•
Rating: A film that has been met with loud disapprovals for about a year; in May 2015, it was booed at the Cannes Film Festival. Obviously, foreign critics devastated it: on Metacritic, the average score is nothing short of severe, 20 out of 100. Now that it has arrived in Italy, some publications have followed the tide, almost sadistically bashing poor Gus.
But in the end, how is this film? Is it really that horrible? No, I don’t think so. Certainly, if you look at it with a cold and analytical eye, the misadventure of the protagonist Arthur (Matthew McConaughey) is not exactly realistic. But to adopt the story in this way means not understanding the general theme of the film and not resonating with it. The central issue is not so much survival in the forest, but rather the search for a reason worth living. The answer lies precisely in Arthur’s choice, who instead of continuing to swallow pills, strives to help Takumi (Ken Watanabe). The concept of living for others takes on a magical connotation in the final part, which I won’t spoil, that gives an unexpected twist to the story, but it might not appeal to everyone.
The Sea of Trees for long stretches retains the cleanliness of Van Sant’s typical staging. However, it doesn’t always succeed in this intent; the more dynamic sequences in the forest lose a lot in terms of visual beauty and formal composure, but it was frankly impossible to do otherwise. In its non-adventurous phases, the film is noted for its clarity and essentiality: few settings, few characters, a pronounced staticity. Despite this essential structure, the flashback parts effectively sketch out a very complicated relationship between the couple. In one of them, we see Arthur return home and find his wife Joan (Naomi Watts) asleep on the couch. The man takes care of her, but when the woman wakes up shortly thereafter, yet another fierce argument quickly ensues. The contradictions and opposing forces of the love/hate relationship are told with considerable effectiveness, without ever descending into overly prolonged and exacerbated dramatic scenes.
The writing, excellent in various passages, is responsible for this effectiveness, more so than the direction or acting. There is an ability to narrate without descending into captions: information is handed to the viewer in a finely calibrated way. There is no rush to explain Arthur’s past in detail; the facts of his life naturally emerge throughout the narrative. There is no fear that the ultimate message won’t be understood, and indeed, there is no moment when it is clearly proclaimed.
However, and this is probably the greatest limitation of the film, Chris Sparling’s screenplay often juxtaposes interesting and convincing ideas with particularly unfortunate, cloying, and banal passages: when Arthur repeats countless times “I’m sorry,” or when his wife makes him promise that he will die in a beautiful place and he responds “Okay.” From a certain point, the freshness with which the marital context is presented gives way to a cloying insistence and redundancy that is hard to endure. It is this lack of consistency in the writer's inspiration that strongly limits the quality of the work. Sure, not even Van Sant is noted for grand ideas and the actors offer just a couple of high moments among many others, instead acting on autopilot. Not a great film, but not the total disaster one might have expected either.
5.5/10
Loading comments slowly
