I suppose there is still a fan base, still a calling for these sorts of films that Almodóvar churns out. Given that when most of European cinema and indeed, the rest of the world's first world nations were progressing and developing their respective film forms throughout the twentieth century, Spain were hampered by their then leader Franco and his firm grasp on the film industry at his mercy. Young and upcoming filmmakers who wanted to experiment and produce were shunned in favour of large, over the top epics that glorified Franco and his regime (albeit metaphorically). Franco died in 1975 and his censorship ideations were overruled in 1977; perhaps it is no coincidence that Almodóvar was just beginning to arrive on the scene at this time.
And so onto La Mala Educación. To say that this wouldn't have been made thirty years ago is a given and to say that after Franco died, filmmakers explored with taboo subjects and issues to do with violence, sex and drugs is also correct. Almodóvar was experimenting in 'Pepi, Luci, Bom' what with its sexual content; he experimented in Labyrinth of Passion with homosexuality and more sex; he experimented in Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! with ideas of lust and sado-masochism and with Bad Education, he is further presenting us with more narratives revolving around homosexuality. But that isn't to say the film is terrible or indeed bad, merely stuffy. It's probably true to say that Almodóvar has earned his reputation through making films about taboo subjects at new and delicate times, but in 2004 the surprise has gone what happens when you take the 'shock' out of 'shock cinema'? You are just left with cinema.
But Bad Education as a film retains a quality; an advanced and intriguing aesthetical quality that keeps you watching. Almodóvar is no fool and peppers this film with several scenes that do enough to retain an interest and a want for resolution, indeed the twists and turns that occur towards the end keep you focused. But then again, the film feels like it gets needlessly complicated when issues of identity and honour get tangled up in a web that is bizarrely enough identified by the characters themselves like 'something out of an American film-noir'. This is just one of rather a few 'Almodóvar touches' or whatever you want to call it, further embodying a certain status of the auteur.
The film revolves around a film director or more importantly, a homosexual film director whose 'one that got away' just happened to be a young boy at a Catholic boarding school when they were both very young. Enrique Goded (Martínez) is the director and perhaps echoes Almodóvar himself, not necessarily in terms of past history, but in terms of character; he is the sort of guy who scans newspapers looking for odd stories that might make good films. It's this sort of 'real life' approach to the aesthetic of realism and film-making that gives European cinema such a kick and is something that Almodóvar brings up in a scene very early on. Almodóvar does, after all, make very 'real' films about rather odd people and scanning a newspaper just seems like something he might do for inspiration. Indeed the plots for Talk to Her; Tie Me Up!; To Return (Volver) and Bad Education might well have stemmed from newspaper articles.
But Goded (sounds eerily like Godard) has his former lover come back into his life in the form of Angel (García Bernal) who has a screenplay ready and waiting to be shot. But things are not that simple; it seems they have not forgotten the love affair, Angel wants to play a certain role in the film and further things are complicated when deception and intrigue arise later on. Almodóvar employs all his tiny touches to the film such as the extremely post-modern office in which Goded works out of what with its differentiating colours, shapes and props littered throughout the room you cannot literally look anywhere without seeing some 21st Century inspired piece of art or colour. Then there are the establishing shots of run-down cinemas in ruin maybe a statement of cinema in Spain at a certain point? The 'death' of cinema? But of course, Almodóvar does not take sides because in the 1960s, the cinema is up and running and the boys visit it.
The boundaries between fiction and reality become a little blurred later on but it makes for good viewing, at least until a certain point. I'm not sure where the film began to loose me but I suppose it was a good thing when it ended as it saved me from liking it any less. The screenplay and Goded's own distorted memories are played off one another in a dramatic and unravelling fashion that entertains and informs; it does not help that the script is partly based on true events involving him. But when his psychosis catches up with the real-life timeline, extended and tantalising shots of male pubic hair above a certain area cover the screen for a while in an awkward and seemingly random passage, the deception starts to loose us and the film threatens to become generic. Just like the characters say themselves when they liken their actions and personas to film noir caricatures.
And so onto La Mala Educación. To say that this wouldn't have been made thirty years ago is a given and to say that after Franco died, filmmakers explored with taboo subjects and issues to do with violence, sex and drugs is also correct. Almodóvar was experimenting in 'Pepi, Luci, Bom' what with its sexual content; he experimented in Labyrinth of Passion with homosexuality and more sex; he experimented in Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! with ideas of lust and sado-masochism and with Bad Education, he is further presenting us with more narratives revolving around homosexuality. But that isn't to say the film is terrible or indeed bad, merely stuffy. It's probably true to say that Almodóvar has earned his reputation through making films about taboo subjects at new and delicate times, but in 2004 the surprise has gone what happens when you take the 'shock' out of 'shock cinema'? You are just left with cinema.
But Bad Education as a film retains a quality; an advanced and intriguing aesthetical quality that keeps you watching. Almodóvar is no fool and peppers this film with several scenes that do enough to retain an interest and a want for resolution, indeed the twists and turns that occur towards the end keep you focused. But then again, the film feels like it gets needlessly complicated when issues of identity and honour get tangled up in a web that is bizarrely enough identified by the characters themselves like 'something out of an American film-noir'. This is just one of rather a few 'Almodóvar touches' or whatever you want to call it, further embodying a certain status of the auteur.
The film revolves around a film director or more importantly, a homosexual film director whose 'one that got away' just happened to be a young boy at a Catholic boarding school when they were both very young. Enrique Goded (Martínez) is the director and perhaps echoes Almodóvar himself, not necessarily in terms of past history, but in terms of character; he is the sort of guy who scans newspapers looking for odd stories that might make good films. It's this sort of 'real life' approach to the aesthetic of realism and film-making that gives European cinema such a kick and is something that Almodóvar brings up in a scene very early on. Almodóvar does, after all, make very 'real' films about rather odd people and scanning a newspaper just seems like something he might do for inspiration. Indeed the plots for Talk to Her; Tie Me Up!; To Return (Volver) and Bad Education might well have stemmed from newspaper articles.
But Goded (sounds eerily like Godard) has his former lover come back into his life in the form of Angel (García Bernal) who has a screenplay ready and waiting to be shot. But things are not that simple; it seems they have not forgotten the love affair, Angel wants to play a certain role in the film and further things are complicated when deception and intrigue arise later on. Almodóvar employs all his tiny touches to the film such as the extremely post-modern office in which Goded works out of what with its differentiating colours, shapes and props littered throughout the room you cannot literally look anywhere without seeing some 21st Century inspired piece of art or colour. Then there are the establishing shots of run-down cinemas in ruin maybe a statement of cinema in Spain at a certain point? The 'death' of cinema? But of course, Almodóvar does not take sides because in the 1960s, the cinema is up and running and the boys visit it.
The boundaries between fiction and reality become a little blurred later on but it makes for good viewing, at least until a certain point. I'm not sure where the film began to loose me but I suppose it was a good thing when it ended as it saved me from liking it any less. The screenplay and Goded's own distorted memories are played off one another in a dramatic and unravelling fashion that entertains and informs; it does not help that the script is partly based on true events involving him. But when his psychosis catches up with the real-life timeline, extended and tantalising shots of male pubic hair above a certain area cover the screen for a while in an awkward and seemingly random passage, the deception starts to loose us and the film threatens to become generic. Just like the characters say themselves when they liken their actions and personas to film noir caricatures.