The people who dislike this film because it doesn't fit into popular convention or wasn't a bock office success are missing the point. At best it's an elitist point of view. Here's why:
This film is about control. It's about people who are the gatekeepers of things (wealth, a lifestyle, accolade, whatever.) and the lengths those people will go to to keep it.
Mary is one example, she thinks she's the odd, charming, center-of-attention. In fact, she is, until the strange gigolo, Chris, comes into her life and is even stranger and more narcissistic than she is. At first she hates him because he offends her, possibly poses a threat to her world view.
Mary's father is another example, he's clearly a control-freak reveling in the hold he has over his daughter, wife, and everyone else around him.
The third example is the film itself. It's genre-mashing and disjointed, juxtaposing many elements that seem to conflict from the presence of two black playboys in South France to the contemporary music and the choice of black & white. The movie deliberately is clearly and deliberately making a mockery of cinema standards.
He went to great lengths to cast some of the finest acting talent, execute beautiful cinematography, and evoke a certain feel just to walk in an unapologetically represent a point of view that isn't often referenced on screen.
Film critics love to cite films that speak to their own cultural references, their own aspirations for beauty and prestige, or their own tastes or history. But that's only a perspective, Prince not only challenges that perspective but defies it by being himself -- comedic, crass, sexual, even borderline offensive in his role.
Critics call UNDER THE CHERRY MOON awful, amateurish, a 'disaster' and all sorts of other names. But I often wonder if they've ever considered that maybe that was the whole point -- part of Prince's artistic point of view?
One could say as much about his entire career: he is a control freak, he plays all the instruments on all his albums, he writes songs that don't conform to popular convention, he isn't always at the top of the charts as a result - but in spite of all these this he remains a success. He thrives in the opposite of conformity and his three movies are perfect examples of that. This one, in my opinion, being the most "Prince".
Before he made this movie and after, he couldn't care less what you thought about it. Some might call that arrogant. I see it as a very distinct confidence in being able to do exactly what you want -- not expecting everyone to love it but equally not caring either way.
In the placing of two black-American hustlers in South France and telling a love story while shooting a contemporary film in the style of the early 20s, this film is deliberately challenging a lot of social norms.
The only real shame here is how dismissive the entire industry has been to a film that was clearly a carefully crafted message of disdain for their very existence. Razzie? This movie deserves an Academy Award.
This film is about control. It's about people who are the gatekeepers of things (wealth, a lifestyle, accolade, whatever.) and the lengths those people will go to to keep it.
Mary is one example, she thinks she's the odd, charming, center-of-attention. In fact, she is, until the strange gigolo, Chris, comes into her life and is even stranger and more narcissistic than she is. At first she hates him because he offends her, possibly poses a threat to her world view.
Mary's father is another example, he's clearly a control-freak reveling in the hold he has over his daughter, wife, and everyone else around him.
The third example is the film itself. It's genre-mashing and disjointed, juxtaposing many elements that seem to conflict from the presence of two black playboys in South France to the contemporary music and the choice of black & white. The movie deliberately is clearly and deliberately making a mockery of cinema standards.
He went to great lengths to cast some of the finest acting talent, execute beautiful cinematography, and evoke a certain feel just to walk in an unapologetically represent a point of view that isn't often referenced on screen.
Film critics love to cite films that speak to their own cultural references, their own aspirations for beauty and prestige, or their own tastes or history. But that's only a perspective, Prince not only challenges that perspective but defies it by being himself -- comedic, crass, sexual, even borderline offensive in his role.
Critics call UNDER THE CHERRY MOON awful, amateurish, a 'disaster' and all sorts of other names. But I often wonder if they've ever considered that maybe that was the whole point -- part of Prince's artistic point of view?
One could say as much about his entire career: he is a control freak, he plays all the instruments on all his albums, he writes songs that don't conform to popular convention, he isn't always at the top of the charts as a result - but in spite of all these this he remains a success. He thrives in the opposite of conformity and his three movies are perfect examples of that. This one, in my opinion, being the most "Prince".
Before he made this movie and after, he couldn't care less what you thought about it. Some might call that arrogant. I see it as a very distinct confidence in being able to do exactly what you want -- not expecting everyone to love it but equally not caring either way.
In the placing of two black-American hustlers in South France and telling a love story while shooting a contemporary film in the style of the early 20s, this film is deliberately challenging a lot of social norms.
The only real shame here is how dismissive the entire industry has been to a film that was clearly a carefully crafted message of disdain for their very existence. Razzie? This movie deserves an Academy Award.