There are plenty of filmmakers who operate in spaces wry, offbeat, surreal, and whimsical, in comedy and otherwise, but I'm unsure if any have routinely done so with the same wild aplomb as Quentin Dupieux. Especially given his common penchant for discarding any in-universe sense of concrete reality, or storytelling boundaries or convention, there's really no predicting just where the man will go with his pictures, and to what extremes. So what does it mean for the Frenchman to subvert our expectations? Even with the central conceit being a fly the size of a small dog, the narrative in 'Mandibles' reflects the strangest thing of all that Dupieux could do: be straightforward. The humor here is very, very dry - Wes Anderson dry, if you will - and low-key as somewhat dim-witted friends Manu and Jean-Gab make a discovery, get sidetracked from a task, and barely skirt by with the situations they stumble into. In accordance with the company this feature keeps we wait for a corkscrew turn in the story, or for something outrageous and extraordinary, but there are none to be found herein. Substitute some fur-covered animal for the fly and no one would bat an eye; even the characters and dialogue feel ordinary. In a closet full of Met Gala gowns and tie-dye shirts, this flick is the plain white tee of Dupieux's oeuvre.
There's nothing specifically wrong with that. I actually applaud the daring to try something so different from the standards he has otherwise established for himself with 'Rubber,' 'Réalité,' 'Deerskin,' 'Smoking causes coughing,' and so on, no matter the end result. At the same time, as it is the tack adopted here is surely a divisive one for audiences, and given our assumptions of Dupieux, one can't help but be surprised, and possibly even a smidgen disappointed. Just as importantly, while it might seem a small thing: discuss such subjective factors as one might, more objectively concerning - an abject flaw in my opinion - is that supporting character Agnès, as written, is terribly ableist. There is no connection between her function in the plot and her defining trait, a condition, that we as viewers are intended to (a) recognize as some manner of mental disability, or placement on the autism spectrum, and (b) find inherently funny. Among those films of Dupieux's that I've seen to date this is the first time I've found something earnestly problematic and offensive. I don't know what he was thinking, but where Agnès is concerned the man plainly made a bad mistake, and the doing here definitely takes away from what favor I'm otherwise ready to bestow.
Granted, in other ways the movie fits right in with his other credits. Dupieux again wears multiple hats as writer, director, cinematographer, and editor; we discern similar film-making style in all these capacities, and even with the clear-cut nature of the script, tinges of similar storytelling. Others behind the scenes turned in fine work, the fly looks great, and the actors give solid performances. Despite the muted tenor and divergence from his custom, apart from that unnecessary, ill-considered facet of how Agnès is written, 'Mandibles' actually is a good time and provides gentle amusement - it's not Wonderfully Bizarre, but it still provides slivers of the desired oddball flavors, and it is still fun. Speak well of the flick as we are wont to do, however, I remain kind of nonplussed, and part of me wonders if I'm not being too lenient in my assessment. I do not abjectly take issue with any filmmaker going a bit off their beaten path, and in fact I salute it, but the outcome of a new trajectory still needs to be worthy in and of itself. Exactly how much parity is there between this title and the likes of 'Au poste!?' Exactly how entertaining is it? That's something we can only judge for ourselves from one person to the next. In my book 'Mandibles' is worth checking out, with the caveat that it isn't perfect and it's not as vibrant and satisfying as Dupieux at his most fanciful and creative.
There's nothing specifically wrong with that. I actually applaud the daring to try something so different from the standards he has otherwise established for himself with 'Rubber,' 'Réalité,' 'Deerskin,' 'Smoking causes coughing,' and so on, no matter the end result. At the same time, as it is the tack adopted here is surely a divisive one for audiences, and given our assumptions of Dupieux, one can't help but be surprised, and possibly even a smidgen disappointed. Just as importantly, while it might seem a small thing: discuss such subjective factors as one might, more objectively concerning - an abject flaw in my opinion - is that supporting character Agnès, as written, is terribly ableist. There is no connection between her function in the plot and her defining trait, a condition, that we as viewers are intended to (a) recognize as some manner of mental disability, or placement on the autism spectrum, and (b) find inherently funny. Among those films of Dupieux's that I've seen to date this is the first time I've found something earnestly problematic and offensive. I don't know what he was thinking, but where Agnès is concerned the man plainly made a bad mistake, and the doing here definitely takes away from what favor I'm otherwise ready to bestow.
Granted, in other ways the movie fits right in with his other credits. Dupieux again wears multiple hats as writer, director, cinematographer, and editor; we discern similar film-making style in all these capacities, and even with the clear-cut nature of the script, tinges of similar storytelling. Others behind the scenes turned in fine work, the fly looks great, and the actors give solid performances. Despite the muted tenor and divergence from his custom, apart from that unnecessary, ill-considered facet of how Agnès is written, 'Mandibles' actually is a good time and provides gentle amusement - it's not Wonderfully Bizarre, but it still provides slivers of the desired oddball flavors, and it is still fun. Speak well of the flick as we are wont to do, however, I remain kind of nonplussed, and part of me wonders if I'm not being too lenient in my assessment. I do not abjectly take issue with any filmmaker going a bit off their beaten path, and in fact I salute it, but the outcome of a new trajectory still needs to be worthy in and of itself. Exactly how much parity is there between this title and the likes of 'Au poste!?' Exactly how entertaining is it? That's something we can only judge for ourselves from one person to the next. In my book 'Mandibles' is worth checking out, with the caveat that it isn't perfect and it's not as vibrant and satisfying as Dupieux at his most fanciful and creative.