Review of Rage

Rage (I) (2009)
3/10
Too much, too inconsistent, too little effort
9 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I don't post here often, in fact this is my very first comment, and wish it was a better film I felt I could say something about...Please, if you feel differently, explain it too me. This has been my first exposure to Sally Potters work.

In Rage, we see a host of characters involved in a fashion show, being interviewed by and speaking with a student working on a school project. Throughout his seven days with the fashion designer, the models, the investor, the marketing consultants, the company owner, the pizza delivery guy, and others, several deaths occur, an investigation is launched, and public opinion is formed and voiced. Stylistically, we see see talking heads, declaring their thoughts and describing their own and others' actions.

In my view, the film tries to be a bunch of things, but fails at most of them, miserably. First and foremost, it lacks a plot. Stuff happens, but there is no discernible character development (with a couple of exceptions, rounding up), no new or challenging views on topics we should care about, no discussion on why bad stuff happens to good people, or why people end up as bad people. This is notable, as films as Babel even Crash, and TV fare as The West Wing have taught us that issues have more than one side. Rage fails at that for the most part, focusing on illustrating that the fashion industry is bad, the media industry is bad, marketing folks anyways, and that those poor kids in China and on the runway that suffer. The film seems to work through a laundry list of things you ought to get upset about, had you not heard of them before and discussed them with your friends 10 years ago.

Secondly, I straight out blame lack of directing skills for a set of inconsistent, seemingly badly enacted characters. Frank (Buscemi), Mona Carvell (Dench) and Miss Roth (Wiest) come across as at least as semi-credible, non-farcical, at times even multi-layered, or torn. Contrast this with Homer (Oyelowo), Merlin (Abkarian) and (don't shoot me) Minx (Law) - shallow monologues, farcical as far as I could tell, or plain out unbelievable and embarrassing. Either way, I dare say, could be fine. But please, don't mix! Help me understand if the film tries to be funny, or if we see an actor's most horrid performance to date. Ideally, help me understand this without the help of a pamphlet as required reading.

Thirdly, try to maintain a shred of plausibility in the set-up. A kid with a cell phone camera being asked by Otto to please, not leak information, again? Diamonds trying to strike a behind-the-scenes deal, talking to said camera? Anita, doing the same, asking for anonymity? Cut that kid off, throw him out, sulk, but do not do what we see on screen! It renders the story implausible, as this asks the viewer to follow along with the cheap-looking declarative approach, no matter what. This in turn allows the makers of the film to skirt the hard work of story-telling - creating a believable universe of topics, characters and contexts.

We saw the film as part of the Berlinale competition program. It did receive applause, especially Jude Law and Dianne West, but it also received applause when the words "last day" appeared on screen, and several people, possibly those more critical of what they saw, left mid-film. We wondered if Tilda Swinton is too good a friend of Potter to not invite her to this festival.

3 stars, for Wiest, Dench, Buscemi, and 1 laugh/half hour.
21 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed