engels

Many erotic movies suffer from a weak plot, and this one is no exception. The writer must apparently have thought that putting some drama scenes together and adding a good amount of flash-backs would form a plot. It does not.

But then, you might say, this is an adult movie, and if the plot is that bad, I just fast forward between the sex scenes. Nice thought, but it does not work. The erotic scenes are simply not good either. There are a few scenes that are quite erotic, but these are rare, most of the supposedly erotic/sexual scenes are simply boring. And rather than fast forward through both plot and erotica, it's better not to start watching the movie at all. The little nice erotica (I liked the first quarter or so of the scene where the main character is trying on some flimsy bathwear) is really not worth the wear on your fast-forward button.

'Dance of Dust' tells the story of a boy, working in the brick making. The various stages of the process, from putting the clay in the shapes to the carrying away of the bricks by the trucks. It's hard, dirty work, and a poor life, and if the rains are early it's all for nought. It also tells about the boy falling in love with a girl, who in the end has to leave with her mother.

I saw the movie without subtitles. This seems little of a problem, because there is little talking going on, most scenes contain none. However, exactly for that reason I would have liked another type of subtitles. Because the movie has not much talking, the scenes have to bring over their message in another way, and symbolism of course scores high. Problem is, this is an Iranian movie, and I know too little of the culture to understand the meaning of many of the scenes. Too many scenes thus cannot be understood in their correct context.

The movie contains many beautiful pictures, but as a fake documentary of the life of brick makers fails to keep one's attention for the full 1 1/2 hours. Fortunately there is more behind this movie. Unfortunately, that something is only there for someone with more knowledge of Islamic and Iranian culture than I have to see.

To be honest, the movie was ok, but not as good as I hoped it would be. I have seen the series only once or twice (not being home at the right time and lacking a video), but from what I have seen I prefer the series to the movie.

Of course it's all a matter of taste. And then I do not mean the bad taste of the makers (I had heared about the many swear words before, feared it would be boring, hoped it would be funny, found it had a good function in creating a consistent atmosphere), but the preference for the various movie styles. I simply do not like musicals, and although some of the songs in this movie are actually quite good, I am of the opinion that they break the tempo of the movie, in a negative way. I had hoped to see more humor. There is a good dose of humor, but I still feel the density is considerably lower than in a TV episode. On the other hand the makers have succeeded very well in having a morale to their story and at the same time making fun at that very same morale.

All in all, anyone who has been following South Park all the time certainly has to see this movie and will not be disappointed, but those who, like me, have only seen a little bit of it, or just heared of friends how good it was, would do better to make a tape of two or three of the TV episodes. Certainly not a failure, but as certainly not a masterpiece.

First, let me say what this is not. This is not a movie with high artistic quality. Even when one reminds oneself of the fact that it is meant as a simple comedy, probably a family comedy, it still has a plot with too many coincidences (so many that they become predictable - now the monkey is here, she will not be looking, but when it's gone, and the man comes in, she will) and flat, caricatural characters. But it also is not supposed to be a high-quality movie. It's supposed to be funny.

And funny it is. The movie is full of funny ideas, all worked out in a good, classy manner. Even the basest of jokes are done in good style. Just relax - and laugh. And you'll keep laughing through most of the movie. The monkey (that's a negative point - technically an urang utan is an ape, not a monkey) is well in its place as a comedy actor, and as said - the ideas are good, the working-out is even better.

Not 'the best movie you'll ever see', not even close. Not a 'must-see movie'. But a very pleasant way to spend 90 minutes. And enjoyable for both adults and children, that's worth something too.

Daring theme. I like that. A sexual relationship between an adult and a child/youngster. And without showing the child as merely a victim of an adult predator. The sex is wanted and enjoyed by both partners. At the same time, the movie does also not fall in the other extreme of showing the girl as basically a seductress. At the end, she can be seen as the victim of the relationship, but not because she was too young or too experienced to understand about sex. She is a victim because she was dreaming of more, of a lasting relationship. While he neither can nor wants to leave his wife. She is a victim like so many mistresses of married men are victims.

Daring theme, yes. But when one looks further, little more positive can be said. The movie does not succeed in making the characters live. For a part this has to do with the plot, that keeps looking at the relationship from the outside, we do not really get to the inside of the characters, which is especially pitiful in the last third of the movie. But most is lost simply through bad acting and directing. Most obvious is this in the girl who plays Carolien's girlfriend. She seems to just be saying her lines, without any realization that these lines have some kind of emotional meaning. And that she should use a tone of voice that fits that meaning. And Marina de Graaf (Carolien) and several other supporting actors make a similar type of mistake. All in all, the movie is too much TELLING its story instead of SHOWING it.

The idea is good, and has the possibility of giving a movie that leads to moral discussions amongst its viewers. But then one would need to give the viewer some interest in its characters first. And that's where this movie fails miserably. One can even wonder whether it HAS any characters.

Sometimes one actor or actress can carry a whole movie. That's no news. What is news is that a 4 year old girl succeeds in this. That's what Victoire Thivisol is doing. The movie follows her character, Ponette, through the hard times she has after her mother's death. Ponette spends most of the film trying to get her mother back, or at least getting contact with her. The strong point of the movie is that it succeeds in bringing the viewer into the world of thoughts and feelings of Ponette, bridging the large emotional differences between child and adult. I can remember that when her father picked her up from a solitary hiding place, saying 'Your mother is not coming back', thinking to myself 'That may be true, but can't you see how you're hurting the child?'.

Jacques Doillon is said to have spent months just going through the movie with the children, and changing the script, based on what they did out of themselves and the reactions they gave. And the result shows it - the movie really enters the children's world. Still, even his great directing wouldn 't have gotten this far without a child that so sublimely could feel in and show so many different emotions as Thivisol. It's not without reason that she was chosen 'best actress' on the Venice film festival.

The only disappointment in the movie is the end. On itself this is well directed and played, but the shift from realism to symbolism breaks the film's strength, which lies not only in its portrayal of the child's world, but also in its embedding in the so-called 'real world'. Getting a good end to this movie is indeed hard, but the actual ending still does not feel well.

A complaint against poverty. Even more gripping than its portrayal of the sad situation in which the woman finds herself is the hopelessness of it, as can for be heard in her remark 'without a house I cannot get a job and without a job I cannot get a house.' The movie provides no answers, but that is a strength more than a weakness, making the viewer even more aware of the seriousness of the problem at hand. It does make for a sad movie, though.