Marseille Reviews

  • Rubia Super Reviewer
    Aug 06, 2012

    The camera in Marseille seems to be a mere spectator. Unaware of it is portraying, it unveils Sophie only when she allows to be observed. Unable to invade her privacy, it can only, like we, form a sketch of the young photographer, without never glimpse her interior. Schanelec says she wanted to show the mental state of Sophie, herr reactions to what happens to her, the consequences, and not things that she could leave to our imagination; however, these gaps, these fleeting spaces are what form the whole picture and are the most interesting about it. As Sophie takes pictures of Marseille to see it and then understand it, we join the "snapshots" of her stay in Marseille and of her life in Berlin in order to form the complete picture, without knowing that it will never be completed. The transition from Marseille to Berlin is quite interesting, since it occurs without any prior notice. The only sign is the change of the language, or, for those who have watched Angela Schanelec's previous films, the presence of the actress Sophie Aigner, protagonist of Place in the City and one of the characters of "Passin Summer" (the little boy Louis Schanelec is also present in all the three films). Another interesting point in Marseille is the presentation of Ivan and Hanna and their jobs: the long minutes he photographs workers of a factory and when we follow the exhaustive reharsal of Strindberg's The Dance of Death where Hanna plays the maid Jenny, initially seem to be unconnected parts that not belong to the film we are watching. Sophie's relationship with the couple is also another unclear point. Although the synopsis presented by Peripher Filmverleih says that Hanna is her best friend and that Sophie nurtures an undeclared love for Ivan, their relationship is much closer to a relationship of sisters and the supposed love was something I never considered. Reading about the movie, I came to a review where the author raises the possibility of a parallel between Marseille and Chekhov's "The Seagull "that, in fact, appears in Schanelec's next film: "We think of Chekhov, of course, not only because the child is called Anton (Anton Chekhov), but also because of this sly, mild, severe, deep and bright tone - all at the same time. Also, Chekhov is mentioned. Anton talks about her mother, that said in a play: 'I am a seagull'. "

    The camera in Marseille seems to be a mere spectator. Unaware of it is portraying, it unveils Sophie only when she allows to be observed. Unable to invade her privacy, it can only, like we, form a sketch of the young photographer, without never glimpse her interior. Schanelec says she wanted to show the mental state of Sophie, herr reactions to what happens to her, the consequences, and not things that she could leave to our imagination; however, these gaps, these fleeting spaces are what form the whole picture and are the most interesting about it. As Sophie takes pictures of Marseille to see it and then understand it, we join the "snapshots" of her stay in Marseille and of her life in Berlin in order to form the complete picture, without knowing that it will never be completed. The transition from Marseille to Berlin is quite interesting, since it occurs without any prior notice. The only sign is the change of the language, or, for those who have watched Angela Schanelec's previous films, the presence of the actress Sophie Aigner, protagonist of Place in the City and one of the characters of "Passin Summer" (the little boy Louis Schanelec is also present in all the three films). Another interesting point in Marseille is the presentation of Ivan and Hanna and their jobs: the long minutes he photographs workers of a factory and when we follow the exhaustive reharsal of Strindberg's The Dance of Death where Hanna plays the maid Jenny, initially seem to be unconnected parts that not belong to the film we are watching. Sophie's relationship with the couple is also another unclear point. Although the synopsis presented by Peripher Filmverleih says that Hanna is her best friend and that Sophie nurtures an undeclared love for Ivan, their relationship is much closer to a relationship of sisters and the supposed love was something I never considered. Reading about the movie, I came to a review where the author raises the possibility of a parallel between Marseille and Chekhov's "The Seagull "that, in fact, appears in Schanelec's next film: "We think of Chekhov, of course, not only because the child is called Anton (Anton Chekhov), but also because of this sly, mild, severe, deep and bright tone - all at the same time. Also, Chekhov is mentioned. Anton talks about her mother, that said in a play: 'I am a seagull'. "

  • May 11, 2010

    Its a classic art house movie which may seem boring but actually isn't, even though one has no idea what is happening!!

    Its a classic art house movie which may seem boring but actually isn't, even though one has no idea what is happening!!

  • Apr 28, 2008

    made me asleep at least 10 times during this movie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    made me asleep at least 10 times during this movie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Apr 27, 2008

    disappointed, people sitting around me were leaving, snoring, I tried to u/stand more & stayed to last minuite...eventually, find that Sophie do a good take in the station at the end.

    disappointed, people sitting around me were leaving, snoring, I tried to u/stand more & stayed to last minuite...eventually, find that Sophie do a good take in the station at the end.

  • Apr 27, 2008

    It's difficult to appreciate sth I couldn't understand. Not that I didn't try - I managed to stay awake while the man sitting next to me was snoring.

    It's difficult to appreciate sth I couldn't understand. Not that I didn't try - I managed to stay awake while the man sitting next to me was snoring.

  • Mar 27, 2008

    A little disappointed. I saw that the film tried to distinguish Marseille (almost Heaven-like, for time-off, relaxing, with very few dialogue) from Berlin (back to earth, too many troubles everyday & people keep talking & arguing). But somehow, I feel the 2nd half almost like out of control, and the story seems disconnected, totally irrelevant to the 1st half. Expressions are way too subtle, almost hard to understand for the 2nd part as well.

    A little disappointed. I saw that the film tried to distinguish Marseille (almost Heaven-like, for time-off, relaxing, with very few dialogue) from Berlin (back to earth, too many troubles everyday & people keep talking & arguing). But somehow, I feel the 2nd half almost like out of control, and the story seems disconnected, totally irrelevant to the 1st half. Expressions are way too subtle, almost hard to understand for the 2nd part as well.