billy elliot: ARGH!!!!

Billy Elliot: movie starring the kid from jumper

...i liked him (imdb tells me he'll be playing st. john in a new version of jane eyre...okay, a., what's this version of jane eyre, and b., um, i would need to see this to believe it--not that i don't think he can do it, just that i'd like to see it)--i liked him and his brother and father and both the kids who have crushes on him, and i feel like the plot was handled delicately, and--

ARRRRGH!!! i don't even know what it is; just ARRRRGH! why did this movie give me such a pain? is it because i've turned my face against goodness and decency in movies? i want expostulation, rapidfire verbiage, and easily explicable plotlines with pre-recognizable emotional arcs?

probably.

i mean, as far as i could tell, it totally had a soul--and not just a soul within parameters, as some of these movies that i object so violently to do (the virgin suicides...just as an example). it had a respect for billy's process of self-expression; it showed us the way that he danced as himself, if you see what i'm getting at. i really liked that. not that i'm, like, the thoth of soul-in-movies-judging, no matter how much i like to pretend otherwise. i find myself humbled before billy elliot; i didn't like it, but i want to have. i'm capable of rejecting so many things so cruelly because of imagined slights or half-intentions, things not well thought out, too generic, or what have you. but none of these excuses for dislike apply in this case. hell, billy elliot even has marc bolan.

well, here we go--and prepare to be impressed with my audience paranoia manifesting itself yet again: i think maybe billy elliot highlights the fact (in my eyes, anyway) that cinematography itself can be a trap. i wonder if i can get away with saying that a visual, no matter how lovingly crafted, beautifully created, and germane to the point, can't tell a story.

i'm more than willing to concede that this claim may not be solid. but go with me for the moment. a visual, in its usual state, can capture an essence--and in the case of billy elliot, sometimes, the visual goes beyond the essential to, for lack of a better-established term, a sort of wild nights self-identification* (which, i'd argue, a moment captured in any medium can do--singing, pain, whatevs). this is of an awesomeness: not just the filmmaker's skill with visual representation, but his characterization of billy, are impressively bodied out by such moments.

but it's not storytelling.

yeah. arrgh, right? great characterization and beautiful depiction of states of uber-being are not storytelling, apparently. thanks, brain. i reeeally appreciate your opinions on this.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that without storytelling, with only atmosphere, i don't feel like the film survives. but it's just my opinion, and i rarely know what i'm talking about. i think it should be seen because of the things it has going for it being really great...

it's just that in the absence of an arc, even a strong characterization boils down to a bunch of beautiful and painful moments--extremely painful, because pointless. now, is this a reflection of the experience of life itself? possibly, but i don't think so. i've set my face against dub-cee williams** in this respect--i do think that every moment builds from a previous moment, and that that's why words in the end are a reflection of reality, rather than an imposition on reality (though they might not be the only reflection, and may to some extent be something of an imposition). more importantly, i don't think billy elliot provides an effective counter-argument to the above-stated. maybe nothing could, for me, except, like, something really bad, such as catalina caper. billy elliot doesn't touch me, except to hurt me. the hurt doesn't bring identification, but alienation. and i would argue (again, possibly untenably) that artistic stuff does carry the burden of hurting its audience in order to make said audience identify.

okay, i'm way out there now, and, if asked, would probably not be able to bring the argument back to anything specific to billy elliot, so should probably stop.


*jouissance? i don't think so...but i also may never have understood the term properly.
**william carlos williams' me-appointed '90's emcee name.