Lumsdal
Good , But It Is Overrated By Some
CrawlerChunky
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Aubrey Hackett
While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.
drforeman
In this delightfully smug feature, a documentary filmmaker implausibly allows himself to be bullied for two hours by an interviewee whose approach to the questions being asked is, "%#$@ you." While none of the observations offered rise beyond the banal, her attitude of world-weary wisdom with a side of condescension appears to be designed exclusively to allow any viewer who might relate to her to feel good about it. Apart from empowering those audience members with a chance to look with scorn on everyone else in the room, the film accomplishes little. The interviewer, cunningly devised to be the ideal shallowly moralistic and unthinking opponent for his subject, never manages to ask a question one might not find in a pamphlet. There is little in the way of insight from the film's parade of angry performers, many of whom seem thrilled to have a chance to make use of acting skills they're usually only allowed to employ in angst-ridden productions at theatres downstairs from the local coffee shop. Oh, also it's elegantly filmed in a striking black and white, and the lead is played by a succession of disparate actresses. As someone once nearly said: ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for content.
PoppyTransfusion
First of all, this is a beautiful film to watch. The black and white photography is sharp enough to carve out details in the skin of the actresses who all play a single sex worker called 'Angie'. At important moments the black and white is soft and casts shadows. It is erotic as Angie is never coloured in and slightly elusive in her shadows. A screen for projection yet the black and white illuminates her fleshiness.The plot is straightforward but the content is not. 8 different actresses speak of their experiences of sex, using the 'f' word that IMDb will beep out were it to be written here, in front of a male director who can be heard but not seen - aside from the odd shot of the set and crew. The conversation begins as an interrogation from the director to Angie. She rejects this quite quickly and becomes provocative and challenging; taking control of the interview. Angie gets the director to strip naked and masturbate.After this point the conversation relaxes into a nice to and fro that sees Angie soften and both she and the director share confidences. The film culminates, aptly, with Angie masturbating to orgasm. This ending fitted the conversation but I was not satisfied. Some important boundary seemed to have disintegrated for me.I found watching and listening to the different actresses compelling. I found what they had to say witty and at times, very illuminating. My favourites were Angie 4 and 5, I think; an older blonde woman who sported a black mac and an Asiatic woman wearing a satin night gown. Their dialogue was the most interesting as they discussed fantasy and reality and then what sex is for women and the role pain has to play. I was riveted and felt I was learning something about my own sexuality. This is one of the gifts of film.
cB391
This movies does what it intends to do. "Angie is determined to set the record straight about sex" is in the storyline, and she (in the plural sense) does. Multiple versions of Angie allow for a wider look at the similarities within sex workers, though only can be connected to those who freely enter the trade, do not face violence, police corruption etc.The film is written and directed by John Winter who wants the male viewer to see the film as more than simply sexual, but it is hard to do so. The male gaze is amplified with Matthew Holmes (the interviewer), who essentially explores his own prior relationships through relating to various prostitutes.Overall, the film doesn't explore more than a simplistic look between money, sex and emotions. It tries to explicitly imply the power that sex has on people, and the reversal of roles in the film helps to dictate this well. There are a few character developing moments in the movie, but overall it does not "set the record straight on sex". In a way it tries to universalize emotion by having the multiple Angie's, and generalizes all males in the same way.The emotional connection with the audience is built through a physical one, rather than anything else, as vulnerability is seen throughout the film, but is not explained as anything outside of the physical, with little importance paid to power and dominance.I would rate this film a 5/10 while the ratings might range from 3-8 depending on personal tastes. The film doesn't seem to have much of a budget, and didn't need it. The transitions were good and provided the meaning intended. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, and that might explain the low feedback for this movie. It is dealing with a taboo subject, but it deals with it superficially, and therefore there is but a few statements that can be taken away (if you have no knowledge on the subject), but otherwise it isn't worth watching.
to_see_you_smile_again
What is wrong with Australian cinema-goers? This is an amazing example of our talented industry: The script, the cinematography and the actresses all blew me away. The director has made a bold statement regarding censorship, about what we can see and hear and why that is. After watching this movie last night, I'm still thinking about it the next morning, and will continue to do so for many days - now that is a sign of a good film. If you've missed it at the movies, wait until it's on DVD and buy it. We need to support our struggling film industry. We need to get behind talented directors and actresses like these, and we need to make more intellectual movies like these.
