Cannes Movie Review: Sleeping Beauty (2011)
A pointless tale not worthy of a second thought
Photo: eOne Films Entertainment
There was a lot of talk about Sleeping Beauty leading up to the Cannes Film Festival as the premise causes raised eyebrows. The story centers on Lucy (Emily Browning), a financially strapped college student who resorts to becoming a "Sleeping Beauty" to make ends meet. A "Sleeping Beauty" as it turns out — for those of us not partaking in the alternative sex scene — is a girl who is drugged by her highfalutin madame (Rachael Blake) so old men can take advantage of her. The one caveat, as we're reminded endlessly throughout this mess, is that there is to be no penetration. Too bad, because that would have probably been more exciting and less uncomfortable than what ultimately takes place.
The cast includes Emily Browning, Michael Dorman, Mirrah Foulkes and Rachael Blake. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Sleeping Beauty" is a IFC Films release, directed by Julia Leigh. This film has not yet been rated by the MPAA. The running time is 1 hour 44 minutes.
I'll take her up on that challenge. In fact, I was doing so before she even suggested it.
I tried to imagine why the first patron (Peter Caroll) to Lucy's dream-state, non-penetration sex romp decides to tell a painfully boring soliloquy that had me blacking out before he was halfway done. I tried to imagine why her second patron (Chris Haywood) felt the urge to call her a bitch before burning her behind the ear with his cigarette, and why the third patron decided to pick her up like she was a rag doll before he appeared to have a mild heart attack. And that's just the people that come to take advantage of her in the sack.
My imagination wandered further as I tried to figure out what was going on with the alcoholic gentleman Lucy poured a bowl of cereal for, using vodka instead of milk? How about the co-worker she goes with on a late night swim? What was the big deal with her mother needing her credit card number? How many times did I need to see her making copies? Why do I need to see her washing tables and stacking chairs so many times? And what kind of medical research program did she sign up for?
I ask these questions in all earnestness as this film seems to want to be about something but either doesn't know what or how to achieve its metaphor. In the notes, Leigh says she is interested in "Wonder Cinema," implying films that result in "a response of intense wonder rather than shock." If she wanted me to wonder why it was made… mission accomplished.
I also have to wonder why Emily Browning decided this was the role for her. Replacing Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) in the part, the milky white Browning is nude for the majority of the film, leaving nothing to the imagination. As things progress to the point she's carrying out her duties as a "Sleeping Beauty," her geriatric suitors strip down to their birthday suits and join her in bed. One of them cuddles with her, another licks her face to the point of unseemly excess and the third, like I said already, flops her around like a rag doll.
I guess, in a way, I could give Browning credit for trying something different. For putting herself out there to the point I would be able to identify every inch of her body without seeing her face. That said, I wish her work hadn't been all for naught. I wish I could say something was achieved in this film as it would likely receive endless derision if it were directed by a man, but seeing how Leigh is at the helm we look for more and find less.
Could it be about objectivity? Is it about poverty? Is it about job security? Is it about the subjugation of women? Is it about children with absentee parents? Loss of identity? Loss of respect? I can ask the questions and give you examples as to why I'm asking them, but there are no answers. Does a film deserve our praise if it has us asking questions? Or does it deserve praise only if we care while asking?
At one point Browning's character says, "My vagina is not a temple." At another, Ben Frost's score begins to overwhelm the picture. Both had me thinking to myself, Okay, now we're going somewhere. Unfortunately, "somewhere" never arrives and while the film is superbly shot by Geoffrey Simpson and inspires forced conversation, it ends up going nowhere and is one film I would never feel comfortable recommending.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 37 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
That's very disappointing to here. The trailer really got me interested. Oh well, hopefully Emily Browning will move on to something better than this or "Sucker Punch."
Movie should explore more deeply the character of Emily, and why she was doing all those activities. Actually she was involved in SO MANY daily things that is impossible (worked in 3 jobs, college student, boyfriend, clubing, companion to a sick guy, etc). Smart move for Emily to record what goes on at the end of movie. However, to Emily it gave the impression that NOTHING goes on in the bedroom, and all "clients" came in to die with her–she serves as a mortuary companion. What the hell was that at the end of the movie? Movie just tells young girls to be cautions with rich, white-hair weird males.
"Replacing Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) in the part, the milky white Browning is nude for the majority of the film."
Ironically, Mia W. turned down the role because at the time she was filming Jane Eyre, which has gone on to become the biggest art-house hit of the year so far. Coupled with this review (ouch), the girl's looking pretty smart.
From Total Film: "Browning's performance is at once commanding, assured and fragile. Shedding more than just her clothes, this isn't the Emily Browning of Sucker Punch or The Uninvited, but a performer who should rightly be in contention for Best Actress come the end of the festival.
A brave and highly confident debut from director Julia Leigh (herself competing in the Camera D'or competition for best first time filmmaker), Sleeping Beauty is worth a watch, and will pay off for those who stick with it."
Well, that is quite a different reaction! I still want to see this one. We'll see what the other reviews are like, but I trust your opinion, Brad, because I could easily see it being "pointless," as you say.
I found Emily to be vacant and bland. No shades of grey. No shades of anything. I had the feeling any actress with a rigid expression could play the part. If that's what it takes to win Best Actress, I'll eat my hat.
Would you say she was "asleep"?
None of you, including the self-inflated reviewer understood a thing about this movie.
I'm a little surprised to read about all the nudity. When Wasikowska was attached there was an article mentioning she would not be nude at all.
This review somehow made me want to see it more, especially since I loved Sucker Punch and you gave that an F, so maybe since this is only a D it will be one of my favorites ever. It sounds a bit like Salo' which is one of my favorite films, but sounds like that one achieved its metaphors better than this did.
I know there were a lot of comparisons to SP from the trailer, just wondering did the acualy film have similarities as well other than Browning?
were the sucker punch connections warrented brad?
You could make connections, but I would say no. This film is bad for completely different reasons.
An absolutely hideous film. Accurate appraisal.
I wonder if Julia Leigh will be raked over the coals like Zack Snyder was?
i absoultly loved sucker punch and eagerly awaiting sleeping beauty, Emily browning is a very talented actress and this is a very different role for her other films. Can`t wait for it to come to the uk.
Still interested in seeing it at least once…
"I wish I could say something was achieved in this film as it would likely receive endless derision if it were directed by a man, but seeing how Leigh is at the helm we look for more and find less."
- Glad to see sexism plays a role in your reviews Brad.
You're reaching… There is nothing sexist about that, it's a commentary on societal norms, expectations and reactions, not a representation of my opinion solely or specifically. Read more closely next time.
Had this film been directed by a man it would have undoubtedly been received and approached by its audience differently. I'm not making this up and it has nothing to do with sexism. Is art independent of the artist?
So, any praise or criticism this film receives is affected by the fact that the director is a woman…and that has nothing to do with sexism?
I wrote more than one sentence. You do realize that don't you?
Sigh. No, I really am that stupid, I'll go back to making sandwiches now.
All I'm saying Brad, is that maybe your comment was a generalisation. Maybe your commentary on other people "going easy," in a way, on female directors, is in fact a reflection of your own point of view in regards to how you interpret other people's opinions. I completely agree with you, an artist obviously has a direct influence over their work, but perhaps when you say the film was received and approached differently by audiences was not because the director was female, but because the director was Julia Leigh.
To be honest, I don't really care if you consider the sex of a director to change the outcome of a film because as a female starting out in the film industry, I'm use to it.
P.S. I found this film rather interesting. And it had nothing to do with the director's vagina.
I like how this conversation has now turned to you becoming flip and sarcastic and giving me "All I'm saying". Fascinating how you're the frustrated one, now that you're original simple comment calling me sexist required you to give a more nuanced explanation rather than boiling it down to something so simple and incorrect. Sorry if I made you work for your explanation rather than attempting to falsely label me.
I don't know Julia Leigh. This was my first experience with her or her films. I simply made an observation, based on a sex-driven film and the sex of its director. When the art itself offers no explanation for its existence and an audience member was confused as to why it would even be made (as I was with this film) you begin to look at other factors. In this case, the question in my head was why would Julia Leigh, a female director, choose to tell this story? It's a search for meaning when I couldn't find any. You have done your very best to label my search with weak excuses and labels. Not much I can do about that.
P.S. I found the film to be terrible. And it had nothing to do with the director's vagina. Perhaps if you had started this conversation with what you found rather interesting instead of searching for an excuse why I didn't like we could have had an intelligent conversation. Instead, you have offered absolutely nothing but insults, which actually weakens any argument you may have had.
I was keeping my answer short beforehand because I wanted to hear you out is all, and I got sarcastic because your comments were becoming increasingly patronising. I support your search to find meaning in this film, I on the other hand quite liked the fact that there is no complete explanation for the actions of the character and the story, it left an aura of mystery similar to that of a fairytale. You are welcome to your own opinion, the only reason I jumped on your comment originally was because I felt it was unfounded.
I'm a woman, and I think that Brad brings up a good point. Sexism most predominately affects women, but it can also affect men, and double standards exist for everyone. Your "I'll go back to making sandwiches now." comment was disgraceful. He said nothing sexist towards you, but you had to make it seem like he did for some ridiculous reason. Stop going around looking for pseudo-sexism, and concern yourself with more important examples.
Thank heavens for this review. All the others I found were of the 'beautiful, haunting, brave but flawed' variety. I'm afraid I thought it was nonsense with woeful dialogue, and I didn't/couldn't believe any of it. And I cared less than that. (nice underwear and tea cups though…)
I find it both astonishing and disturbing how people these days rate a film "empty" and bad, rave about it being about "nothing" and "boring" when clearly the film only lacks DIRECT explanations and exposition. I saw somebody liken the film to Somewhere, and I can absolutely agree, as both make profound points about human nature (and no, I don't want to go and spoil what the film is actually about) without ever addressing them directly. So yes – the film is about something (and what it is about is closely linked to its key symbols) and yes, the film makes some very interesting and profound points. I suspect the reviewers were busy staring at Lars von Trier (whose Melancholie may be the most misunderstood comedy ever that came to the screen, and I am speaking absolutely in its favor) and, thinking Sleeping Beauty to be 101-shock-fare, forgot to actually turn their minds on.
Also, the comments are rather… disturbing in how much the reviewer actually seems to think the directors sex is a point in making people NOT consider the film sexist, when sex is only a means to further explore the character and the key themes of the film. Especially this:
"I simply made an observation, based on a sex-driven film and the sex of its director."
How is the film sex driven? It may take place in the "sex-industry", but that is even far too general!! In fact, the film takes place in sort of a "pleasure industry", but sex is absent from the film – wish fulfillment may be closer to it. Shows, again, how some reviewers seem to observe things on the outside, but don't allow any deeper analysis of what is happening.
I hate when people take things out of context to make unfounded arguments. I completely agree with this reviewer. After watching it I was sitting there wondering why I had just wasted 2 hours. So, left with a 2 hour film that's main purpose seemed to be to feature a prominently naked lead actress. Absolutely yes, if the director had been a male, all of you people jumping on this guy would be calling that director a pig or something of the like.
Sure this movie is a bit confusing and boring – not only but quite a lot – but when I read a review, I'm looking for something more thoughtful and illuminating than a rant about how bad it is. If that's all you're going to do, you should at least try to make your review funny or interesting. This reviewer fails on all counts.
If you want to read a review which explores what this movie is trying to do, read Philip French in the Guardian (who, by the way, liked it quite a lot). If want a movie that's easy to understand with a clear story and no pretensions, go to see Planet of the Apes, perhaps with a big bucket of popcorn and a litre cup of coke.
While I enjoyed your review as usual, Brad, I enjoyed the comment exchange between you and Julia even more. It becomes every funnier if one reads Julia as Julia Leigh.
I do not like the story. Are college students dumb enough to take that kind of life. Whoever wrote the story is shallow or see that kind of life normal. Maybe if life is so hard for anyone, a college student should be content enough to take on a more simple life rather than whore oneself in that kind of environment. Its not safe. Hasn't the author or the girl ever heard of Jack the Ripper. And why was the girl cried so hard in the ending? She knew what she was into unless she really is stupid. She was to be welcoming old men's fantasy.
Like many of the above replies this movie was a disappointment for us too. With just a little more effort in dialogue composition, storyline adjustments and deletion of irrelevant characters, it may just have held our interest. It lacked mood tension and sensitivity that a movie of this nature would require.
It's interesting to see Brad no longer comment on this page, and quite unfortunate. By now, many a review on Sleeping Beauty is out which concerns the films depiction of problems closely related to society and gender norms. Again, this may be the worst review I read all year, one that shows just how empty actual film criticism has become. If 'julia' was really Julia Leigh, I cannot fault her comments. Brad's remarks are strikingly, sorry, out of context of the movie, and seem only concerned with the most superficial. If anything, the film details on the contrast of what society deems the "stimulating" yet self-destructive sexuality of young women and confronts it with the "disgusting", almost therapeutic, "non-sex" of old men, who rather try to re-connect with something from their past through a ritualized form of sexuality rather than the actual act. Still, all this seems lost to Brad. A shame.
What more would you like to know? Have I not already expressed my opinion quite plainly?
You got something vastly different out of it than I did and choose to judge me as a result. That's fine. You are entitled to your interpretation.
"the "disgusting", almost therapeutic, "non-sex" of old men"
What? I see a string of words, but nothing to actually string those words together.
The first task of a movie is to make us feel.
If the only emotion it induces is complete boredom … we can maybe deduce that the characters of the movie are bored with themselves.
When you're bored, you start picking things apart. Such as – if the girl was up all night and worked all day – wouldn't she look a bit tired and bedraggled at some point? She always looks the same – bland and vacant.
If someone is a prostitute and a uni student (as she is) then they are hardly going to wait tables or work a low-paying job in an office. No matter what. if they hate themselves, they might engage in risky activities – but office work and waiting tables … no.
It has no base in reality.
The relationship between her and her boyfriend didn't seem real. Very poorly acted.
We are promised the story is about a uni student who takes on the sleeping beauty job to make money, and then is desperate to find out what happened to her.
Nope. This girl is already a prostitute and drug addict who engages in all kinds of risky behaviour. We don't see evidence she cares about what's happening to her – except for the laughable scene where she gets out of bed to put knickers on.
Is the movie trying to say that old men hate young women because they can no longer 'get it up'?
Well, testosterone has normally dipped so low by that stage that most old men just don't give a hang about it.
Blah. Didn't care about a single person in the whole movie. It's the kind of movie people ask, 'why was it made' rather than 'why did the characters do this or that?'
I agree with this review 100%. Hated the movie. Hated the stupidity of the unanswered questions. Especially hated the ending. Julia should get over herself. Her comments were as silly as the movie. Stands to reason she would like it. Waste of time and money. I don't mind thought provoking movies. When well done, they can create discussions that go on for days. However, when a movies unanswered questions create a response of, "Really???" followed by a strong desire to put the 2 hour ordeal out of your mind as quickly as possible, I would say the director has quite missed the mark. Better luck next time.
This is the kind of film an artsy film hipster will tell you is thought provoking & makes a statement about social, economical & sexual behaviour. It was in no way an erotic, elegantly confronting tale of which i'm confident it's been labelled by said artsy film hipsters.
Absolute waste. This review is dead on the money.
Perhaps this movie has more meaning to the maker. If I would cut it out into pieces and analyze it what would it tell me?
It starts out with a scientific experiment. Perhaps that is its purpose. An experiment. Her jobs. You get the sense of them being absolute meaningless. The character neither finds great pleasure or pain in what she does to earn money. There was a few dramatic pauses. Money burning. Dropping berries. fingernails. ext.. Each one was silent except for one. The story relayed by the first client. A story about caring on in life without cherishing it. Seems to be the theme of all the other pauses. Only two emotional scenes. The death of bird man and the death of the client. Both are nude scenes. Why mix in death, sex, sleeping and emotion? Could these scenes be about orgasm? Is this whole movie about orgasm? What do you think?