amores perros
let me begin with a preface. there are a couple filmmakers who have a definitive style and stick to it strongly. it’s not that they can’t go beyond their mold, but they choose to define themselves by certain choices. Alejandro gonzalez inarritu and m. night shyamalan are the two i think of. shyamalan creates a story methodically and effortlessly that draws the viewer in and then shocks them with a strong, unexpected turn that leaves them reeling. inarritu builds three distinct stories, connects them with a tragic act (always involving a vehicle), and then deepens the characters while thriving on that connection.
both use details specifically and repeatedly to emphasize their meaning, but inarritu manipulates time to develop the connections. both directors create visually beautiful works of cinematic art and i enjoy both (even if i joke about shyamalan).
the difference in the two emerges as they continue their careers. inarritu now has three notable films, all of which are reviewed here, and shyamalan has five. shyamalan seems to have become a slave to his distinctive twist endings. they are becoming less and less interesting. in fact, in the case of signs, it was so preposterous it made me laugh out loud. with respect i have yet to see lady in the water and he writes his own films.
inarritu on the other hand has never been better (see babel). his films are intense, thought-provoking, and absolutely genius. even if you factor out his apparent distaste for motor vehicles his directing is the stuff of legend.
Now let’s get on with it. this film was amazing. visually it was stunning and the story is incredibly intense. inarritu weaves a tale of three people completely different and yet connected by a tragic accident. one, a punk kid in love with his abusive brother’s wife, finds himself in the seedy business of dog fighting. another, a supermodel in love with a married man, is hit by the first while driving with her beloved dog. and the third, a dirty street walker surrounded by canines, finds a Rottweiler who has been shot and nurses him back to health.
the stories are developed beautifully. each character has many levels that are described to the smallest detail with the skill very few directors have ever been able to manage. the storylines themselves are intertwined masterfully as the film proceeds. inarritu uses time shifts to draw the viewer in and without the cliche title screens displaying how much earlier or later the following sequences are. as in his other films, the complete chronology of the film is only discovered very near the end. the three stories are so detailed and intense they are only a few steps beyond films of their own.
the repetition of visual elements (a phone or a poster) is incredible. some of the shots were so eye-catching they stick with me a day later. one such example is the supermodel leaving the hallway, we see her leaving to the left of the screen and to the right in the mirror simultaneously, creating a gorgeous symmetry on screen.
much like 21 grams and babel after it, this film exposes the delicacy and faults of humanity with stunning brilliance. the acting is universally great and perpetuates the intensity developed by the story and directing.
*****