The story is told through a series of intercutting time lines made up of maybe four or five road trips around Europe during different points of the couples' relationship, starting with the couple in the latter days of their worn out marriage and proceeding through their first meeting, their first child, some career developments, and a couple affairs.
The best thing about the movie is how modern it is -- it was made in 1967 but uses many of the conventions that we're used to today, mostly in the editing. We never stick with one shot too long, the story line jumps around, the audience is asked to fill in some of the details. We're not spoon fed everything.
The problems, then, come from the very premise of the film -- we start out knowing the marriage is going to deteriorate, so even when we get the early flashes of brightness and joy from the relationship, we have our knowledge of future events looming over us. I guess this is basically the point of the film, but there's no arguing style -- either you buy the premise or you don't. And, I guess I didn't.
I've seen other films that were anatomies of break ups. In fact, films like ANNIE HALL and ETERNAL SUNSHINE are among my favorites. So, why does this one rub me the wrong way?
I guess it's all Audrey Hepburn's fault. I don't want to see her in an unhappy marriage. I don't want to see her bitter and jaded. I don't want to live in a world where a woman with those eyes and that smile and that voice can end up in a dead end marriage. What else can be more depressing, barring murder, rape and war?
There's a glimmer of hope at the end of the film, but at two hours it out-stays it's welcome and belabors it's point a little too much. I can only see Albert Finney look for his passport so many times before it gets old.
No comments:
Post a Comment