Verhängnis

After all comments I already read here, I am kind of confused. My opinion? Good script, good casting, beautiful people, carefully made movie, but for some reason, not quite convincing. Binoche and Irons became lovers and they are living a completely forbidden passion, a passion so violent and complete that they risk everything around them (specially Irons). But their performances are so rigid, so empty of life and (precisely) passion...!! I've seen people greeting friends at a birthday party with more enthusiasm and sparks in their eyes that Binoche and Irons meeting to have sex in a secret apartment. They both look like they were in drugs, and the boyfriend/son who does not know anything... well, my cat is a better actor when he wants food. One thing is that some people is not running around crying aloud when they are in love, and another thing is acting a love scene like you are thinking of you are out of milk and have to go to the supermarket.

I have read some of the reviews on Damage and hope that for someone who hasn't seen it they don't go in expecting some silly little erotic love triangle because this is a lot more then that and, though the story is very well done, it is very difficult to get through. It's NOT light viewing.

Damage is a searing and intense look at the dark side of human nature. (You may want to read the book before you see the film). This so much more then a LOVE TRIANGLE! It examines issues of morality and doing the "right thing" versus giving in to what is basically "forbidden fruit". This story is completely different then "American Beauty" but the tragic tone is set and people who like American Beauty may like this. Josephine Hart has another book called "Sin" that's even better then Damage that I would also recommend although it also has that darkly tragic tone from the beginning. That one also involves family members, in that case the two main characters are sisters. (I do not think "Sin" has been made into a movie though I could be wrong.) In any case-Hart is a master story teller and this is a tragic multi character study but hardly light viewing! Know what your getting into before you get into it and if you haven't, read the book as well. Amazing!

My main reason for seeing 'Damage' was for the cast. Especially love Jeremy Irons, who very seldom has done wrong (in terms of performances that is, he has been in his fair share of misfires but is a bright spot in most of them). But also love a lot of Juliette Binoche's performances ('Three Colours: Blue' being particularly notable, she is astonishing in that) and the same goes for Miranda Richardson in much of her work.

That the director was Louis Malle ('Au Revoir Les Enfants') in his penultimate film, and the composer was Krzysztof Kieslowski regular Zbigniew Preisner were further attractions. The themes of lust, passion, betrayal and the consequences of damage are not unfamiliar ones in film/tevision before 'Damage' or since it, but there is nothing wrong with that and when explored well in film/television they do leave a very powerful impact. Familiarity is not a bad thing, it's over-familiarity on top of not being interesting or unintentionally funny (or all of those) when it is a problem.

'Damage' is, has been and is going to be, a beautiful and interesting film to some. To others, it is, has been and is going to be cold and dull. Count me in as somebody in the former camp, while totally seeing why it won't connect, and hasn't connected, for others and am not in any way going to hold that against them. It is not one of Malle's best films, nowhere near, and most of the actors have done better work before and since. Irons with 'Dead Ringers', sorry about going on a lot about this particular film but just love that film and his performance in it, and Binoche with 'Three Colours: Blue'. It is some of Richardson's best work though. With it not being a good or particularly fair representation of Rupert Graves in my mind.

Found Graves to be wasted in an underwritten clueless dullard sort of role with nowhere near as much screen time as he should have done, his biggest scene/moment being one of the film's most memorable near the end. A shame because he has given numerous good to great performances, unforgettable for example in 'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall'.

Some of the editing in the early parts of the film is on the rushed side, likewise with how the central relationship begins and unfolds so easily and quickly. Stephen's motivations could have gone into depth more.

However, 'Damage' is beautifully and stylishly filmed and most of the editing is fine. The closing shot is very hard to forget. Preisner's score is hauntingly intimate, sometimes hypnotic and at other times ominous, which fits the tone more than ideally. Not some of his very best work, but Preisner even not at his very best still delivered. Malle shows no signs of fatigue in his directing despite it being his penultimate film, do prefer it when there is more of a personal touch to his direction seen in especially 'Au Revoir Les Enfants' (that film though is very personal, auto-biographical actually) but he is hardly out of his depth. Props to him to even attempt exploring a very interesting but difficult subject and do so as compellingly and bravely as he does.

Morever, 'Damage' is thoughtfully and leanly scripted. The clear highlight in this regard being Richardson's big scene at the end (the one that garnered her the acclaim she got for her performance), will try not to spoil it too much but it sure does pack an emotional punch. Another highlight too, and the line to sum up the entire film, is the line from Binoche regarding the impact of damage. The story thematically is nothing new and from reading any basic plot summary sounds like familiar territory and very thin. It's the way the themes are explored that is unconventional and surprisingly insightful, lust and betrayal has seldom been portrayed in such a dark, intense and devastating way even when the film is deliberately paced. The tension does simmer and often when not a word is being said and when expressions are so subtle. Ingrid's big scene at the end is the dramatic highlight, searing in intimacy and devastating in emotional impact when seeing how much damage has been caused, got the sense that even Irons was trying to hold back emotion filming the scene.

It does have to be said that 'Damage' has some of the most interesting love scenes of any film (easily), know very few films to have love scenes these gymnast-athletic and searingly intense while also being passionate and erotic enough, most of the passion coming from Irons though. Binoche apparently disliked working with Irons when his approach to the love scenes became too physical (there is that sense in the first one), but that dislike to me didn't come out on screen and liked that their chemistry wasn't overwrought. What is also interesting about 'Damage' is how it portrays the characters, particularly in Stephen and Anna being such polar opposites in type and their attitude to relationships

Of the three leads, despite having the least to do Richardson is particularly great and is a fierce powerhouse at the end. That is obvious in terms of awards attention too, her performance was the most acclaimed of the three. When it comes to tortured characters, upper-class gentlemen with moral issues and understated intensity, Irons was one of the best, and he shows that here. Should be is, but he's had material well beneath him for a while now with some exceptions here and there that doesn't show those qualities anywhere near enough. Binoche is exotic and suitably despairing in one of her "sorrowful sisters" roles that she always played superbly and never in an over the top way, subtly expressive actually. Just to say that that phrase is her words and way of coining some of her roles, not mine. Leslie Caron is memorable in her small role.

Altogether, not for all but to me it was very good with a few reservations. 8/10

This movie is really much less shallow than many people criticizing it would think. Actually, I was captivated by it from start to finish. It is understandable that one would question the likeliness of all these events happening, and in that respect the characters might be a bit unreal. But I don't think the movie should be watched that way. The sheer unreasonable passion between Anna and Stephen should be felt, not analyzed. I think that a lot of people wished that they would or could feel something like this for another in today's harsh, business-like world. It is always an easy way out to be cynical about it. Although the characters and their relationships are not very "deep", I found everything entirely believable, and that is the only thing that counts.

I did not really ever see an entire movie with Binoche or Irons, and I wonder how they managed to slip through for so long, because I loved them both. Funny how one commentator remarked that the Anna character should have been sleazier for credibility. Don't you see that this all about self-destruction? The tiny, innocuous-looking Anna that Binoche portrays, a girl that most people wouldn't give a second look, a girl that might seem cold at first sight, is just what attracts Stephen, because they both find in each other what they have never found in anyone else. Both characters are on a mission to make their lives more miserable, because that it what defines them. This certainly goes for Anna, but Stephen is even more interesting because his life is so well organized. Anna is just a catalyst for everything he probably wanted to happen one way or another, and that is why he will not stop their "collision course" when he still can. The inevitability of it all shows best at the end: he shows no remorse, or any other emotion, just acceptation. He was subconsciously wanting to put and end to the life he had been living so far. This is also a feeling that many people can relate to, I think. Yes, the end is a bit theatrical maybe, but it didn't bother me. I'd watch it again next week.

Great movie. **** out of ****.

I don't know. I have read some of the reviews here and some literate folk seem to me to want to wax lyrical about vapor. Meaning, sometimes people get a kick out of writing silly things.

If this is the worse movie anyone has seen, then they've not seen many movies. I'm not saying it is for everyone, it's a long key affair, where everything is below the surface (which is actually referenced in the film over a dinner table scene) until finally it breaks free with horrendous results.

Four great performances, Irons is brilliant as a man with great self-control who finds himself for the first time ever, obsessed. Richardson who nearly steals the entire film with a single scene near the end - writing years of personal grief across her face in bruises. Binoche who knows where safe harbor lies (with Peter) who cannot avoid destroying peoples lives. Graves as the ineffectual son, who knows he's in love with a woman in pain, but does not yet know how it will manifest itself.

It's a good film. Beware of anyone who goes to extremes to say otherwise. It's not an easy film to ridicule. (ps. I watched the R2 DVD, it's an awful presentation - AVOID).