I’ve purposely waited a full 24 hours after seeing “Once” before writing about it. I’ve been known to go off all half-cocked about a movie and then, as time passes, the passions will fade. But I think I’m gonna stay safe with this one: “Once” is the best movie of 2007. And, after I see it again or buy the DVD, I feel that “Once” may even creep into that secret corner of my life I call my favorite movies of all time.
The elite group I hold in this pantheon of perfection are there because, after you’ve seen them, it is as if you can’t imagine a world without them. “Once” in its story and in its form is unique and new, but as I watched it and as I reflect I’m thinking “of course.” It’s as if I’ve already known this movie my entire life.
“Once” has also legitimized a medium. For ten years we’ve been hearing how digital video has forever changed cinema. This has, no doubt, been proven already. But until “Once” I’ve never seen a non-documentary film that has benefitted from the DV aesthetic. Now that documentary film grammar is so intertwined with DV it will automatically make anything shot on it look more documentary-style. But “Once” isn’t meant to be mock-verite — it’s aesthetic is to present realism in a raw cinematic way — and “Once” achieves this with a spring in its step reminiscent of “Jules et Jim” and other benchmarks of French New Wave. The video is grainy in the tiny apartments because the lights are low and this is the way this looks now in low light, ya know? To shoot it any other way wouldn’t be true to the situation. This may be chicken-and-egg aesthetics, but it makes the scenes look perfect. And, in their way, beautiful.
“Once” is also a masterpiece because it is un-reproducible. Anyone can have the idea for the story of “Once,” and, frankly, it wouldn’t be too tough to produce a rough facsimile. (I’ve heard the budget was around $125,000) But to get it done you need access to the volcano of talent that is Glen Hansard. Hansard (who, like a putz, I’ve blown off seeing in concert at small clubs like Southpaw) is a one-in-a-million. He’s loveable without being silly, passionate without being maudlin, introspective without being depressing or pretentious. This is evident in his acting (restrained, yes) as well as his singing (quite the opposite of restrained.)
I’ve read nothing but glowing reviews for “Once,” but many critics refer to the film as “small.” I feel this is incorrect. If it seems that “the stakes aren’t high” that just means you are watching this under the conditions of what’s expected at “the movies.” What is so revelatory — so “big” — is that “Once” presents real life. . .that most difficult of genres. To be able to do so one must trust the material so much that audiences will empathize with the characters, not just watch them and ask “could you imagine if this were real?” There are no villains in “Once,” yet the scenes are still rich with drama. Isn’t that kinda what your life is like?
Oh! But it’s a musical! Did I mention that? I nearly forgot! Yeah, they break into song. They follow all the genre conventions. Seriously. What a time!
Click here to hear the song that’ll change everything.
Er, um, (cough), the song (cough) … didn’t change everything (clearing throat). I have the same take on The Frames as I did Coldplay when they first rolled around: I got Bread and Cat Stevens the first time around.
But I will take your word for it the movie is well worth my entertainment dollar. If the Eagles of Death Metal ever play Southpaw, give me a ring.
ya gotta hear it in the context o’ the movie!
I really wanted to come here and get all snarky and say how everyone was wrong and it sucked, but no. It’s great. Mainly but not completely becuase the music is really good. And it’s not real life actually – nothing bad happens to anyone on-screen, in fact only really good things happen. But it makes it look and seem like real life, which is the great trick of the movie.