09 Aug The Love Witch (2016)

Faces, Drapes

This is much celebrated by the critics, most of whom I am sure never saw the referenced films when they were new. It rides a wave, I suppose of feminist films that can use ‘the gaze’ to their advantage.

If you have not seen this, it has saturated colours from the 50’s, a story that would be comfortable in the 60s, some dialog glitz that would have been throwaway in the 70’s — presented as a sort of retro celebration.

It isn’t Andersen, or Greenaway, or Jodorowsky. It doesn’t punch like Tarantino. It isn’t coherent like Barbie was at least. It didn’t go deep like Poor Things.

What it does have are great visuals. The sets, costumes, and faces are fantastic, apt. The tearoom, complete with dreamy harpist is the best. There’s a witch apothecary I would spend time in just for the tone. The main actress has the toned, cared body that the character requires.

But that doesn’t make a movie. I kept waiting. Sex and Lucia paid off because the actors were fantastic and fantastically guided. Our main actress poses well enough, but is not capable of pulling us through this. Emotional distance and cinematic introspection by reference takes a Kate Winslet, a Blanchett.

There are serious blind spots in the sets: the burlesque bar/revue with drooling men, is off in almost every aspect. The witch cookery was from a chemistry lab with dry ice. She was more magical when preparing food for Wayne.

So, no forward narrative, just environment, and the male gaze. But if you are going to go there, why not go there? Which basically is the sorting of what is from our era (the post feminism, the introspective retro) and what is from the past? I think the filmmaker made the wrong choices and took fewer chances that would have mattered.

Posted in 2024

Ted’s Evaluation — 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

IMDB