OK, I'm done watching Tim Sutton movies.
It's not that Sutton isn't talented, but since his visually stunning debut "Pavillion", his creative vision keeps battering the same one wall, like a stymied writer-blocked film student.
Especially after "Dark Night", Sutton drew a lot of comparisons to Gus Van Sant, whose "Elephant" was similarly structured and themed. Sure, "Dark Night" meandered, as all of Sutton's films do, but it did it in such a curiously intriguing way, showing you characters and situations that when they weren't odd or slightly askew in a way you had to work to articulate, the film was at bare minimum striking to look at. On a macro level, it had a lot to say.
"Funny Face" has a premise that seems intriguing, but it's hung on a cast of the dullest characters Sutton has yet created. They aren't exactly unlikable, and for brief periods the boy-girl protag's relationship and shared grief over lives lost/ abandoned does work.
But then it's as if Sutton remembered he's also got a plot to run. This constant down and up shifting in the pacing only emphasizes Funny Face's threadbare conceits --- it's attempts to draw parallels between the protagonist and antagonist, and the few sledgehammer blows of symbolism (the pink neon sign was laughable) make it self-conscious and embarrassing. The limited character palettes guarantee all the performances come across as either stilted or overplayed (especially by the villain).
If Sutton's previous films did nothing else, they carried a bit of subtlety and grace. Funny Face's repetitive nature and lack of any substantial dialogue, combined with the basic ordinariness or ugliness of it's surroundings and leaden juxtaposition add up to nothing, at least nothing worth sitting still for at 93 minutes.
It's not that Sutton isn't talented, but since his visually stunning debut "Pavillion", his creative vision keeps battering the same one wall, like a stymied writer-blocked film student.
Especially after "Dark Night", Sutton drew a lot of comparisons to Gus Van Sant, whose "Elephant" was similarly structured and themed. Sure, "Dark Night" meandered, as all of Sutton's films do, but it did it in such a curiously intriguing way, showing you characters and situations that when they weren't odd or slightly askew in a way you had to work to articulate, the film was at bare minimum striking to look at. On a macro level, it had a lot to say.
"Funny Face" has a premise that seems intriguing, but it's hung on a cast of the dullest characters Sutton has yet created. They aren't exactly unlikable, and for brief periods the boy-girl protag's relationship and shared grief over lives lost/ abandoned does work.
But then it's as if Sutton remembered he's also got a plot to run. This constant down and up shifting in the pacing only emphasizes Funny Face's threadbare conceits --- it's attempts to draw parallels between the protagonist and antagonist, and the few sledgehammer blows of symbolism (the pink neon sign was laughable) make it self-conscious and embarrassing. The limited character palettes guarantee all the performances come across as either stilted or overplayed (especially by the villain).
If Sutton's previous films did nothing else, they carried a bit of subtlety and grace. Funny Face's repetitive nature and lack of any substantial dialogue, combined with the basic ordinariness or ugliness of it's surroundings and leaden juxtaposition add up to nothing, at least nothing worth sitting still for at 93 minutes.