The Man Who Cried (2000) Reviews

• Grade: B-

  tideprince2005-01-15

  Christina Ricci sings more than she speaks in the movie, but she manages to hold your attention nevertheless for a pretty solid hour and a half in this well-acted and profound, but uneven period piece. Sally Potter, who also directed the similarly problematic "Orlando", clearly has the visual and thematic talent to be a much better respected director than she is - she just needs to learn how to tell a story. The first forty minutes of the film, which begins in the year 1927, are absolutely masterful. The sublime Claudia Lander-Duke plays young Fegele, an impoverished Russian-Jewish girl whose beloved father decides to journey to America in search of a better life. After that, Fegele and her family are set upon by unnamed bad guys (probably either Cossacks or Communists), and Fegele is separated from them. She ends up on an ocean liner bound for England, where her name is changed to Susan, she is adopted by an English family that doesn't understand her, and she is forced to begin the process of assimilation. Flash forward ten years or so (Potter is regrettably and consistently unspecific about such things). Fegele (now Suzie and now played by Christina Ricci, she of the large, expressive eyes) wants to be a showgirl so she can earn money to go to America and find her father. She auditions and is accepted by a group based out of Paris. Once in Paris, she rooms and becomes tight with fellow showgirl Lola (Cate Blanchett), a somewhat vapid and materialistic creature with no ambition save that of landing a rich man - which she manages to do in the form of opera singer and Mussolini supporter Dante Dominio (John Turturro, in one of his better performances). Around the same time, Suzie meets and falls in love with Cesare (Johnny Depp), the leader of a band of gypsies. Once all the dominoes are in place, Potter wastes no time in knocking them down. You can see trouble coming a mile away: Lola, Suzie's one confidant who is aware of her Jewish ancestry, begins falling under the emotional and political spell of anti-Semitic, gypsy-hating fascist Dante. Meanwhile, the Nazis have invaded Poland and, despite everyone's self-assured predictions that they'll stop there, the French border is neither geographically nor historically distant. Suddenly, it's a race against time for all involved, but especially for Suzie - will she stay behind with her gypsy king, or, given a choice, will she escape certain death? The problem with all of this is that it's all so familiar. Potter adds nothing to the old story. There are some wonderful messages in this film about multiculturalism, nationalism, and the sometimes subtle nature of fascism, but if you don't care about the story you're not going to be interested in listening to the messages. The gypsy subplot, for instance, seems tacked on, like it was an excuse to give Ricci a love interest and have him be played by Johnny Depp. The really interesting plot line here involves Lola and Dante, and I would pay ten dollars to see a movie that was just about them. Both Blanchett and Turturro create real, flesh-and-blood human beings, and it's in their scenes that Potter's writing really soars. Watching Dante sink deeper and deeper into a political philosophy fueled by his own insecurity while the irrepressibly optimistic Lola tries to turn a blind eye to it all is a fascinating and marvelous experience. Ricci gives a good performance too, although occasionally that Valley Girl tone she uses in most of the rest of her movies slips out a little too much here and there. Fortunately, Potter doesn't give the shy, quiet Suzie very much to say. Most of her acting is done with her eyes, and she's really quite good. Johnny Depp does what he can with Cesare, but there's only so much an actor can accomplish when playing a plot device. Art direction, music, and cinematography were all top-drawer. As is par for the course with Sally Potter's films, it looked good and had some interesting things to say. I just wish it had been more compelling.

• A character driven story with great acting, music and cinematography.

  joshuastephen42001-12-23

  My entire reason for bringing this film home was the cast: Christina Ricci, Cate Blanchett, John Turturro and Johnny Depp. Each of the actors are phenomenal and have talent in spades, and to see them all together in a film with such great characters was a delight. However, this is one of those movies where there is no fast-paced, witty dialog, no car chases and no gratuitous sex. It is about the characters. Therefore, many will find its plot slow and dull. This movie was not made for mass appeal. Many will find it to be beautiful and meaningful, while others will not sit through the first half hour. With that said, I will now say how much I loved this movie. It was visually stunning, superbly acted and has a score to match. While I have always enjoyed Christina Ricci and found her to be quite attractive, I have never seen her look as beautiful as she does in this film. Cate Blanchett is as wonderful as she always is, proving once more she is one of today's most versatile and convincing actors. Johnny Depp and John Turturro are also both excellent in their roles. Overall, I would have to recommend this to anyone who enjoys good character development/superb acting.

• Like a dream

  harry_tk_yung2005-02-02

  The Man Who Cried is a slightly strange movie, sensually driven rather than events driven. There is a story of a Jewish girl's (Christina Ricci) journey in exile. We see in the beginning the little girl sharing enchanting Yiddish music with her father, sung in his beautiful voice. The father then leaves the family to seek his fortune in America. The girl in turn finds herself a refugee in England, given the name "Suzie", grows up with some accomplishment in music and becomes a chorus girl with an opera group in Paris. As the threat of Nazism becomes imminent Suzie heads for America, finds her father in sickbed and, in fully circle, sings the Yiddish melody back to him. Johnny Depp's melancholy presence and Ricci's other-worldliness accompany the audience through a dreamlike journey, making them feel as if they are in a trance at times. Depp plays Cesar, Suzie's Gypsy lover. The scene where Suzie follows Cesar to his camp and gets introduced to his folks is very much detached from the rest of the movie, in a dream world where music is the universal language. And the movie is sustained throughout by sublime music presented sometime as part of the story, sometime as background, and often in a way that you can't tell which is which. "E lucevan le stelle" from "Tosca", for example, first appears faintly as background music, and later comes back as the performance of opera star Dante Dominio (John Turturro, but with a dubbed singing voice). The music is very much an integral part of the overall charm of the movie. Visually, the movie is also like a dream, the height of which is the scene showing Depp riding on his white horse towards the Gypsy camp, with two friends riding on either side of him, and Suzie following at a distance on her bike, all this in the middle of Paris with the Eiffel Tower in plain sight. The only other thing the remains to be said is about Cate Blanchett, the actress with a thousand faces. The gold digger Lola she plays here is just as earthy as Galadriel is ethereal in Lord of the Rings. What a blessing it is to movie lovers that we have Ms Blanchett around.

• images as poetry, music as dialog

  dandelion-12003-10-01

  I enjoyed this movie, much more than I thought I would reading the synopsis of the story. I was caught up by this meditation on human spirit. The cinematography created one stunning image after another, carried along by one of the most beautiful soundtracks that I have heard. Two couples, sharply contrasted; one couple told you everything about themselves, while the other revealed only what could not be hidden: Susie and Caesar were stoical, passive, watching, and waiting....as a catastrophic moment in history enveloped them. It seemed to me that the director purposely expected the viewer to participate in the story, using imagination and wonder to ponder the unanswered questions about human nature and need. The ending of the film was a bit too abrupt. I would have loved to have seen more development leading up to the resolution of Susie's journey. But it certainly didn't mar the film for me, rather it emphasized why 'The Man Who Cried' was so completely non-commercial and why it mystified and therefore angered the 'connect-the-dots' crowd. If you are in the mood for a beautiful, lyrical, non-linear poem-film, give this one a try.

• Terrific and moving, now and then, but it never coheres, and it only poses as sincerity

  secondtake2010-07-16

  The Man Who Cried (2000) On paper, this looks unstoppable: in the 1920s, a Russian Jewish family is torn by war and poverty into pieces, the father leaving his little girl behind as he seeks a better life in America. This is the story of the girl, who flees, with some luck, to England, and then as a young woman to Paris, seemingly in search of her father. But she is delayed there long enough to be involved in an acting troupe, falls in love with a gypsy horseman, watches Paris fall to the Nazis, and escapes to America, at last, to find her father. How in the world could this go wrong? There are even three truly stellar actors in lead roles: Cate Blanchett (as a Russian expatriate dancer in Paris), Johnny Depp (the Gypsy, of course), and John Turturro (an Italian opera singer, well done!). And the photography, by French cinematographer Sacha Vierny in her last film, and the production design, by Carlos Conte, who worked on Kite Runner and Motorcycle Diaries, among recent films, are terrific, almost self-sustaining. But somehow it is slow going stuff. It isn't lyrical, some voyage through disaster and beauty, and it even avoids sympathy for many of the characters, who naturally fall to one fate or another in this topsy turvy environment. Partly it's the script--there is little said, and very little said of interest, probing or fascinating or moving. And it's been said before, of course--the story, taken in its broadest sense, is that familiar terrible story that needs retelling, but with greater intensity and respect. Again, it looks good on paper. So, director Sally Potter is in charge here, and she wrote it, too. I really liked the surprise and invention of Orlando, which she directed, but that, too, was flawed, and it's probably her best film. The rest of her resume, that I've seen or heard about, is paltry stuff. So watch this knowing it has the chops, the goods, and the best of intentions, but it will only feel amazing in small parts, which never quite get rolling into a meaningful whole, including the calculated and inevitable tear-jerking end.