Post by Angry Scientist on Aug 9, 2003 13:21:02 GMT -5
At the opera house, where most of this film takes place, understudy Betty is waiting for her big break. But she fears that the new production of Macbeth will be cursed, like the others previous. She finally gets her chance, when the lead star is hit by a car. We first meet her when she gets a mysterious telephone call congratulating her - or rather accusing her of something.
Suddenly, she's thrust into the spotlight as all heck breaks loose. Ravens going wild all over the place, a heavy stagelight falls into the audience, her flashy costume is curiously torn to shreds, and a maniac ties her up and tapes small needles under her eyelids so she can't blink while she watches him murder a stage manager and the wardrobe designer.
But each time, he lets her go. And each time, she runs into a man that she has given a certain amount of trust. These are both obvious choices for the role of the maniac. Something connects her to him and she will find out what. Like it or not. With all the attention that becomes focused on her mother, a former opera star herself, she would do wise to start there.
The plot is a little confusing, Argento's trademark. But at the end, it feels like you understood what happened. This is, however, only the product of repeated viewings. Dario Argento's Opera is a disappointing flick. After being to some extent wowed by 4 other superior films directed by this master of Italian thrillers, I was thoroughly disappointed by Opera.
Not because it was in any way lacking visual style, or more of Argento's trademark camera craziness. But because the abundance of spinning and whirring around by the technical crew doesn't compensate for the utter lack of instrumentation. I can't think of one film where having a scene exploring a woman's semi-naked body ever propelled it beyond cheap exploitation.
Argento is a director capable of such greatness in this genre, without having to go back to the same territory over and over again. By the time you see Opera, if you've seen all his other giallos, you'll find this dead horse beaten to living death already. The women are always exceptionally vulnerable. Only the killers have the upper hand. So specifically, for the killer to be the one who makes all the fatal mistakes, it seems like a cop out.
Argento's talent is well-known, I would like to see him try his hand at another genre. Perhaps, with his recent spate of miserably received attempts, he should move to another genre. With a little more cooperation from people in the business, he would have staged an actual opera. With his attention to detail, in the case of Opera, it would have been nice if he had bothered to do a little more with the story. Everything is sort of left to our own imaginations. His older films had the charm of being vague. Now, it's a matter of been there done that.
Now getting back to the camera craziness. Opera's good for something sure enough. You'll see things done with a camera that rival even the latest bond films. Being on Opera, is like being on a rollercoaster. You're going to get dizzy, your head will spin, I don't know- you may even feel nauseous. The camera pans a majority of the opera house where Macbeth is performed.
In the scene where the ravens get their revenge, the camera starts out circling the room at the ceiling, then swiftly circles all the way down into the audience (which is the image it's actually capturing in all the motion). Another scene worth mentioning is the peephole scene. After Mira is shot, the camera races throughout Betty's entire apartment tilting toward the ground both left and right. Now, that's fun.
In one shot where Betty is standing in the middle of the room, the camera starts out relatively level, and as she climbs into the air vent, the camera spins around in a circle so that, when she closes the vent hatch, we are completely upside down. Now you'll understand why I wink. This is still good fun for fans of breakthrough camerawork.
**1/2 out of ****
Suddenly, she's thrust into the spotlight as all heck breaks loose. Ravens going wild all over the place, a heavy stagelight falls into the audience, her flashy costume is curiously torn to shreds, and a maniac ties her up and tapes small needles under her eyelids so she can't blink while she watches him murder a stage manager and the wardrobe designer.
But each time, he lets her go. And each time, she runs into a man that she has given a certain amount of trust. These are both obvious choices for the role of the maniac. Something connects her to him and she will find out what. Like it or not. With all the attention that becomes focused on her mother, a former opera star herself, she would do wise to start there.
The plot is a little confusing, Argento's trademark. But at the end, it feels like you understood what happened. This is, however, only the product of repeated viewings. Dario Argento's Opera is a disappointing flick. After being to some extent wowed by 4 other superior films directed by this master of Italian thrillers, I was thoroughly disappointed by Opera.
Not because it was in any way lacking visual style, or more of Argento's trademark camera craziness. But because the abundance of spinning and whirring around by the technical crew doesn't compensate for the utter lack of instrumentation. I can't think of one film where having a scene exploring a woman's semi-naked body ever propelled it beyond cheap exploitation.
Argento is a director capable of such greatness in this genre, without having to go back to the same territory over and over again. By the time you see Opera, if you've seen all his other giallos, you'll find this dead horse beaten to living death already. The women are always exceptionally vulnerable. Only the killers have the upper hand. So specifically, for the killer to be the one who makes all the fatal mistakes, it seems like a cop out.
Argento's talent is well-known, I would like to see him try his hand at another genre. Perhaps, with his recent spate of miserably received attempts, he should move to another genre. With a little more cooperation from people in the business, he would have staged an actual opera. With his attention to detail, in the case of Opera, it would have been nice if he had bothered to do a little more with the story. Everything is sort of left to our own imaginations. His older films had the charm of being vague. Now, it's a matter of been there done that.
Now getting back to the camera craziness. Opera's good for something sure enough. You'll see things done with a camera that rival even the latest bond films. Being on Opera, is like being on a rollercoaster. You're going to get dizzy, your head will spin, I don't know- you may even feel nauseous. The camera pans a majority of the opera house where Macbeth is performed.
In the scene where the ravens get their revenge, the camera starts out circling the room at the ceiling, then swiftly circles all the way down into the audience (which is the image it's actually capturing in all the motion). Another scene worth mentioning is the peephole scene. After Mira is shot, the camera races throughout Betty's entire apartment tilting toward the ground both left and right. Now, that's fun.
In one shot where Betty is standing in the middle of the room, the camera starts out relatively level, and as she climbs into the air vent, the camera spins around in a circle so that, when she closes the vent hatch, we are completely upside down. Now you'll understand why I wink. This is still good fun for fans of breakthrough camerawork.
**1/2 out of ****