Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 410102" data-attributes="member: 8">CUL-DE-SAC (1966)[ATTACH=full]54451[/ATTACH]When I think of Polanski classics such as Repulsion and Rosemary&#039;s Baby then I get the idea that it looked the way it was meant to be, and the casting of Catherine Deneuve and Mia Farrow makes perfect sense.Cul-De-Sac has much more of a one hit wonder feel to it, and I mean that it&#039;s more difficult to imagine that someone wanted to do it such-and-so way with this-and-that actors.It&#039;s almost as if they were already there, not connected, a sightseeing chance meeting, and Polanski simply had the foresight to see the pieces of the puzzle. And then, somehow, convinced them to go along with it.There are moments of traditional comedy sketch but it gets a bit muffled by the tone and setting of the story. It looks like the focus is on characters being funny and eccentric rather than situational comedy. There&#039;s never a build-up to anything, all the great stuff happens out of the blue. Well, seemingly.For such an oddball film (but not too oddball by 1960s standards) I find it surprisingly quotable.In the second part of the film the George/Teresa/Richard trio is visited by friends of George, and since they don&#039;t know how to explain the presence of Richard he acts like the gardener who is sort of/sort of not the butler.It&#039;s really funny to see how Teresa behaves like she&#039;s having the upper hand even though that&#039;s not the case at all.I always love bad kids in movies, Cul-De-Sac has Horace, his mother&#039;s &quot;little treasure&quot;, who seems ripe for the Willy Wonka treatment.The cosey and isolated location also gives the film a strong holiday vibe and it&#039;s just one of several reasons that makes this film very rewatchable.Jacqueline Bisset is in it too, apparently, but she&#039;s hiding behind big dark glasses. How very &quot;Jackie&quot; of her.Françoise Dorléac as the laissez-faire young wife of eccentric Donald Pleasance (with somewhat artistic ambitions) makes me think of women like Anita Pallenberg and especially Amanda Lear who was living with Salvador Dali at that time. But then again, it was the 1960s...and perhaps this film is a quintessential example of it. Starring Lionel Stander! It still doesn&#039;t make much sense but if this is the result then I&#039;m not complaining.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 410102, member: 8"] CUL-DE-SAC (1966) [ATTACH type="full"]54451[/ATTACH] When I think of Polanski classics such as Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby then I get the idea that it looked the way it was meant to be, and the casting of Catherine Deneuve and Mia Farrow makes perfect sense. Cul-De-Sac has much more of a one hit wonder feel to it, and I mean that it's more difficult to imagine that someone wanted to do it such-and-so way with this-and-that actors. It's almost as if they were already [I]there[/I], not connected, a sightseeing chance meeting, and Polanski simply had the foresight to see the pieces of the puzzle. And then, somehow, convinced them to go along with it. There are moments of traditional comedy sketch but it gets a bit muffled by the tone and setting of the story. It looks like the focus is on characters being funny and eccentric rather than situational comedy. There's never a build-up to anything, all the great stuff happens out of the blue. Well, seemingly. For such an oddball film (but not too oddball by 1960s standards) I find it surprisingly quotable. In the second part of the film the George/Teresa/Richard trio is visited by friends of George, and since they don't know how to explain the presence of Richard he acts like the gardener who is sort of/sort of not the butler. It's really funny to see how Teresa behaves like she's having the upper hand even though that's not the case at all. I always love bad kids in movies, Cul-De-Sac has Horace, his mother's "little treasure", who seems ripe for the Willy Wonka treatment. The cosey and isolated location also gives the film a strong holiday vibe and it's just one of several reasons that makes this film very rewatchable. Jacqueline Bisset is in it too, apparently, but she's hiding behind big dark glasses. How very "Jackie" of her. Françoise Dorléac as the laissez-faire young wife of eccentric Donald Pleasance (with somewhat artistic ambitions) makes me think of women like Anita Pallenberg and especially Amanda Lear who was living with Salvador Dali at that time. But then again, it was the 1960s...and perhaps this film is a quintessential example of it. Starring Lionel Stander! It still doesn't make much sense but if [I]this [/I] is the result then I'm not complaining. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =