BEFORE SUNSET: A Review

[arsaib4]

Thanks for the detailed info, I appreciate it.

[arsaib4]

Also, here's a list of films available through Wellspring Media.


Aviator's Wife, The
1987

Boyfriends and Girlfriends
1980

Chloe In The Afternoon
1972

Claire's Knee
1970

Full Moon In Paris
1984

Girl at the Monceau Bakery
1963

Good Marriage, A
1967

La Collectionneuse
1982

Marquise Of O, The
Germany
1976

My Night at Maud's
1969

Summer
1986

A Summer's Tale
1996

Suzanne's Career
1963

http://theatrical.wellspring.com/template.php

[Chris Knipp]

That's good. Girl at the Monceau Bakery, The Marquise Of O
and La Collectionneuse were titles I wasn't sure were available. There are quite a few others including more recent ones that you will find at any good video rental shop.

[oscar jubis]

My favorite titles are pretty much the same ones Chris mentioned (Maud, Perceval, Claire...) and 1987's Boyfriends and Girlfriends (L'ami de...). A lot of film buffs I know love Le Rayon Vert (Summer) but I found the protagonist insufferable, particularly since she's in every scene.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree the lady in Le rayon vert is a bit whiney. Of the intellectual/romantic Rohmer films I think probably My Night at Maud's made the strongest impression on me perhaps because I guess it was the first I saw and I have always identified with Jean-Louis Trintignant. Boyfriends and girlfriends--in French L'ami de mon amie, my girlfriend's boyfriend, is charming and has pretty young people in it, the boys as well as the girls. La nuit de la pleine lune (Full moon in Paris) besides its unusual (for Rohmer) onscreen lovemaking, has a touching performance by the too short-lived Patrice Ogier, and Fabrice Lucchini of Perceval le gallois is good in it. He projects a quick, intellectual quality together with flirtatiousness which is typically French, and you find him making use of that combination currently in Patrice Lecomte's Intimate Strangers (Confidences trop intimes).

Rosenbaum:

Many of Rohmer's recent features have been limited by their concentration on youth, which can make it difficult to tell some of them apart--a problem shared by some of the late films of Yasujiro Ozu (many of which are also named according to the seasons: Late Spring, The End of Summer, An Autumn Afternoon, etc

With Rohmer, it's hard to rule out any. Their consistency and similarity just means that if you're going to see any of them, you might as well see them all.

[Johann]

Perceval. What a work of art.

Rohmer is a director I highly admire.

[JustaFied]

To continue the discuss on Linklater and not necessarily the subject of this thread...I saw "Tape" recently, it just reminded me how much I love films adapted from stage plays. The intensity from the focus on dialogue is electrifying, there are no other distractions, it's about the characters, the conversations, the humanity, it's wonderful. One movie set in one motel room, I loved the forced intimacy of the film. That's why I'm looking forward to what Madden's going to do with "Proof", which is the most powerful stage play I've ever seen live.

That said, I haven't yet seen "Before Sunset", so my comments here are somewhat off topic.

[Howard Schumann]

NOTE: The following review describes my personal feelings about Before Sunset. I acknowledge that it is definitely a minority view and I am not trying to persuade anyone who loves the film to reconsider.

BEFORE SUNSET

Directed by Richard Linklater (2004)

"Oh wow! Notre Dame! Check it out!" - Jesse

In Richard Linklater's charming Before Sunset, the highly praised sequel to his 1995 film Before Sunrise, Jesse (Ethan Hawke), now married with a four-year old son, is in Paris on the last leg of a book tour. Celine (Julie Delpy), his partner from a short-lived romance nine years ago, shows up at a roundtable for his book signing and they pick up almost immediately where they left off. Jesse has eighty minutes before he has to leave to catch his plane and that is how long the movie lasts. They go for coffee and take a walk through Paris. They talk and talk, then talk some more. Without pausing to take a breath, as if fearful of a moment of silence, they engage in non-stop conversation about the world situation, the element of chance in their lives, the environment, relationships between men and women, and their memories of what actually occurred in Vienna.

Celine talks about how unfulfilling her life has been and there is a sad undertone of remorse and regret for the things that might have been. Jesse complains about his unrewarding marriage but does not take responsibility for his lack of satisfaction or consider the commitments he made to his wife and son. In a strange sequence in a restaurant, they both light up cigarettes and blow smoke in each other's faces, a scene that is incongruous in light of Celine's passion for the environment. Does Linklater want to send a message to young viewers that smoking is romantic? One would have thought that in the intervening years, Mr. Linklater's characters would have acquired a reasonable degree of emotional maturity but such is not the case and all the sexual banter and philosophical posturing feels sophomoric.

Comparisons have been made to another film that consisted mainly of conversation, My Dinner with André. That film was not only intellectually stimulating but emotionally satisfying, an experience that allowed us in the space of two hours to re-explore our own lives and rethink the way we see the universe. Before Sunset is not in the same league. Some are calling it "breathless", "sweet", "smart", and "one of the supreme movie romances of the post-'80s era", but to me it falls far short of those accolades. It is a well directed and well acted film with great picture-postcard shots of Paris (that carefully avoids the congestion and urban blight), some witty dialogue, and a very clever ending. What it lacks is an ability to communicate the unfathomable grace of love in a way that transcends banality.

GRADE: B

[Chris Knipp]

I'm sure your view is not so uncommon, though all truly independent opinions are "minority" ones. Some found the original rather frivolous, rooted as it and most of Linklater's work is in his (now) thirtysomething generation's attitudes and experiences. A strong point you make is the lack of pauses in the conversation -- I take it you're making the reasonable suggestion that they might have become more physical during screen time since they were before, and both are basically lonely. The constant talk is certainly a convention, though not too far from the realities of such situations. At the film's end, it looks very much like they're going to get very physical indeed and the conversation is going to end.

I differ from you in the My Dinner with Andre comparison. Though that piece has many ardent admirers, I personally found it terribly boring and self indulgent and I am not alone. It's utterly different since it's two (straight) men talking not about each other's relationship but (mainly Andre Gregory) talking about Seventies intellectual and spiritual explorations, without any romantic stimulus whatsoever, either between them or for us. This subject matter may personally interest you more, but the conversational format does not closely link it with Before Sunset.

In a strange sequence in a restaurant, they both light up cigarettes and blow smoke in each other's faces, a scene that is incongruous in light of Celine's passion for the environment. Does Linklater want to send a message to young viewers that smoking is romantic?

This isn't as strange as you seem to think it is, especially in Europe. Risking one's health isn't the same as damaging the environment and in Paris everybody smokes, even the eco-activists. I don't think there's any message here. They just both smoke. I don't think either that the more lighthearted "sexual banter" and "philosophical posturing" are "sophomoric," but rather that the solemnity of their discussions nine years earlier was the really sophomoric tone. But I completely see the validity of your overall position even if -- largely because I think the movie works so beautifully as a movie within the limitations it sets -- I don't agree with you. But those limitations are undeniable.

To step back a bit in the thread, what is your stand on the films of Eric Rohmer? Surely they're a good deal more closely related to Before Sunset and Before Sunrise than My Dinner with Andre, don't you think, since they're all about men and women thinking about their attraction to each other and who they want to be with?

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp A strong point you make is the lack of pauses in the conversation -- I take it you're making the reasonable suggestion that they might have become more physical during screen time since they were before, and both are basically lonely. The constant talk is certainly a convention, though not too far from the realities of such situations. At the film's end, it looks very much like they're going to get very physical indeed and the conversation is going to end.

I raise this point not to suggest more physicality, just more being with each other. Silences can be awkward or comfortable but sometimes they say more about the relationship than non-stop talk. I know people who are compulsive talkers and some use this as a device to avoid intimacy. All the talking destroys the chemistry. There are no facial expressions, furtive glances, and so forth. It seemed to me as if they were fearful of a few moments of silence.

I differ from you in the My Dinner with Andre comparison. Though that piece has many ardent admirers, I personally found it terribly boring and self indulgent and I am not alone. It's utterly different since it's two (straight) men talking not about each other's relationship but (mainly Andre Gregory) talking about Seventies intellectual and spiritual explorations, without any romantic stimulus whatsoever, either between them or for us. This subject matter may personally interest you more, but the conversational format does not closely link it with Before Sunset.

I certainly wouldn't make that comparison. I simply pointed out that others had done so. No, I don't see the connection either. In My Dinner With Andre, the conversation was about the personal experiences of one as opposed to the considerations of the other. Both represented differing worldviews. As such, found it a mind- expanding experience. I can understand why someone like yourself who has a mechanistic view of the world would not find it inspiring.

Risking one's health isn't the same as damaging the environment and in Paris everybody smokes, even the eco-activists. I don't think there's any message here. They just both smoke.

Well, isn't that lovely? Everybody in Paris smokes. What a quaint custom! Unfortunately, the film's distribution is not limited to France and is viewed by young people all over the world. I simply asked what message this sends to them, intended by the director or not.

I don't think either that the more lighthearted "sexual banter" and "philosophical posturing" are "sophomoric," but rather that the solemnity of their discussions nine years earlier was the really sophomoric tone. But I completely see the validity of your overall position even if -- largely because I think the movie works so beautifully as a movie within the limitations it sets -- I don't agree with you. But those limitations are undeniable.

Well, it seems to me that people in their thirties would have moved on from that. It was appropriate nine years earlier, but neither exhibited much greater maturity here. Yes I found some of the conversation silly and shallow. I won't say it is on the level of a high school cafeteria chat, more like an all night college dorm bull session.

To step back a bit in the thread, what is your stand on the films of Eric Rohmer? Surely they're a good deal more closely related to Before Sunset and Before Sunrise than My Dinner with Andre, don't you think, since they're all about men and women thinking about their attraction to each other and who they want to be with?

I think the difference between Linklater and Rohmer was stated clearly by Jurgen Fauth of WorldFilm: "The loveliness of Rohmer's films lies in the acute observation, the light humor, and the mature way in which the characters' problems are handled. The people in these films look a little less glamorous than film stars, but they are much more real, and they're a lot smarter and more articulate, too. When you think about it, it's quite remarkable to watch people talk about love for ninety minutes and never have them utter anything trite, tired, or shop-worn".

[Chris Knipp]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann I know people who are compulsive talkers and some use this as a device to avoid intimacy.

Of course, that's what I meant by "The constant talk is certainly a convention, though not too far from the realities of such situations. " Apparently your problem is not a lack of realism, but that you want them to be better people; so that by watching them we will become better people too.

I certainly wouldn't make that comparison. I simply pointed out that others had done so. No, I don't see the connection either. In My Dinner With Andre, the conversation was about the personal experiences of one as opposed to the considerations of the other. Both represented differing worldviews. As such, found it a mind- expanding experience. I can understand why someone like yourself who has a mechanistic view of the world would not find it inspiring.

Whoever initiated the comparison, you made use of it, saying that both Sunset and Andre are conversations, and the Malle one is more interesting and improving. Is it necessary to say I have "a mechanistic view of the world"? You really don't know that much about my view of the world; you are stereotyping your interlocutor unnecessarily. Please go by what I say, not who you think i am and be kind enough not to "understand" me. Does my liking Before Sunset make me a lesser person, because it's not "mind expanding"? For that matter, who is to say what's mind expanding?

Well, isn't that lovely? Everybody in Paris smokes. What a quaint custom! Unfortunately, the film's distribution is not limited to France and is viewed by young people all over the world. I simply asked what message this sends to them, intended by the director or not.

Again, your'e shifting course. Originally your point was that it was inappropriate for enviros to smoke. Now you want to extract realism and naturalness from the film to set a good example. A futile plan, since people don't just smoke because they do it in the movies, but more often because of their peers.

I think the difference between Linklater and Rohmer was stated clearly by Jurgen Fauth of WorldFilm: "The loveliness of Rohmer's films lies in the acute observation, the light humor, and the mature way in which the characters' problems are handled. The people in these films look a little less glamorous than film stars, but they are much more real, and they're a lot smarter and more articulate, too. When you think about it, it's quite remarkable to watch people talk about love for ninety minutes and never have them utter anything trite, tired, or shop-worn".

How does this state the difference? It describes Linklater, as far as I can see. Can you show how Rohmer's characters' 'handling of problems' is more 'mature' than Linklaters' characters'? You assert but do not prove.

[Howard Schumann]

Of course, that's what I meant by "The constant talk is certainly a convention, though not too far from the realities of such situations. " Apparently your problem is not a lack of realism, but that you want them to be better people; so that by watching them we will become better people too.

Not at all. I just found the wall-to-wall conversation rather annoying. I could have used a few moments of silence to take it all in.

Is it necessary to say I have "a mechanistic view of the world"? You really don't know that much about my view of the world; you are stereotyping your interlocutor unnecessarily. Please go by what I say, not who you think i am and be kind enough not to "understand" me. Does my liking Before Sunset make me a lesser person, because it's not "mind expanding"? For that matter, who is to say what's mind expanding?

I wasn't saying that to insult you. I have only the highest regard for you personally, politically, and artistically even if we have different outlooks. You have stated many times that you are not a strong admirer of spirituality and do not view the world in those terms. It just made sense to me in light of that why you wouldn't rate My Dinner With Andre very highly. If I have been offensive, please accept my apologies.

Again, your'e shifting course. Originally your point was that it was inappropriate for enviros to smoke. Now you want to extract realism and naturalness from the film to set a good example. A futile plan, since people don't just smoke because they do it in the movies, but more often because of their peers.

Smoking has no place in a movie that pretends to intelligence and sensitivity. It is very uncommon, even rare these days to see people smoking in films, a common occurrence in the past. Why is that? Because various health reports have shown smoking to be toxic and injurious to people's health. Linklater is saying - well these guys are doing it so it must be OK - screw the health statistics. It is fun and romantic.

Can you show how Rohmer's characters' 'handling of problems' is more 'mature' than Linklaters' characters'? You assert but do not prove.

I have no interest in comparisons. It is not my forte or my interest and does not illuminate in any way my feelings about Before Sunset. Each director stands on their own merits.

[Chris Knipp]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann:

One would have thought that in the intervening years, Mr. Linklater's characters would have acquired a reasonable degree of emotional maturity but such is not the case and all the sexual banter and philosophical posturing feels sophomoric.

You certainly did want them to be better people; that is clear. They aren't mature enough. They lack emotional maturity. Isn't it better to be mature, when you're in your thirties? And their conversation isn't "emotionally satisfying" as the conversation was for you in My Dinner with Andre. When I said "you want them to be better people; so that by watching them we will become better people too," it was because this was the implication of your expectation of the pair setting a good example by being mature and serious and more selfless and having such clean habits as not smoking, thereby not encouraging young people to light up.

You have stated many times that you are not a strong admirer of spirituality and do not view the world in those terms. It just made sense to me in light of that why you wouldn't rate My Dinner With Andre very highly. If I have been offensive, please accept my apologies.

Your apologies are most gracious and I warmly accept them. I don't think my religious, spiritual, or philosophical views are relevant to this discussion -- not so far anyway -- but anything I've said to you has only expressed discomfort with som spiritual programs, not a general lack of admiration for spirituality.

Smoking has no place in a movie that pretends to intelligence and sensitivity. It is very uncommon, even rare these days to see people smoking in films, a common occurrence in the past. Why is that? Because various health reports have shown smoking to be toxic and injurious to people's health. Linklater is saying - well these guys are doing it so it must be OK - screw the health statistics. It is fun and romantic.

While I thoroughly sympathize with your disapproval of smoking especially among young people , I think this is extraneous to the film as a whole. To judge every film on whether people do or don't smoke in it would be absurd. Concern about smoking is spreading, but is still only widespread in the US. Your claim that it is rare to see smoking in films is I think mistaken, even about Hollywood films. Young people are seen smoking in American movies, for the obvious reason that a lot of young people smoke and the filmmakers are trying to create a realistic feel and atmosphere. You could never make the claim about films from other countries, where more people smoke than ever--in Asia especially, but also in all of Europe. I'm not certain that making movies where people don't smoke has any positive effect. It might be more effective to have people in a movie smoking and developing a dangerous cough! A movie without smoking simply doesn't bring up the issue. In Before Sunset I am confident Linklater is not making a statement about smoking any more than he is endorsing the kind of clothes Jessie and Celine are wearing. These are simply givens of their day-to-day existence at that moment in their lives which make their characters more natural and easier for the actors to assimilate as their own. Your position on this is a primary example of the fact that you want Before Sunset not so much to be truthful as to set a good example of how we ought to behave.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you show how Rohmer's characters' 'handling of problems' is more 'mature' than Linklaters' characters'? You assert but do not prove.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no interest in comparisons. It is not my forte or my interest and does not illuminate in any way my feelings about Before Sunset. Each director stands on their own merits.

Well, if you don't want to answer, the discussion stops there. But you clearly compared conversation in Before Sunset with conversation in My Dinner with Andre and you have more recently compared Eric Rohmer's films with Linklater's --as arsaib4 and I did earlier in this thread, agreeing that we find strong affinities between the Rohmer experience and the experience of Linklater's two Sunset's. Why you mask your comparisons by using other people's statements instead of your own I have no idea. Surely comparison is an essential part of all analysis and all discussion where opinions and evaluations are being exchanged. Your quoting a favorable discription of Rohmer here:

I think the difference between Linklater and Rohmer was stated clearly by Jurgen Fauth of WorldFilm: "The loveliness of Rohmer's films lies in the acute observation, the light humor, and the mature way in which the characters' problems are handled.

--using the key word for you in your rejection of Linklater, "mature," and directly alluding to "the difference between" the two directors--is certainly a comparison, but to my mind Fauth's words could just as well describe Linklater's film; he too has a light touch. You still haven't said how Rohmer's characters' 'handling of problems' is more 'mature' than Linklaters' characters'. (Indeed Jessie and Celine are confronting their whole lives in Before Sunset, where Rohmer's are very often just considering whom to spend a few weeks in the summer with.) And so my statement remains true, that you assert but do not prove on this point --which it would require no comparison to answer. What specifically that they say "feels sophomoric" to you, and why? What specifically that they say tells you that they"haven't acquired a reasonable degree of emotional maturity"? I'm only asking for specific examples, not a comparison, though the comparisons always come up, because we're speaking in the contexts of two lifetimes of watching films, and any reference to another movie in the context of a discussion of one is a comparison of sorts, whether or not the words "better" or "more mature" or "the difference between" which you have used, come up.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
Not at all. I just found the wall-to-wall conversation rather annoying. I could have used a few moments of silence to take it all in.

I might have a slightly different opinion on this but its acceptance does depend on your outlook for the film itself. I think their verboseness is due to the fact that there is too much to say in a very short time. Linklater has them against a running clock which only adds to the tension not just for the characters but for the viewer itself. I'm rather surprised that Before Sunrise hasn't been mentioned more often in the discussion. Also I'd like to hear your thoughts on that since the conversations are punctuated with long silences (there's a great scene in the record store where they take a quick glimpse of each other).

Smoking has no place in a movie that pretends to intelligence and sensitivity. It is very uncommon, even rare these days to see people smoking in films, a common occurrence in the past. Why is that? Because various health reports have shown smoking to be toxic and injurious to people's health. Linklater is saying - well these guys are doing it so it must be OK - screw the health statistics. It is fun and romantic.

I am surprised that you've come to this conclusion, for this film. Chris Knipp's answer is an obvious generalization but one that would apply if Delpy lighting one up was inconsequential. I believe Linklater in this scene, just like he does throughout Sunset, wants to show his characters as contradictory human beings, much like the rest of us, as they fight their own feelings about each other and life in general. Similar to the way they blow off the idea of reincarnation here compare to the first film; Hawke isn't happy with his wife, but doesn't want to hurt his kid; Delpy in a marvelous sequences shows her desperateness but still wants to get away; and thus here we have her, a Green Piece activist, taking a drag.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by arsaib4


I might have a slightly different opinion on this but its acceptance does depend on your outlook for the film itself. I think their verboseness is due to the fact that there is too much to say in a very short time.

I am surprised that you've come to this conclusion (re smoking), for this film. Chris Knipp's answer is an obvious generalization but one that would apply if Delpy lighting one up was inconsequential. I believe Linklater in this scene, just like he does throughout Sunset, wants to show his characters as contradictory human beings, much like the rest of us, as they fight their own feelings about each other and life in general. Similar to the way they blow off the idea of reincarnation here compare to the first film; Hawke isn't happy with his wife, but doesn't want to hurt his kid; Delpy in a marvelous sequences shows her desperateness but still wants to get away; and thus here we have her, a Green Piece activist, taking a drag.

Your points here make a lot of sense. Thanks.