|
With
it's similar title and premise, Cesc Gay's In the City
could easily be confused for a cross-gender equivalent to
TV's female-aimed Sex and the City by way of Barcelona.
Denys Arcand light is more like it in the end though.
In
the City focuses on a large group of upper-class folks,
most of whom are well into mid-life mode either through their
marriage, careers or both. Some have kids, some don't; some
have nice jobs that pay gobs of money, some wait tables. What
this handful-or-so do share is an affinity for sex, one of
the most natural of human desires. Of course we attach the
instinct to emotion and we get conflict. And when you throw
a large group into the mix there's lots of conflict, which
you would think would lead to more emotion.
Not
so. In the City struck me as being somewhat removed
from its subjects, teasing the viewer with lots of possible
points of view but never settling on a single one. I have
to admit that I sometimes have troubles with ensembles, especially
the ones where everyone is given equal filling. Without a
dominant voice or perspective, I find it hard to tell characters
apart at times as they all keep coming fast with not a lot
of differences between them. Exceptions exist (John Sayles'
Maetwan comes to mind) but it's tough to pull off and
unfortunately In the City didn't do it for me.
Part
of the fact might be because I don't see much of myself in
any of the characters. They're all from the upper reaches
of society and their troubles seem to largely stem from business-related
issues and matters of relationships. That's not me so it's
very hard for the film to talk to me like it might someone
who's struggling with their relationships. I don't know if
class should necessarily matter when you're watching a film,
but I find it hard to relate with people in a class clearly
above the one that I live in. While I don't consider myself
poor or troubled, I do think that be setting the characters
above the majority of its potential audience then some of
the meaning is also lost.
In
the City looks and sounds a lot like Denis Arcand's
The Decline of the American Empire and its sequel
The Barbarian Invasions. The cinematography is largely
bland, getting the job done efficiently but without a lot
of personality. Instead the focus is on the many conversations
and the issues brought up through talking heads. While the
dialogue is believable, there is some distance in its frankness.
These are meant to be believable characters yet quite often
they seem to dance around the issues just enough to not allow
the viewer the insider access needed to take the stories to
another level. While I found Mike Leigh's Closer very
hard to watch for a lot of the same reasons I have mentioned
above, its brutal honesty enabled the film to get under my
skin even though I couldn't relate to the characters much.
In
the City left me feeling cold and removed. Because it
doesn't have much new to say about complex relationships or
new insites into the most permisuous of human flaws, I sadly
was left wondering what the point of it truly was.
©Movie
Views; May 2, 2005
|