CANNES 2012: De Rust and Bone by Jacques Audiard (competition official selection)

Amputation of both legs following a work accident, an orca trainer (Marion Cotillard) regains a taste for life in contact with a marginal chaining odd jobs in security (Matthias Schoenaerts) then street fighting. But the latter is quickly overtaken by the instability of his existence, his violence and his irresponsibility chronic. A new success for Jacques Audiard, precious and rare virtuoso of French cinema.

“Ten to twelve minutes of standing ovation” have I have read on Twitter after the screening last night, the last Audiard Cannes. Other messages of confreres upset, under shock, circulated on the web. Very loosely based on the short story collection ‘s Rust and Bone , Craig Davidson (Albin Michel), that punch drama actually leaves you on the ropes after his last fade to white, as after a severe thrashing. Emu? Not necessarily. Exactly as in the three films I’ve seen Audiard ( A Self-Made Hero , See How They Fall , A Prophet ), Rust and Bone does not really draws tears. It is not far, sometimes, as in a magnificent scene of mental “rebirth” on her balcony by Stéphanie (Marion Cotillard), crippled orca trainer, brought back into the light by her relationship with Ali (Matthias Schoenaerts).

But this narrative rather amazes us even when we petrifies dramatic unceremoniously dumps administered the viewer through the violence of feelings and power frames. This is undoubtedly an intimidating film whose formal amplitude and the animal charism of the two broken heroes “absorbs” you without escape as the tractor beam of some intersidereal base with rounded form. An example among others: the scene of the accident at the Marine Land, the one that will cost her legs to Stéphanie. In his unique way of composing his plans for disaster, it is said that Audiard would be a brilliant director of blockbusters of action or disaster films. One is immediately immersed in a palpable tension thanks to the skill of the maestro to combine the music, the plans of crowd, those of the orcs and the gestures of the trainers during the spectacle that will rock in the drama. His frames are clear, meaningful, sometimes stunning, poetic … directors like Audiard, whose films resemble Cinema, are counted in France on the fingers of a Simpson hand.

Drama clear , amazing fusion of fairy tale and realistic social chronicle, De Rust and Bone string of uppercuts with disarming ease. The stigma of the amputation of Stephanie and their consequences on his daily life, he shows them full pot, without shame or lack of visual taste (cap the CGI). His hypnotic virtuosity breaks our incredulity as Ali breaks his jaws during his clandestine fighting, but we are still on the threshold of the great film. At stake is this irremovable natural reserve of Audiard, a spell a bizarre chouia reserved for the character of Cotillard (moreover left on the bench in the last reel) and a final dramatic turn a little telephoned, although again the strength of the Staging makes the pill pass.

These are just that mistakes minor . Hymn to the doors banging fate up to make fart phalanges, those who fall seven times get up eight, De Rust and Bone bewitches and acts long after the final credits. It is a work fascinated by brute force, animal or human, often shown in slow motion and that leaves no room for the weak. Some scenes from this movie will remain. Audiard and, not content to confirm the talent of the Belgian Matthias Schoenaerts (revealed by Bullhead ), Marion Cotillard offers the first leading role of his career (forget the fairground attraction in La Vie en Rose ). Win by knockout then? Not necessarily, but to the points certainly.

Of Rouille and bone, by Jacques Audiard (1h55). In theaters.

It’s that has Thor? First part

The aminches, the hour is serious and lightning zebra my blog to the bottom of the Walhalla … Thor, the god of thunder, found his interpreter for the future film adaptation that Marvel Studios us: it is nothing less That of John Plissken himself, famous blogger geek of the place of Paris, famous for the fineness of his pen and … ok good … I stop being heavy.

The lucky winner is thus called Chris Hemsworth . The name probably tells you nothing, but if you’ve seen Star Trek movie (argh, Lestat hated and informed on his excellent blog ), you may remember his face: Hemsworth played the father of Kirk, George, Who would die heroically at the beginning of the film aboard the USS Kelvin, it was him.

Virtually unknown in the Northern Hemisphere, the friend Chris, 25, is a star in Australia for the role he held since 171 episodes in the series “Home and Away” (which began late Heath Ledger).

It’s this damn blogger of Nikki Finke who released the scoop first , even before Marvel publishes a statement on the issue, say so! (To be read with the accent of Bourvil). Good personal, I see more in the role of Thor’s friend Charlie Hunnam aka Jax Taylor in burnée series Sons of Anarchy , which was on the short list to comb the famous winged helmet. Never mind !

I recall that Thor , the film is scheduled for US release on 20 May 2011 and will be directed by Kenneth Branagh . The insurance of a blockbuster all in shades, so … But hay of evil spirit and wish, to make fast, that the film Thor kills. Ha ha.

Up there, that’s wonderful!

Hi, crowd in trance, Plissken here. Up there went out in theaters yesterday. For the unconscious who are still wondering if the last Pixar is worth clashing its euros, here is my verdict. Well, that I say to myself eh, you know, I say that, I say nothing! Go by car, Simone …

DAS PITCHOVSKI

Crushed by the death of his wife Ellie, the old man Carl Fredricksen decides one day to plaster everything to realize their dream: to join a lost territory of Latin America, fantasized destination of their common passion for the adventure. To do so, Carl flies off with his house, connected to thousands of helium balloons. But a surprise guest will disrupt his plans: Russel, a solitary young scout who is also passionate about exploration.

DIE KRITIKSKAIA

How do they do it, but how do they do it? While each masterpiece is watched for the first stroke of the genius of Pixar on their next film, these gods of animation systematically return with a new pearl. After the magic kubrickienne Wall-E , including the recent DVD release reminded us its irresistible emotional power to the last drop of the final credits, Up There disarm again the fiercest cynic. For sure, one can well imagine that since its creation in 1985 and its ten feature films, the company led by John Lasseter has mastered the art of amazing crowds – “They always know how to press the right buttons to Trigger emotion “likes to remind me regularly of an embittered colleague.

But unless a flint instead of thrilling, how not to feel his throat so many times in Up There, as in the first quarter hour upsetting summarizing the life of the old Carl and dramas , Thus explaining the bitterness and selfishness of the septuagenarian? How can you not exaggerate the exhilarating adventures of an Indiana Jones, Carl and his young ball Russel, embarked in the depths of Latin America in this incredible adventure involving also an old adventurer mysteriously disappeared from Years? And how not to burst out laughing at this shower of irresistible gags, fed with references to serials or vintage SF – even the team of molosses talking via a transistor attached to their chest?

Everest animation , sunbeam toned as varied as the colors of balloons taking to the skies Carl’s house, Là-Haut makes you just happy during his 95 minutes of projection and beyond. All the while having succeeded in illuminating the eyes of your children while addressing fronts and subtlety themes as serious as death, mourning, abandonment of dreams and loneliness. As poetic as was Wall-E but staying grounded (almost …), Up is an ode to life, as generous and clear in his script in its visual adornment – the overview of the world Carl’s house is breathtaking, especially in 3D , the format in which Là-Haut was shot (a first for Pixar).

At the end of this masterpiece (the word is dropped, sorry), we laughed, wept, and became attached without reserve to this old man and that round-hearted little boy, united in their respective solitude and finally grown up by Their common destiny. Note also to end the excellent performance, in VF, of our national Aznavour, very judiciously chosen to double Ed Asner in the role of Carl. And special mention, I was going to forget, to Michael Giacchino, composer home of Disney (the soundtrack of Lost, it is him), for his violins always touching, never mièvres. Thank you Pixar!

Up (Up), by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson. In cinemas since July 29th

The Prey: track down the film on April 13

Today was the first press screening of La Proie, by Eric Valette. It’s a small bomb. Pre-criticism.

Children, (cc @Boucot), it is time to bliss: The Prey , Eric Valette, a first Parisian press screening was held this afternoon, is a fucking movie. I say: this is not a criticism (it’s a little early), just a mini-post without spoil to modestly draw your attention to the director’s feat. Which moved in person just now to, before the lights go off, warn us that this was a working copy with an unfinished mix. I had never seen in real life, Eric Valet you and I did not see it like that at all, I tell you! A little jolly guy, skull full, all smile and kind “good buddy,” while I thought oddly the idea of ​​a guy rather cerebral. But let us pass. The Prey therefore tells how the robber Franck Adrien (Dupontel) escapes from prison to desperately try to find a serial killer who attacked his family and always short in nature, putting his own crimes on behalf of Franck .

After Maleficent and a matter of state , the maverick Valletta has signed a new exploit, then, and  Havre revives the spirit of the best series B action carried cash fund, violent and without embellishment as well The Americans are no longer afraid to offer us. A stunning pursuit of efficiency, launched at the speed of a TGV in full bloom, with its few clumsiness certainly but never derailed and swings you in full face a succession of scenes of dantesque cavalry and gunfights, framed and mounted as In a McTiernan of the great epoch. I am excited a little, but the enthusiasm is to the extent of the panard caught during the screening. With Prey, Eric Valette finally restores dignity to the French action thriller too long stained by the terrible purges of Europa ( District 13 and co, you get the picture …). A film that takes the viewer’s pleasure completely (without confusing it with “putasserie”) and screens his hectic narrative of a burst of characters soberly written (again, one is in the series B, not in Téchiné) and all impeccably interpreted. Everyone!

Criticism in more detail it will be for later, then, but a last message: if you want the French genre cinema has a future and confirms the recently initiated trend by Point Blank of Cavayé, enter the date of April 13 your notebooks and GO SEE THIS MOVIE . We will tax me with grandiloquent but never mind: if Havre a hit in theaters, Panurge sheep tricolor production system (which works exactly the same reflexes as the Americans: we copy what worked) then examine (can -be) a little more on real projects both “in your face” and finished like this one. If instead Havre crashes, we have lost a golden opportunity to encourage our industry to follow the example of Eric Valette and venturing regularly on the field of action movie with a brain. To all moviegoers who dared not hope for a credible succession to action made in France , almost 10 years after The Nest , I shout support Eric Valette! This guy is our white knight, our Kyle Reese, our savior: with La Proie, he has just given a possible future to French genre cinema, a small bomb completely exportable, credible in each of its cogs and asking only Make “Boum”. A masterpiece, perhaps not, but a decisive film, without dead time and which even manages to shed a tear of humanity in its ambient noise and fury. We’re back!

The Prey, by Eric Valette. Screenplay: Luc Bossi and Laurent Turner. With: Albert Dupontel, Alice Taglioni, Stéphane Debac, Natacha Régnier, Sergi Lopez, Serge Hazanavicius, Zinedine Soualem, Caterina Murino. 1:40. Released April 13th.

Black Swan: enter into the light

Ouch !!! The excellent reviews read masterpiece of Darren Aronofsky in the blogosphere (especially on sites Satoorn and Filmosphere ), make me doubt the usefulness of my own contribution to the subject. Especially as I will abound exactly in their sense. So, an n-th apology of Black Swan, why do? Please me ? Maybe then truce of blabla bird, assume our egocentrism and place to the superlatives: Black Swan took me to the 7th heaven.

Flashback to two balls . Polar cold sweeps the streets of Toronto in gray Sunday afternoon in December 2010 when I decide on a hypothermic blood blow to engulf me in a room projecting Black Swan . Two motivations: 1) fissre warm fissa to avoid the amputation of the lobes 2) discover this film whose trailer, seen the day before in the telescope in my hotel room, really challenged me. An unhealthy thriller behind the scenes of a ballet? By Mjolnir, what a singular concept! Strangely, I had paid no attention so far in Black Swan but this trailer, complete with some edifying information on the preparation of Natalie Portman, piqued my curiosity. Lucky, the session starts in twenty minutes. Ticket in hand, I sink into the semi-darkness of the corridor leading to nirvana (we calm the perverts …). The ass well seated in my chair, papilla cajoled by an ice cream yoghurt, eardrums barely disturbed by the giggles of my two neighbors chair (a quadra and his mom), I am far from imagining, in the comfort wadded of this Large THX room, the intensity of the shock to come.

After the band-ads (amazing, each in its own way) of 127 hours and Rabbit Hole , a few pubs and Lowering giggles, the lights are switched off again, slowly, for good. This famous few seconds only in theaters and home theater whose best in the world can never match the magic. Black Swan opens, already majestic: Natalie Portman, dressed in ballerina twirls alone on a stage lit with a single projector, the sound of the mythical theme of Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky . A dreamlike atmosphere, whose visual beauty and virtuosity predicts that the bar will certainly be placed very high by the cinema experience that is coming. The scenario plant also intuitively its stakes: Black Swan will stick to the slippers of Nina Sayers, a young dancer of the New York City Ballet at the shaky psychology, living alone with her mother Erica (Barbara Hershey) and obsessed with his art into his Dreams. A bit like Michael Mann peered anxiety Russell Crowe by fixing its shoulder height camera in Revelations , Aronofsky does not let go of Nina slipper in his movements between his training room and home. The Grail for this gifted artist is to take double lead role of a reinterpretation of Swan Lake , more baroque and raw, that prepares the director of his company, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel, on top too) . Perfect incarnation of the innocence of the white swan, Nina must convince her mentor that she can also play the turbulent sensuality of the black swan. While she engages all her forces in this battle, the young woman does not suspect that this devouring search for absolute will spray the fragile dykes barring the road to her own demons. This fear, these fears until nausea, Aronofsky transmits us quasi-physically by the genius of a visceral staging and ceaselessly on the lively, brewed by a montage oozing the anguish and a band carrous d Strange and little reassuring supernatural echoes. In his adrenaline spikes, Black Swan has scenes from the scariest ever seen in cinema, from those that make you shrivel you in your seat, included bile rise. Claustrophobic, brace yourself: the story takes place almost entirely in enclosed spaces conducive to the explosion of neuroses of his heroine and emotional abuse of his relationship with Thomas. In the skin of Nina Sayers , Portman takes in this respect all the risks, both in the composition of a credible ballerina in emotional boundaries crossed by confidence in the art of Aronofsky. The Oscar can not escape him.

The gradual shift of Nina in the mental chaos, where the boundaries between fantasy and reality is blurred, also refers to the moviegoer a kaleidoscope of references. Its borderline psyche evokes those of Mima of Perfect Blue by Satoshi Kon , of Carole’s Repulsion and Trelkovsky the tenant (the Polanski to the big time haunts Black Swan ). The tyranny of Thomas and the price for artistic perfection are echoed in The Red Shoes Powell. Potter also nearby Cronenberg (for some flippantes mutant visions. Yes yes, mutant!) And Bob Fosse (the auditorium Black Swan is the same as with the show ), the Verhoeven for Showgirls and Adrian Lyne of Jacob’s ladder (precursor rediscover this incredible film). The bad tongues will shout at the multi-plagiarism, I prefer to see a brilliant digest nourishing a masterpiece finally like no other. Beautifully set to music by Clint Mansell and his orchestration of the unforgettable melodies of Swan Lake, Black Swan will defeat you. Nina’s meticulous toes, meticulous technical gestures …) and the flamboyance of her interpreters (including the second roles without a false note: Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey and Winona Ryder). Black Swan will carry you through the dark side and cruelty as by the hypnotic beauty of his choreography. It will fascinate you by the richness of its subject and its mise en abyss as much as by a limpid clarity of which only are able the great demanding popular films. Black Swan finally you upset by Coda in apotheosis whirlwind of emotions that you will literally step into the light, tears in his eyes for the most sensitive. Nothing is more exhilarating than feeling so rang and legs cut out from a projection. Then gradually resume his march, happy, head among the angels, taking the film in you. For a long time.

Black Swan, by Darren Aronofsky (1h50). National release on 9 February.

Scud: GEEKS HEAD RESEARCHER PILOT EPISODE.

Dear all, I am sorry to have been absent so long from this blog: almost six days without writing anything, it is the longest period of inactivity of JPFM since its creation. It is unspeakable, unacceptable, unbearable, unbearable (of residence) and intolerable (of rabbit).

In my defense (Heroic) : the final stretch of the podcast “Scuds” my collaboration with the excellent site CultureCie and a night of great sex with Ms. Praloud (there are you?), My baker who has just opened a Shop on the Boul’Mich ‘(gag).

To be forgiven (kebab), I SWEAR OATH drink this blog every day for 30 days. And to begin with, aaadmirez our very first baby: the very first issue of “Scuds: geeks with researches”, lovingly mounted with the force of the wrist by our friend Arnaud, who also officiates in front of the camera with Jérôme and John Plissken who speaks to you .

Scuds, “we hope to see it last as long as possible,” is a hair-raising issue (and goal chui!) Debates between three old geeks on topics of news geek!

We will record the next issue very soon but in the meantime, feel free to post your comments on the website .

On the program of this Scud-there:

  • What is a geek ?
  • The Dark Knight, masterpiece or not?
  • Bare (or not) on Facebook?

Admit that it spins you more cram as a summary than the next Words Crossed with Arlette Chabot, no ???

Go, as Evelyne Dheliat would say, without further delay, place images!

The Big Bang Theory: Regression of comedy.

The aminches is the hour of schism. I will say evil, a lot of trouble of The Big Bang theory. For some of you, the burden will be intolerable. I therefore expect to suffer the worst verbal outrages but at the same time, as Jack Burton would say, “What the hell” …

If I had to appeal to my objective fiber, I would say that BBT is, objectively, incontestably a good series, in the sense of well done. Much of his dialogues and jokes are pretty funny on paper, or even in fact. All references to comics, video games, movies and series of SF are pointed and verified. A universe has been laid and mayonnaise has taken not only with the general public but also with apparently a large part of the “geek” community targeted. To my dismay elsewhere, even Alexandre Astier devotes a passionate devotion to Big Bang Theory (I know for: himself). And yet I excecre this series. That is how it is, totally subjective and uncontrollable.

Between BBT and me, the towel burned from the vision of the pilot episode. I would probably have stayed there, not being specially maso. But the almost plebiscite of BBT by most of you calls me inevitably. Maybe I was badly lunged on the day of viewing this fucking pilot. Maybe I needed more time to go back to Leonard’s screams, Sheldon and their big breasts. As I am not a centenarian oyster, so I took it upon myself to view the integral of Big Bang Theory, to this day. I drool, the guys. But I held fast and nothing to do: the vision of each episode of Big Bang Theory and its characters so superficial and outrageous triggers in me irrepressible cravings of strangulation of the whole cast. I will try to explain serenely why, you can then proceed to my stoning.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT ?

Let’s go back to the beginning. In The Big Bang Theory, series created by Chuck Lorre and aired on CBS since 2007, we follow the lives of two young physicists gifted co-tenants of an apartment in Pasadena, Leonard Hofstadter (played by Johnny Galecki) and Sheldon Cooper (alias Jim Parsons) .

Their particularity: Leonard and especially Sheldon are two totally unfit to social relations adulescents whose life is entirely governed by their passions for science, comics, science fiction, TV shows, manga, role playing, video games and food trays Chinese ordered systematically to the same caterer … in short, here are two perfect caricatures of über-geeks.

Their courtship is limited to two social misfits scientists , working like them on the campus of the prestigious University of Caltech: their friends Howard Wolowitz and Rajesh Koothrappali (played by the excellent Simon Helberg and Kunal Nayyar), respectively engineer in applied physics and astrophysicist .

In the first episode of season 1, Sheldon’s well rehearsed routine Leonard and explodes ( “BANG!”) Lorsqu’emménage their new next-door neighbor: the blonde Penny , Midwest pitcher dreams of Hollywood glory and Bossant as a waitress at restaurant “Cheesecake factory”.

During this first season, an unlikely idyll will be born between Leonard and Penny, who to his surprise will eventually understand or even adopt the lifestyle of his two alien neighbors. Conversely, Penny will push Sheldon and Leonard out a bit more from their shell and venture more often out of their sanctum of screens, equations and comics.

Whatever its qualities (as it has, I repeat), The Big Bang Theory brand in my deep regression of TV comedy , a flashback to the sitcom Dad, when gems like 30 Rock, Old Christine or the late Arrested Development offer alternatives that are more daring and innovative. Why a “regression”?

THE FORM IN BBT: BACK TO PAPA

It’s like back to the glory days of the sitcoms of 80/90 years . The traditional sitcom, with laughs recorded in cascade, small recurrent visual commas, gritty replicas with just what it takes of scato-sexual allusions and staging worthy of a boulevard piece.

Each episode of BBT, I seem to see Boeing-Boeing theater Michodière . It is a specialty of chef Chuck Lorre, creator of BBT and author of the already well-balanced Two and a half men, as well as Dharma and Greg.

With Big Bang Theory, Lorre remains in conquered territory and tightens all warmed codes and reassuring the kind that turned his business for 15 years:

  • Recurrence of four key sets (Sheldon / Leonard’s apartment, one of Penny, the workplace Sheldon / Leonard, one of Penny …)
  • Multicameras with field / counterchamps dialogs
  • Dress Codes caricature (small shorts / tank top for the blonde service, flashy clothes / Deschiens for the loser Wolowitz, superhero t-shirt Sheldon …)
  • And so the famous audience laughter and / or recorded . I timed: in BBT, hilarious hubbub attacks my eardrums every 5 to 10 seconds. The smallest valve, the least bit of humor, the slightest mimicry, the smallest fly of Californian fly is heavily stressed with blows of laughter in box, even when the fall is fickle, which happens nevertheless frequently in this series .

Random: iron you episode 5 of season 2. A particular scene, the one where Sheldon was scolded by the band to spend his license (10th minute), perfectly illustrates this abuse of raucous laughter to coat a fall yet well Flat. Several times, I feel the same embarrassment, the same tension as when a fat boy sitting next to you at a dinner laughs laughingly at his own jokes where you just sketch a polite smile.

I do not know why in Friends , Seinfeld, Thats 70’s show or Third rock from the sun, canned laughter does not bother me more than that while in BBT, they insupportent me. No doubt because I am more sensitive to the humor of the sitcoms mentioned above than to that of Mr. Lorre. Or else because the cup is full. The laughter recorded definitely belong to the past of the sitcom.

I no longer need to be told when and where I have to laugh , I’m not a chicken battery or a lab rat. I have infinitely more respect for the riskier humor and less whore of the “single camera comedies” type Scrubs, Malcolm, The office or 30 Rock, which give me the impression of seeing a real series without parasitic laughs and not Not a pathetic show for GM of Club Med. And “Old Christine” will you tell me? True, it is a sitcom formally in the vein of BBT, but by itself Julia Louis Dreyfus has infinitely more comic talent than will ever have the grimacing jesters of Chuck Lorre. Which brings me to the Big Bang Theory characters and their interpreters. Argh.

CHARACTERS AND CASTING: THE BIG BRANKS THEORY

I hate this casting. Or let’s say at least half. Shit, I wanted to do in sober and lace, but it’s stronger than me, it had to come out. Let us resume. Before dwelling on the interpretation, small aside on the characters. Here again, BBT proposes a series of exasperating hypercaricatures, as pachydermic about the geeks as were those of “Geekdom”, emission of sinister memory presented by Lio last summer on Sci-Fi.

And you know why so many cliches? Chuck Lorre, creator of the series, does not give a damn about geeks. When asked in interview, as was the case at the Monte Carlo TV Festival 2009, the origins of the creation of BBT, he answers sincerely that he is absolutely not geeky and has no affinity With this culture or SF in general; He simply wanted to make a series on the tune of time. And inevitably, the geeks in Hollywood, we know, has been trend since the early 2000s.

Two guys geeks at Chuck Lorre, it therefore gives Leonard and Sheldon, torque limit Cage aux Folles (Leonard would be the man, Sheldon’s wife), portrayed in the same way “we” see “others”. Hear from which the general public “non geek”, the mass, the media usually see the geeks: neo-sociopaths, gringalets, frustrated sexually (even asexual) and obsessed with new technologies. When it’s Lio on Sci-Fi, it makes everyone shit (me first), when it’s BBT everyone flattens. I do not free …

I continue. In the pilot episode, Laurel / Sheldon and Hardy / Leonard are getting ready to sell their sperm just to be able to afford a “fractional T1 Internet connection” (the “pee / caca / sperm / nene” in family format is a source Of recurring inspiration in BBT). The scene is not necessarily irremediable, it merely conspires me by its phone bill, in the form as in the subject.

A little later, we learn that the ultimate geek according to Chuck Lorre is a creature of habits, a freak bordering autistic pathology: on the sofa of the living room, Sheldon has its place (chosen for its ideal geo-location between TV, The boiler and the window) and woe to anyone who tries to sit down. Sheldon also has a specific breakfast for each day of the week, pajamas of the day, a unique Asian caterer … In short, for Chuck Lorre, geek = Rainman.

Let us continue our exploration of the exasperating catalog of clichés. Sheldon reminds me of these side-by-side characters seen in other sitcoms … except that BBT makes him his main character and that he does not really have the shoulders nor the thickness required. Koothrappali, on his side, is an odious pumping of the Fez de That 70’s show for the side “exotic exotic accent”, string used up to the string. For the rest, the geek according to Chuck Lorre necessarily spends 97 hours playing network World of Warcraft (episode 3, season 1), dare to talk to the girls only stuffed (Koothrappali), trippers thoroughly on Summer Glau of the series Sarah Connor Chronicles (no but WTF this crap series ?!) and drags a castrating mother-ball.

The mother of Wolowitz lives with him and rotten his daily life (she remains always out of the field, one hears only his voice of fishmonger). Ostentatious detail: Wolowitz is Jewish for him it is necessarily double ration of mother tared (and re-cliché!); That of Leonard is a neuroscientist incapable of expressing the slightest maternal affection; That of Sheldon is a hysterical Texas bigote and the parents of Koothrappali the martyrize it from India by webcam interposed.

Let’s be frank: these clichés sometimes give rise to dialogues or scenes rather tasty , as in episode 15 of season 2 where Sheldon and Leonard compare their moms:

Sheldon : “You at least your mother does not tapped you on the head with a Bible to compel you to finish your Brussels sprouts”
Leonard : “Yours does not fit you electrodes on the head to measure your brainwaves when you Was on the pot »

They are nevertheless stereotypes all the more annoying that none of the four gogols imagined by the writers has really evolved since the beginning of the series . Sometimes the authors pierce a small gap, no bigger than a pinhead, in the pristine sky of the buffoonery.

Thus, the character of Wolowitz finally reveals a certain fragility in episode 12 of season 2, where we find him totally depressed following a hurtful remark of Penny. When trying to console him, though the latter accused him of always making bodies, it responds with a pathetically touching: ” Look at me: is what I honestly any chance if I do not make a few too much ? “Too bad the series does not dig a little more seriously these flaws, just a little more …

The two most unbearable characters in my eyes are Penny and Leonard. Honor to the puffs. Blonde with protruding eyes and irritating nasal timbre, as subtle in his game that sauerkraut, actress Kaley Cuoco camps with a total cliché Penny average bimbo, almost always shown in lingerie or plunging necklines. In the role of Leonard, Johnny Galecki spends his time flitting eyes, head up, mouth open (its unique register) and holding forth like a twisted crazy. The couple that his character Leonard ends up forming with Penny is probably the least credible and the least endearing seen since a TV lease. No emotion, tension, complicity or surprise in the relationship between these two, as the screenwriters plunge them into situations with mechanics predictable for miles. I totally do not care about their pusillanious babes in season 2 and 3, their “I love you either” and their “it’s weird to sleep together” a thousand times better explored by couples Rachel / Ross and Chandler / Monica in Friends.

HUMOR AND STORIES: BAZINGA!

Not only does BBT rest a little too much on imposed figures of the sitcom (the episode of Halloween, the geek cracks on a girl too good for him, the visit of the mother etc …) but above all, it exploits a humor of ” Back guard typical of Chuck Lorre, behind the veneer of geek references. At the level of the dramatic stakes, it is heavy. Heavy heavy, even. The specifications of Big Bang Theory is clear: especially not an ounce of intrigue anxiogenic nor of stake a little bit dramatic. I do not ask BBT to make us the Racine, but just a bit, I mean a bit, tension … a tear of discomfort where, even if one is in a sitcom, the authors would have the balls of To make their characters pass through real trials.

I will always remember this episode of Friends’ Season 3 where Rachel and Ross end up breaking up. A jewel of writing: while Joey, Chandler, Monica and Phoebe locked themselves in the room without being able to get out (we laugh), Ross and Rachel rot seriously in the living room, until deciding to break (we cry ). A long scene, with very few laughs recorded and which indeed makes us laugh a lot … before we split our hearts. I do not like Big Bang Theory because at no time in the fifty or so episodes seen so far, I have seen the screenwriters trying to venture elsewhere in the realm of pure and hard buffoonery.

Unable to attach myself to these characters and empathize with them : their life is a permanent potacherie! In Friends, Rachel really made us share her fear of being stuck forever as a waitress at Central Perk. In BBT, it is royally tamed that Penny refurns burgers at the Cheesecake factory until his next layers. Finally, BBT would like a lot Patrick Le Lay and his immortal formula on “brain time available”: no more than two intrigues per episode (must not jostle the housewife who bursts out laughing on the backs of geeks, huh) and Especially no plotting plots or so little. Characters appear and then disappear without explanation, the counters are systematically put back to zero with each new story … We do not follow the life of incarnated individuals, but just the antics of comics snorting in sketches of 26 minutes, scornful circus whose Sheldon and his cataclysmic psychoriginity are the main attraction.

By intellectual honesty, I must admit that some gags and aftershocks have, if not made me laugh, at least well amused:

Episode 1.2: when Sheldon says Superman 1 is not realistic, because when Superman catches Lois Lane in flight at the scene of the hélicopère it should logically with shock, “cut into three pieces.”

Episode 2.4 : when Penny became totally addicted to World of Warcraft. (EDIT: it’s actually Episode 2.3 and not Wow but the Age of Conan game.) Thanks to … uh .. “Anonymous” for taking me in. And sorry for that little mistake. Does not change much, but in fact let’s be precise.)

Episode 2.8 : Wolowitz when asked his buddies to help him after dropping Mars rover in a Martian rift.

Episode 2.15 : the appearance of Beverly, the mother of Leonard. Replica of Raj to Leonard: “You are the Jar Jar Binks of the Hofstadter family”. Okay, I laughed.

Episode 3.8 : camping Wolowitz, Leonard and Koothrappali

– Raj’s chat with her parents on webcam

– the “bazinga” regularly released by Sheldon to make it clear to his interlocutor that he has just fucked his mouth (in the comic kind of rehearsal, I also like his “there there”) …

For the rest I persist and sign: The big bang theory and its success is to me a symptom of regression not only of TV comedy, but also a requirement of the American public standards. It is the return to the comfort of big strings, the ease of the comic rehearsal, reassuring landmarks of recorded laughter and outrageous caricature … A large part of you adopted it, I can not ignore it and I respect him. But for me it is not enough to grim four buffoons in Flash costume and multiply the erudite references to “culture geek” to make a good comic series. I find that much more subtle tribute to the culture that we are passionate about have been rendered in a movie like Galaxy Quest or are regularly featured in 30 Rock. They speak to my heart of geek in a much more noble way than this force-feeding demago goose imposes us BBT.

I promise however that I will continue to follow the series every week to look for possible signs of improvement. Bazinga! I was of course … Next !!!