Blue Is The Warmest Color (Jo *1/2)

This year's controversial (and do we mean controversial) Palm D'Or winner at the Cannes Film Festival has weaseled its way into American cinemas, despite the hard NC-17 rating, and despite it's 3-hour run time. The film, an allegory for some sort of sexual awakening or perhaps blossoming adulthood, is flawed, and there lies the very core problem of this film.

Let's begin by being quite clear: as one who is an avid film fan and has seen his fare share of 'queer cinema,' this film is not a member of that company. Queer cinema identifies itself as being made by, starring, even exploring what it means to be gay in the world. Perhaps this film explores, but never does it settle on anything genuine. Here is a film made by, starring, written and directed by heterosexuals. Plain and simple.

We see young Adele (newcomer Adèle Exarchopoulos, an actress whose nose runs so easily that she definitely needs an abundance of Kleenex with her at all times), a high schooler who dates a few guys, whatever. She is quiet, reserved, yet beautiful. She dates a guy, though it does nothing for her. She eats her feelings away yet gains no weight (aside from those adorable chubby cheeks).

And just as her English class begins discussing 'love at first sight' and 'predestination,' she meets Emma, a blue-haired wild girl, a meeting so fated that it feels almost like the two read the script and knew all about 'love at first sight' before even filming the scene. She feels something - a passion inside of her. We know what happens from here: they eventually fall in love, they begin dating, and the love falls apart in the end. It always does.

The process by which this happens is where the film draws much of my criticism. After moving in together, Adele becomes bored with the relationship, and like any level-headed lesbian in cinema does, she strikes up an affair with a man. Duh. This, of course, drives a spike through their relationship, and the two are parted forever. What is it with mainstream cinema that says lesbianism isn't valid? That a woman ALWAYS needs a man in order to feel fulfilled (both figuratively and literally, in this scenario). How offensive is that, knowing that films are still made (even in liberal France) that insist upon heteronormality, even in a film so proud to be called 'a revolution.'

And of course, with a lesbian movie, we are bound to see some sex scenes. Of course, these are the controversial and oftentimes graphic moments in the film that clearly are boosting the box office numbers. In a film so beautifully photographed and lit, the fact that all lesbian sex scenes are shot in wide angles and with the brightest studio lights is problematic to say the least. Hearing stories that the 10-minute scene took over 10 days to shoot (by the director's insistence) is so disturbing, and why this film draws praise for it's 'realism' is beyond me. These 'intimate' moments are the film's downfall: hokey, unrealistic, and jarring. This director could surely hit it big in the adult entertainment industry.

Perhaps this director could have taken the millions budgeted for this movie and made something of substance, instead of a 3-hour porn fest. Don't get me wrong, I am not in any way offended by nudity, or gratuity in film. Quite the contrary. What troubles me is the lack of regard given to the LGBT community by all involved with this film. What a sheer and utter waste of film, of time, of man power, of my $10.50, and my Saturday afternoon...

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Exarchopoulos), Best Supporting Actress (Léa Seydoux))