Art film weirdness is my forte. I’ll tell you “Darling” is right up my ally!
Lauren Ashley Carter, Sean Young, Brian Morvant
Remember the end of Psycho when Norman was talking to himself as the camera slowly panned in on his staring face. This whole film is like that. I enjoyed it immensely.
Picture Stanley Kubrick meets Roman Polanski and you have this film. Normally I prefer films with character development. I can understand the actions of the protagonist as well as the consequences of her/his actions. I did enjoy this film but only for the look of it. This film is stylish horror with little to no dialog. I get into art-for-art’s-sake type of movies. People like my wife do not. I warn the traditional movie fans out there about this one: it’s an experiment in banal and simple black and white images. The effects are so minimal they are barely worth mentioning. Basically, Darling is a movie that shows a woman go insane with no character development. That was interesting to me but it won’t be to everyone.
Lauren Ashley Carter owns the screen with her eyes. Lately so many actors have come on the scene with dark and lovely eyes like hers. The return of the “Winona Ryderesque” brunette has come through a lot of theaters lately. How fitting that Sean Young is in the film as well. She defined the type in the 80’s.
My daughters both make Youtube videos with their “Littlest Pet Shop” figures. There are entire online communities where people share these. This film is like an artsy form of that except the director is being compared to Roman Polanski and not many LPS owners will ever attain that.
There is a skeleton of a plot here that is thinly developed. A young woman is hired by an older woman to house-sit in a creepy aging house. She discovers someone was once killed in the house and becomes obsessed with a locked room. After finding an upside-down cross on a necklace, she begins changing. She murders a man she lures back from a bar and saws off all his limbs. From that point it is extremely hard to figure out and frankly, I gave up trying. I get the feeling the director doesn’t intend for viewers to figure it out. You might call this the art of being indecipherable. Mulholland Drive anyone?
He’s working with the basic stuff that’s around. The story is awful, though I wanted it to be good. It wouldn’t hurt this film to tell us more as opposed to showing only curt and neat images with little or no dialog. This film is a trip. It takes you somewhere but it’s the kind of trip where you get out to look around and realize you never left the driveway. I felt a little cheated when the credit rolled. What the hell did I just see? At the same time, I wanted to discuss it, write about it. I went riht out and read 3 reviews. I don’t know, there may be something great in this film I’m missing.
Give it a try, the beatnik hippie in me is still snapping his fingers but I know this is definitely not everybody’s cup of tea.