A young married couple creatively engages with their community, who's as lively as they are entertaining, fluid interactive inquisitive high spirits.
The film's set in a chill inner-city neighbourhood wherein which personality abounds, and characters work in alternative disciplines, as nothing passes by unnoticed.
Everything's intriguingly unorthodox inasmuch as the characters aren't career oriented, and are still living active productive lives, rich in constantly shifting locomotion.
The story's focused on the young married couple and their struggles to continuously cohabitate, both partners verbosely articulated, capable of aptly uplifting what have you.
It's a remarkable script overflowing with compelling detail and multiple swift nuanced characters, it's so quick and thoughtful it commands your complete attention, critically assailing if you should ever turn away.
The subject matter's refreshing and captures flourishing discourse in motion (book titles, staircases, loans, parking tickets), comments and observations emphatically resound, with random pertinent reflective ebullient life, interlocked through versatile direction.
The plot does steer into sleaze at times and I think the film would have been stronger without the affair, but it seems like Truffaut sought to stultify infidelity, I'm not sure if the results are Me Too.
I wonder what it would have been like if there had been no controversial drama, no traditional plot elements, just communal reverberations?
Can't a multifaceted collection of comical characters and situations just co-exist without something drastic, working and conversing and living without serious game changing invention?
The thoughts and ideas can diversify themselves without having to alter their terrain.
They keep flowing perspicaciously throughout.
But slowly take on a specified logo.
Domicile conjugal (Bed & Board) isn't a grad school seminar, loosely based on a fluctuating theme, but I'd argue it starts out that way, and may have been more impressive if left unrestrained.
Perhaps having multiple conflicting yet complimentary points judiciously interspersed throughout dialogue in flux can make a more meaningful impact, insofar as so much expression cultivates serendipity, which can generate romantic syntax?
If having a predominant point is oft presumed as a crucial essential, when so much life unwinds at random, perhaps manifold eclipsed ideas reflect something more realistic, that boldly suggests je ne sais quoi?
It seems like so much life's a case study where you have to find the principal cause.
This is very important when developing vaccines.
But not as integral to the arts or cinema.
Domicile conjugal's still a masterpiece of urban intensity which brings an irresistible community to life.
Do filmmakers ever go one step further?
Slacker!
Slacker immediately comes to mind!
*Perhaps when developing vaccines you have to search for contemporaneous elements? I don't know much about vaccine development.
No comments:
Post a Comment