Whether it would be true or not I can easily see how Christopher Guest might have taken inspiration from this for his highly regarded mockumentaries, even in just the opening scene. Ben Stiller, too, and his collaborators, might have learned something from William Klein in concocting the satirical elements of 2001's 'Zoolander.' Whether more underhandedly or overtly, lightly or heavily, this pointedly pokes fun at high fashion - its garish emptiness, pretentious abstraction, and arbitrary assertion of value - and models, in how they are exploited, put into bizarre situations, upheld as exemplars of humanity, sexualized, pursued, and so on. Along the way Klein also takes potshots at television media, pop psychology, and more. With unmistakable arthouse sensibilities underlying the fundamental construction of the feature, sometimes recalling Jean-Luc Godard and his contemporaries and sometimes suggesting Terry Gilliam, it's safe to say there's a lot going on in 'Qui êtes-vous, Polly Maggoo?' The good news is that at its best, this is very smart and fun. On the other hand, the bad news: I'm far less than convinced, and I don't think this is the movie that it could have been. In fact, long before it comes to a close, my opinion has completely reversed.
The more focused this is on the title character, and/or notions of fashion or modeling, the more clever it is, and the more fun. There is too much of these 100 minutes, however, that pointedly diverges from any such central core. There are elements here of sketch comedy, and some bits are plainly farcical or absurdist rather than sagely satirical. Where the picture tries to introduce discrete narrative threads they mostly come off as a diversion, and maybe don't even really go anywhere; other ideas that the title aims to satirize are treated even more weakly than what is theoretically the central thrust, and serve to dilute the whole. Mind you, across the board the film is well made: excellent production design, and imaginative art direction; far-flung costume design, hair, and makeup; whimsical use of effects and post-production wizardry; sharp cinematography, and tight editing; swell performances; and so on. Yet the simple fact of the matter is that 'Polly Maggoo' tries so hard to throw in every wild, disparate thought it can, mostly stepping away from what it undeniably does best, that as the length draws on the viewing experience becomes less and less engaging.
Well and truly, I think there are good ideas here. Unfortunately, I don't think those ideas are used very well. This was made with obvious skill and intelligence, and once more, at its best and most carefully crafted it's terrific, bringing to mind other filmmakers who have played with the same style. Yet when all is said and done a regrettable preponderance of the runtime comes off as far too much randomness for its own sake, as any sense of intent or basic direction and guidance just goes out the window. Clearly there are many other people out there who really See this picture for what it is, and Understand it. I find myself plainly disappointed, as far more than not it's almost obscenely scattered, aimless and seemingly indiscriminate; very honestly, I don't know how we get from Point A to Point B from beginning to end. In the sheer slapdash ludicrousness of the assemblage, largely bereft of any discernible through-line, my interest is quickly lost, and watching becomes aggravating rather than enjoyable. Down to the last seconds, it becomes all but unwatchable.
This isn't the first movie I've ever watched that seemed promising at the outset only to increasingly tumble head over heels downhill afterwards, but it's the most broadly well-regarded to have met with so much disfavor in my personal opinion, and in such a distinct manner. To wit, two films I readily think of in the same way are wretched 1976 "comedy" 'Queen Kong,' and notorious 1987 misfire 'Ishtar' - though frankly, in their own manners, I think both these have a leg up on 'Polly Maggoo.' I'm glad for those who get something more out of this than I did, but I'm just not sure how they manage to do so. As far as I'm concerned this is just a messy hodgepodge of nothing, and whatever it is one hopes to discover in 'Qui êtes-vous, Polly Maggoo?' you're much better off looking for it elsewhere. This is saved from the absolute bottom of the barrel only for what meager value it does represent in some small portion, but at this level the distinction scarcely matters. Two thumbs down.
The more focused this is on the title character, and/or notions of fashion or modeling, the more clever it is, and the more fun. There is too much of these 100 minutes, however, that pointedly diverges from any such central core. There are elements here of sketch comedy, and some bits are plainly farcical or absurdist rather than sagely satirical. Where the picture tries to introduce discrete narrative threads they mostly come off as a diversion, and maybe don't even really go anywhere; other ideas that the title aims to satirize are treated even more weakly than what is theoretically the central thrust, and serve to dilute the whole. Mind you, across the board the film is well made: excellent production design, and imaginative art direction; far-flung costume design, hair, and makeup; whimsical use of effects and post-production wizardry; sharp cinematography, and tight editing; swell performances; and so on. Yet the simple fact of the matter is that 'Polly Maggoo' tries so hard to throw in every wild, disparate thought it can, mostly stepping away from what it undeniably does best, that as the length draws on the viewing experience becomes less and less engaging.
Well and truly, I think there are good ideas here. Unfortunately, I don't think those ideas are used very well. This was made with obvious skill and intelligence, and once more, at its best and most carefully crafted it's terrific, bringing to mind other filmmakers who have played with the same style. Yet when all is said and done a regrettable preponderance of the runtime comes off as far too much randomness for its own sake, as any sense of intent or basic direction and guidance just goes out the window. Clearly there are many other people out there who really See this picture for what it is, and Understand it. I find myself plainly disappointed, as far more than not it's almost obscenely scattered, aimless and seemingly indiscriminate; very honestly, I don't know how we get from Point A to Point B from beginning to end. In the sheer slapdash ludicrousness of the assemblage, largely bereft of any discernible through-line, my interest is quickly lost, and watching becomes aggravating rather than enjoyable. Down to the last seconds, it becomes all but unwatchable.
This isn't the first movie I've ever watched that seemed promising at the outset only to increasingly tumble head over heels downhill afterwards, but it's the most broadly well-regarded to have met with so much disfavor in my personal opinion, and in such a distinct manner. To wit, two films I readily think of in the same way are wretched 1976 "comedy" 'Queen Kong,' and notorious 1987 misfire 'Ishtar' - though frankly, in their own manners, I think both these have a leg up on 'Polly Maggoo.' I'm glad for those who get something more out of this than I did, but I'm just not sure how they manage to do so. As far as I'm concerned this is just a messy hodgepodge of nothing, and whatever it is one hopes to discover in 'Qui êtes-vous, Polly Maggoo?' you're much better off looking for it elsewhere. This is saved from the absolute bottom of the barrel only for what meager value it does represent in some small portion, but at this level the distinction scarcely matters. Two thumbs down.
