 |
| Image source: IMDB |
Velvet Buzzsaw tells the story of multiple characters, namely of renowned art critic Morf (Jake Gyllenhaal), who just so happens to be at the gallery of rocker turned curator Rhodora (Renne Russo). Morf is both respected and intimidating, with his insights treated as the final word in the success of one's art. Just as Morf is in the midst of exploring Rhodora's gallery, Rhodora's assistant (Zawe Ashton) discovers what seems to be a goldmine when she finds a collection of hidden artworks in her recently deceased neighbor's apartment. Despite the posthumous warning from the artist himself, Rhodora instead sees this as pieces of art worthy for her gallery. Just as the artworks gained attention, deaths related to the artworks begin to surface, prompting both a rise in investigation as well as widespread popularity towards the artworks.
If
you're a sucker for aesthetics, Velvet Buzzsaw has you covered. I would be
lying if I said that I didn't enjoy the visual aspects of the film. The
cinematography is top notch, emphasizing the visual spectacle of the artworks
that are showcased. Whatever flaw comes along the way (which there are, and I'll
get to them later), it manages to live up to the themes it's presenting. It's
satirical, enigmatic, and at times, quirky. It represents aspects that lie in
the art itself, after all. Velvet Buzzsaw is satirical in telling the story of
what happens when money collides with art, or rather, when money gets in the
way of art. That's essentially the first half of the film. The second half is
another story, because that is where the bloodshed begins, and it thrillingly
delivers in some points, though that is also where its flaws lie. Paintings start to leap from the frame and grab people by the throat,
other artworks on display become vulnerable to the touch of an unknown entity.
Before you know it, people start dying and others begin to question why any of
this is happening. Still, the way it's handled is sometimes satirical, like
when the appearance of a corpse beside an artwork is discovered, a character
emphasizes more on the fact that it spiked the exhibit's fame even further. The
fact that someone had been killed was secondary information; obviously not regarded
to be as important as the exhibit's killer rise to popularity.
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
The film isn't short on its satirical characters that might as well be the
snobs standing in the way of any kind of industry, entertainment specifically:
the critics and figures of power that let their critique and greed get in the
way of the more genuine and passionate aspect of the industry. There's
Gyllenhal's Mof, for example, the obnoxious art critic who's introduced by
critiquing nearly every single artwork in a gallery, complaining about the lack
of originality as if he'd seen those types of art over and over again. If he
does see an interesting one, his first question is the art's price, which leads
to another character saying that "it's easier to talk about money than
art." The point is, these characters are the unlikeable kind, in a rather
cartoonish way. The issue is, however cartoonish they are, they're nothing more
than pieces of cardboard that are ready to be sawed and torn into pieces, and
no one would really have any sympathy in the aftermath. There isn't any depth
given to the characters who aren't meant to be likeable, and it seems that the
film intentionally makes us hate these curators and so-called art critics for
getting in the way of art; but even then, there's at least supposed to be
something interesting about them, right?
Velvet Buzzsaw's pantry of enigmatic characters feel like a gum that runs out
of flavor. Interesting and enjoyable at first, but it eventually becomes rather
dull. Even the performances of acting powerhouses in the likes of Jake
Gyllenhaal and Hereditary's Toni Collette aren't enough to lift the characters
off from the ground (they do have some great moments due to their performances,
but since the issue lies within the script, it does little to serve their
development). Gilroy's previous film, Nightcrawler; somehow had the upper hand on
bringing malice and depth. Nightcrawler isn't far off from Velvet Buzzsaw when
it comes to unlikeable characters (and an incredibly unlikeable lead), but the
difference here is that Nightcrawler made them far more interesting to watch.
Here, the characters are just unlikeable, and that's all there is to them. And
that is only the surface of the film's main issue. The film chooses to focus on
plot than the characters, which isn't a bad thing if it's done well. The issue
here is that the plot progresses too fast, and characters do little to nothing
to propel the actual story, leading to little or no sympathy and buildup. In
all honesty, Velvet Buzzsaw could have been better made as a novel, it may have
played a similar vibe to Donna Tart's The Secret History, just with killer
artworks and mysterious entities. That would have probably done the characters
justice for being unlikeable, but at the same time, some depth that would have
made them enticing to watch.
Perhaps the script, compared to Gilroy's previous and far superior film
Nightcrawler; just lacks that extra kick, the depth, and the tension that would
have made this film soar. The message is there, but the execution of it makes
it too direct, as if the mass killings alone would do the job nicely (it
doesn't). It's not just that, but the film's focus is all over the place,
choosing to focus on things that eventually have little to do with the story or
have any impact in the buildup rather than things that should have been
buildups for the film's anticipated horror-themed finale. But of course, that
too lacks genuine thrills. It's unfortunate, since it's already such a unique
and original concept. It just lacks in the execution of it. Nightcrawler has so
much more boisterous vibe to it, something that we are enticed with because the
thrill, the connection, and the execution of the story was so well done. I
can't say the same for Velvet Buzzsaw. Velvet Buzzsaw may be able to hammer the
message down, but if the characters aren't able to gain the audience's sympathy
and the horror elements are only there to create a "what the hell"
moment rather (shock factor, in other words) than actually having any momentum
or actual buildup to it, how are we going to care about the characters, or be
invested in the story itself once the axe goes down and the bloodshed starts?
 |
| Image source: IMDB |
Stars: 2.6/5
0 Comments