surface of things--watching too much porn, he really believes that money and a good time will make those sexy porn-queens care about him. In reality doesn't take the time to get to know Florence at all. His rage and frustration confuse him; he's empty and often resorts to money to fix things.
Florence (Parker) is a bit of a cipher at first. She's cold, withdrawn, business-like. Yet it's clear that as she gets to know Richard, she likes him. She's conflicted about her role as her feelings change--does she want to sleep with him? does that make her any less of a whore?
Many reviewers took sides with one or the other, which I think is a mistake. There's good and bad in both that makes them equally sympathetic. Richard wants intimacy and is a nice goofy guy. But he's also emotionally stunted and more than a little pervy in his desire to buy not just sexual satisfaction, but human connection. He has no right to buy her feelings, but he is allowed to be confused by her lack of them (given their camaraderie)
Similarly, Florence is cold and not a little cruel. But she is also conflicted by her feelings, which are somewhere in that gray area of real affection and sexual attraction. Even conflicted, however, but she doesn't make the mistake of thinking that her feelings are love. He bought her body and even of her enjoyment in the weekend, but he can't just buy a relationship. I don't doubt that she wants him, but after (or during) the point when she gives in, she realizes how much of her desire was fantasy. In the end, she makes the only choice she understands.
The last few scenes--Richard's pointless, (somewhat stereotypically masculine) act of rage, and Florence's cool expression of her sexual independence--reveal how damaged these characters are. And though the ending is ambiguous, the audience instinctively knows that something is ruined between them.
The real trick? Hopelessly, we root for them to heal each other somehow. We buy into the Pretty Woman fantasy, just like they do (Florence less than Richard, but still) We imagine that Florence lets her guard down and learns to care for someone, and Richard tries to connect with a real woman rather than some porn fantasy.
But this is the anti-Pretty Woman (which was a travesty of a film). This is reality.
Not a perfect film, but very thought-provoking. -
dflynn-18 November 2001I liked this film a lot more than I thought I would. It is quite flawed in parts but it is great to experiment and not get it quite right then to follow the usual formulas. I think a lot of people are missing the point in dissecting this film to classify it as soft/semi hardcore porn.
Spoiler-please do not read any further if this spoils the plot for you!
This film is about a transaction, not about sex. The main female character comes to this realization but ultimately it is the male character that is deluding himself and pays the price for his misplaced fantasising and realises what a facile, surrealistic and empty existence he is living. People who pay for sex are losers no matter how rich they are.
I thought the acting was good; it was nice to have a realistic ending and not a 'Pretty Woman' type happy ending. I wonder if Pretty Woman would have been so successful if it had starred Chris Evans and Billie (a real life Pretty Woman scenario). -
rosscinema1 May 2003Wayne Wang has built most of his career directing films about unique relationships and this one is exactly that. But its also one that really doesn't have much to say. Peter Sarsgaard plays Richard who is a man that has a computer business and its on the verge of going public and earning him even more money than he has now. Molly Parker is Florence who is an exotic dancer in a strip club and she meets Richard in a coffee shop. They talk and he finds out where she works. Finally he asks her if she would come to Las Vegas with him for 10,000 dollars. She lays out the ground rules like no sex. But between 10pm and 2am she will do erotic things with him without intercourse. During the stay in Vegas Richard meets her friend Jerri (Carla Gugino) and at one point she says her boyfriend beat her up. Richard gives her money to help her out. One of the questions surrounding the story is if Florence and Jerri were in on it together to get more money out of Richard. Its possible. The center of the film is Parkers performance as Florence. Its the best thing in the film and Parker reminded me of Linda Fiorentino in "The Last Seduction". A very smart woman who doesn't compromise and is in control at all times. At one point in the film Florence is masturbating and I think the scene shows that whatever sexual pleasure she receives will be on her terms, when she allows it.
*****SPOILER ALERT*****
The end of the film has no revelation and the character of Richard is so predictable that one can't help but call him a big fool. Of course he falls for her and thinks that over the course of time she'll change her mind about him. But business is business and Florence tells him that she's here for the money, just as they had agreed on. The irony of the film is that Richard is a very successful man with a computer company making lots of money but when it comes to relationships, he's a failure. Florence is the one that understands what business is. She's a consummate pro! Film is moderately interesting without having any real message or angle to the story. We don't know if Florence and Jerri set up Richard and you can't feel sorry for him. He's portrayed as such a schmuck. We saw his intentions when he first asked Florence to Vegas. I guess that makes Florence quite the opportunist! -
sundance1413 May 2001In the above mentioned movie it always seemed strange that a really rich and handsome guy resorted to a hooker, albeit a real knockout one? Now we see a possible scenario that might make the plot not just a fantasy. A "Dot-Com." millionaire, with the required "nurd-ness" uses his economic power to feed his...well I guess fantasies and the story results are pretty good. They are at least more realistic than the sterile grunting that most current movies use as "sex scenes". Hollywood does violence beyond scale, but they do "sex" in the taboo filled lock-ups of censors and religious heresies. A director takes a daring chance into these forbidden areas and he is either eviscerated or beloved. For this movie there has been some of each. I don't think it deserves either. I think the movie making is a bit lame but the story and the attempt at reality deserves credit where due. I wonder how "The Postman Always Rings Twice" would have been if it had been done this boldly? Rhetorical questions seem to serve little purpose but I wonder how this movies got to be "R" rated and "Midnight Cowboy" was rated "X"? A question for another time perhaps? This movie is not in the class of "Midnight Cowboy", but it is pretty good and should be seen.
-
gein9 May 2001This is an excruciatingly awful film - strike that - an excruciatingly awful video that has been transferred to film. If you can not afford film, Mr. Wang, PLEASE curb your ego and release it directly to video.
The quality of the picture is terrible and the "story" is twice as bad. The "film" revolves around two of the most vacuous characters I have ever had the displeasure of watching on screen: Richard, a socially retarded software millionaire who pays Florence, an empty headed but street-wise stripper, ten thousand dollars to accompany him to Las Vegas for a weekend. In those three days, Richard naively hopes to win this bimbo's heart.
Over the course of the weekend we are subjected to watching the homely Florence play mind games with the idiot man-child, Richard. Richard's only relationship with women is masturbating in front of his computer monitor (shown in a flashback), which demonstrates that he is easily manipulated and an extremely pathetic human being.
I won't spoil the ending for you, but it actually doesn't matter if he ends up with her or not. What matters most is, you've just wasted eight or ten bucks (depending on where you live) on a cruel joke played by Wayne Wang.
Wang doesn't introduce one character worth empathizing with or even relating to on any level. Are we supposed to feel sorry for this bumbling twenty-something millionaire? Oh, the poor little rich boy. Are we supposed to care about the self-debasing affected stripper who only cares about money? How can you worry about someone who doesn't concern herself about anything or anyone? You can't!
Again, I have to go off on the quality of this "movie." It's horrible! The entire film was shot on video and it doesn't even look like digital video. Some of the scenes were so pixilated my eyes had a hard time focusing on the screen - and, I thought The Blair Witch Project's quality was bad.
I love independent film, but this isn't film - it's video. A very, very, very bad video. -
kkcoold7 May 2001A digital camera does not a movie make but Wayne Wang didn't rely on avant-garde technique alone when he decided to revisit the basic boy-meets-girl story. He simplifies the problem by choosing two people with very little in common and then taking them out of their natural settings and putting them in the unreal world of Las Vegas. The man is a socially inept but financially successful engineer so typical of our times and his character is developed and portrayed very realistically by Peter Saarsgard in a role very different from what he played in Boys Don't Cry. He's got it down even to the careless dressing and awkward laugh. I know - I work in the Bay Area. Molly Parker is equally convincing as the drummer-by-day-stripper-by-night career woman who has such a cool and invincible air about her that it makes quite an impact in the few occasions when she does let her armor down.
It almost seems as if Wang has taken the Hollywood classic Pretty Woman and has decided to deHollywoodize it. And in that he has been quite successful. The graininess of the Blair Witch style digital camera coupled with innovative shots including unexpected close-ups follow no clichés. Equally cliché-free is the screenplay which follows a loosely linear narrative advanced primarily by the sexual encounters between a man and a woman who are placed in the near-equivalent situation of a desert island and come from different worlds. In this, one can discern shades of Last Tango in Paris, except that this movie is set in a more cynical time where love has been deconstructed and is not worth killing for. Sex becomes the center of their world but even as they escape into sex they cannot quite leave their personalities, their dreams, their insecurities behind and that is what ultimately saves them and their story from the mundaneness of a forgettable sexual encounter. Although they go into into the deal for purely selfish reasons - he desiring an escape from Internet porn and she looking for some extra cash - their encounter, like all good stories, becomes something of a journey of self-discovery.
Mention must be made of the attention to detail which makes the setting very believable. The soundtrack is eclectic and follows the local Californian club scene rather than big label network music. And the dialogue is very boy-girl-next-door rather than being made up of grand lines. However, this movie is not everybody's cup of tea. The lack of a discernable narrative in some of the scenes risks losing the viewer's attention. And there's no simple message or tying up of loose ends here. But those who can brave that and the graininess will be rewarded with a contemporary look at love in our times. -
CelluloidWeaver6 August 2002I like this film for what it is. It's really erotic. And it's very very hot. But I'm a sucker for endings, and without spoiling - I have to say I was a little bit disappointed. Don't get me wrong, this is great independent filmmaking, but with a little more guts, and a little more detail of the human condition - and all of it's dysfunctions and twisted little habits - this film might have been a landmark.
-
soulglo23 May 2001This movie was one of the worst that I have seen in a while. If it wasn't for all of the naked women in the movie, I would have walked right out of the theater. There was absolutely no plot, it wasn't shot very interestingly and it was plain degrading to watch. If you have any urge to see this movie because it is "about" a dot-commer in SF, wait until it is out on video. There is hardly any reference to the industry and there are even less shots of San Francisco. Truly a terrible movie and a waste of money.
-
heather125230 September 2002I passed on this film while in the theaters due to bad reviews and a highly misleading ad campaign. I disagree with both. This is an accomplished psychological piece a-la-Bergman that never betrays its characters by providing an easy way out. The film follows a rigorous script that dwells deeply into the wants and flaws of the two leads and ultimately tells us that we are limited by our own minds as to the possibilities that life might offer. Although Florence and Richard in theory could change the terms of their relationship, their inner feelings and biases restrict them to what is possible within their own way of thinking. The sex is central to the conflict in an intellectual plane, which will severely disappoint those who are searching for sexual highlights. In terms of DV technique, this is perhaps the best shot film after the DV classic "The Celebration." If you are looking for an engrossing film where every detail serves its main theme, this is it. There is no fat here. It deserves to be watched over and over to absorb its depth under simple dialogue, understated performances by two extraordinary actors and a minimalist plot.
-
NoDakTatum23 November 2023Although more infamous for its sex scenes than its acting and direction, Wayne Wang does marvels with a digital camera and his actors in a very good independent film. Peter Sarsgaard is Richard, a young computer genius worth a million or so who takes a liking to Florence, played by Molly Parker. They decide to take a trip to Las Vegas together, with Richard paying for everything, and some harsh guidelines set up by Florence: no kissing on the mouth, together for just four hours every night, and no actual sexual relations. Goofy Richard goes along with the demands, and the two skip town to Vegas. Richard is skipping more than just town, his computer business is about to go IPO, and his partner can not seem to get a hold of him. Florence and Richard settle into a routine, and try to get to know each other after being so intimate physically. Richard's love for Florence is obvious, but slowly Florence begins to have feelings for Richard that are not of the usual prostitute/john type. Carla Gugino flashes in as one of Florence's screwed up friends, who notices a change in Florence when she is with Richard. Eventually, the couple begin breaking their rules, and brings out everyone's true colors on the future of the relationship.
The title of the film is interesting in that Richard thinks the center of the world is his computer, and Florence thinks it is a female's sexual organs. In the film, Florence's definition seems to be decided on, with Richard using his Center (money wise) to get to her Center. The film treads through the familiar sexual obsession territory, but without going to the lengths that have been touched on in dozens of late night Showtime and Sinemax series and made-for-cable fodder. Richard is a genuine babe in the woods, trying to project a dangerous side, when in fact he is a nice guy who wants to help people. Try and keep track of how many times he asks Florence and others if they are okay or all right. Florence is a great character, unable to contain her growing emotional attachment, so she uses her own body as a wall to Richard's love. You find yourself wishing these two screwed up people would get it together. If anything, I sometimes found the sex got in the way of the plot. Both people share innocuous stories from their past, then follow through with kinky sexual acts, but I got more from the stories. Wang does a great job with the digital camera. He is respectful of his actors, not getting into everyone's face because he has the technology to, but he stays close enough to give the audience a voyeuristic feeling in the hotel room scenes. While some scenes run long here and there, I found the two main characters so different and so interesting, I did not mind the slow spots. There is a lot of sex and nudity here, but only one very brief scene set in a strip club constitutes anything you would see in a porno. "The Center of the World" is just less than an hour and a half long, but speaks volumes about its characters. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, I am still smarting from sitting through Wang's "Chan is Missing," one of the most dull, over-celebrated, and pointless films ever made. He has come a long way, and I recommend this effort. -
deenfoxx19 January 2002At the risk of sounding like a pervert, I must give this movie a bad review primarily because this movie was promoted as explicit sex with a story, but it was more of a bland and boring story with a few erotic dancing scenes. All the actual sex was kept off the camea. While some people may like slow, drawn-out, simple drama storyline with bad dialogue, I was expecting an edgy erotic thriller in the fashion of "Basic Instinct". Needless to say I was greatly dissatisfied to find it did not meet any of my expectations. I could easily make a better movie myself. Maybe I will. For those who LIKE the slow dramas and don't mind nudity and implied sex, this is a decent idea of putting a computer geek looking for love and a below-average stripper looking for money together. Just don't make any expectations before and during the movie and you should not be annoyed by the non-climactic ending.
-
mdinfo111 September 2003It's hard to find a truly erotic movie made in America. Most mainstream films have little sex/no nudity and a whole lot of violence. And what constitutes "erotic art" in films is made up horribly contrived, unbelievable Cinemax/Playboy movies. That lack any real heat and are amazingly unsexy and boring.
So a film like "Center of the World" is a rare gem. It actually is sensual, erotic and the participants in the sex scenes seem comfortable and actually engaged in what they are doing. The scenes do not come off as awkward or simulated. Which is the challenge for any film director. To make the audience believe what they are seeing is real.
What's special here is that a great actress who one would actually like to see do nudity/sexual material, has the lead female role. There's no body doubles here and Molly seems really comfortable with the nudity and explicit sex scenes. She looks absolutely gorgeous throughout the movie. And is not the traditional, cookie butter starlet that is churned out in a 1,001 Cinemax skin flicks.
Hollywood should make more of these films. Unfortunately, I think during this age of "sexual repression" in the arts, our natural human sexual needs will continue to be hidden from view on both the big and small screens. -
LeRoyMarko18 November 2002Ancient script. Man needs the physical stuff. Man hires dancer or prostitute. Man falls in love with her. Man in crisis mode.
This movie lacks a bundle on the character development's front. And the passion between Richard and Flo doesn't really fly. The elements are there to make a good movie, but Wayne Wang seems to be unable to put the magic touch to it.
Molly Parker and Peter Sarsgaard are doing a fine job as Flo and Richard.
You can easily skip this one.
Out of 100, I gave it 73. That's good for **½ out of ****.
Seen at home, in Toronto, on October 18th, 2002. -
acurrie214 May 2001I've seen a lot of movies with the Internet as subject matter over the past few years, and the surprising size of the audience I sat with for this one leads me to believe that my interest is shared. The Center of the World was supposed to examine sexual relationships in the age of the Internet, according to this Salon article:
But Salon got it all wrong; the touchy subject of online pornography was only fleetingly alluded to, and what I got instead was a slightly more realistic version of Pretty Woman. Thankfully, Sunday's episode of Futurama did a much better job on the pornography issue! -
meeza17 March 2002What is The Center of the World? It could be: the country of Ecuador, it could be the White House or the United Nations, it could be that spitball that always landed on the globe in your junior high school's history class, or it could even be where man likes to invade his taste buds from time to time. It is also the new film by Director Wayne Wang. `The Center of the World' is about lonely young millionaire who hires an exotic dancer to spend the weekend with him in Las Vegas. The film does focus on topics such as: masturbation, isolation, lesbianism, prostitution, and desperation. No! This is not a documentary of strip club regulars. At times 'The Center of the World' did receive the center of my attention; but at other times it was way off its mark. *** Average
-
Pursewarden1 April 2002I've followed the career of Wayne Wang for several years. His two New York movies (Smoke and Blue in the Face) maybe probably his best. The Hong Kong epic Chinese Box worked very fine for me, even though the subtitling of the Chinese dialogues was very erratic in the copy that was projected and edited in video here in Mexico. Therefore I was surprised to find this film in the video shelf and very eager to watch it. More when I found out Paul Auster collaborated in the story (he was a key participant in the two N.Y. movies afore mentioned).
It was a sure disappointment. In this story about a computer geek that sort of falls in love with a stripper, Wang forgets that the key point in a dramatic story is that the viewer identifies or at least cares for any of the players. But as soon as the geek meets the girl and offers her money to go for a few days to Vegas things start to drift out of context. The erotic imagery are the center of this world and they work as good as in the best Zalman King soft porn. But this is a Wayne Wang movie, and his characters always should be, and work for that matter, above those issues.
But they don't. The video-cinematography is beautiful, full of interesting close ups and moving camera effects. The film structure is full of flashbacks in black and white that reconstruct the first meeting of the characters in a sort of convoluted manner, becoming tiresome as the movie advances.
There are few strong moments, like the almost cameo by Carla Gugino as a damaged woman that end up not paying off. It's a difficult movie to watch if you expect any rapport with the characters. The ending is an unconclusive as the rest of the film. Trying to leave an open finale, the conclusion seems vague and pathetic. -
fooms20 December 2001riprock's review is right on. The guy is looking for a good time but in the sense of a somewhat naive dude who's not used to interacting socially. The woman is looking to be comfortable in her job and not having to interact too socially. Yet they are both drawn into each other by their commonality.
Not a film for everybody. Not raunchy enough for the porn freaks, not graphic enough for the art freaks, too graphic for the love story freaks. We're all freaks.
This movie hits a perfect balance in showing the two sides of love, lust, and lingering love.
Great photography, pixillation, mood inspiring, cold -- yes but that's part of the story. Bringing the Carlo Gugino character just at the right time, sent this movie over the edge as as superb look into modern psyches.
This is not a sexy movie. it's a relationship movie. but not just of man <-> woman, but of person <-> person. It's deeper and more personal than many of you think. that's why you don't like it, find it uncomfortable. You see yourself, it's lonely, it's scary, it's fun.
I -
michaeltrivedi2 October 2020The movie was entertaining. I thought the woman was pretty hot, even though she had lots of freckles. The Vegas aspect was fun. It was actually pretty good. Could've been a lot better, and was kind of cheaply made. But definitely watchable.
Don't see it though. Not worth it
6 stars -
Alright, so I waited 90 minutes for something to happen in this movie. I mean, I was hoping for a cool plot twist or something. Instead, I was just bored. I was trying to like at least one of the characters, but the main characters were shallow and annoying. The supporting players weren't around long enough for the audience to get to know them. I'm glad I had a free pass to the movies when I saw this, because I'd have been upset if I shelled out 9 bucks for it.
-
metallicmoor16 December 2008This movie is absurd, vague, slow, abrupt and incomplete. But isn't that how life is? I wont take any sides but one thing is certain that the director has been able to keep it as close to life as any of our lives could be. This movie is not about unreal heroes, super-hot babes & witty dialogs. It has a millionaire loser for a hero and a shy hooker for a heroine, and their love which is not your run of the mill happy ending love story but love which is free from any bias and desires of the flesh. Picture this - A really hot woman, dressed in exotic lingerie acting all horny in front of you, but you don't feel a thing. You don't feel a thing because you want her to undress her heart,her mind,her soul and not her body which you know could be bought by money. The brilliance of this movie lies in the fact that despite he is given what he wanted( at least what he bargained for), he still feels incomplete and we as viewers experience this by ourselves,and that goes for one scene and the actors life as a whole too. While she never lets her guard open(though baring all for him) but finds herself helpless in the face of the goodness and respect which she perhaps never experienced before. She denies its love because she doesn't want to complicate things or probably also realizes that their love is not to be, but the matters have complicated already. A poignant tale of absurd, incomplete love and the absurd, incomplete life of our internet world.
* Don't watch it for the sleaze, you might end up erecting your sensitive side instead. -
I had many feelings upon watching this movie. First, from reading other IMDB member descriptions of the film, I had expected something totally unwatchable and boring. However, that was not really the case for me. I thought The Center of the World was well-acted; I felt empathy for the two main characters, Richard and Florence. I thought most of the dialogue was written thoughtfully and realistically. In terms of cinematography, the hand-held camera thing worked well for most of the film, but there were times it did get a bit tiresome too. Also, for a film where nothing much really happens, The Center of the World didn't seem overlong to me. Overall, I would say this movie kept me semi-engaged and interested.
But it also bothered me. What punched my buttons? First, I had a really hard time believing that the characters of Richard and Florence, who are portrayed as very emotionally literate people, would ever get involved in such a vacuous and emotionally unsatisfying situation. Perhaps Wayne Wang, Miranda July, and the other writers of this film's script knew people involved in a similar "relationship" as Richard and Florence. But I don't see pornography/strip clubs/stranger sex/etc. in such a clean light. As I see it, a great many people involved in these activities are doing so because of terribly painful childhood wounds (i.e. sexual abuse, huge abandonment issues, family shaming)and to portray, nay, to glorify Richard and Florence's characters in such a "clean erotic" way misrepresents to the reality of the strip/porn world. My concern here is that portrayals like this incorrectly glorify something that is really ugly. Having taught high school for three years and knowing how films such as this distort teenagers' perceptions of reality, I can just hear my fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen year old students talking about how "cool" this film is, how like "real life" Richard and Florence are. And then I can see them wanting to go out there and be like Richard and Florence. "Oh, cool, dude, let's get a striper and go to Vegas." Yeah, cool. So, anyway, I was disturbed by this aspect of the film.
Another thing that really punched my buttons related to the portrayal of men's/women's gender roles in the film. There is much destructiveness, ugliness, and violence in this movie related to how men and women are represented. Under everything in this film lies the old steretypes that men basically buy women for sex. I think this is a very dangerous and violent way to portray male-female relationships, even if Wang was trying to do it in a tongue in cheek or not so serious way. The two scenes that really disturbed me the most with respect to this issue were the one where Mel Gorham's character, Roxanne, came to the hotel room and the scene near the end of the film where Richard and Florence interact more "intimately." Without giving away the plot, I just thought the whole scene with Roxanne and Florence reeked of male hatred. Was this the purpose of that scene? And after Florence and Richard's final night in the hotel, I felt truly sorry for Richard's character. What's gives with Florence's character? Is she supposed to be behaving cruelly just for fun? Why did she have to "play by the rules", as she always said? In light of her apparent emotional literacy, it seems highly unlikely to me she would behave in this way (unless she had some very serious issues with men).
A last criticism: The title of the film doesn't really work for me. It seems too significant, too grandiose for the way the film is made. And that makes me realize that although the I find the characters and dialogue in the film interesting, there's something not well-thought- out, something sloppy about the whole thing. The Center of the World just seems really pointless and silly at the end. So I don't know what an appropriate title would be.
Anyway, that' my two cents worth. -
PaulLondon1 July 2002A lightweight riff on Bertolucci's magnificent "Last Tango In Paris" finds a couple strike a deal whereby he will pay her to spend three nights in Vegas with him. Well, a holiday in Vegas even if you have to do a bit of sexy dancing for someone? Who could say no? The problem here is that the main character of the film pretty soon establishes itself as Las Vegas. Who cares where that ice cube is going? I wanna see The Stratosphere! And there is the problem...despite some half hearted attempt to inject modernity into it all by making him a computer wizard (though this is never really explored from the cyber sex angle) and despite the washed out colour of the DV flashbacks and some arty shots it is really hard to care. A couple of questions are raised but never answered and the whole film teeters on the verge of being interesting but never engages the viewer. Stil there are some great shots of Vegas!