Brownian Movement

"Brownian Movement" or, more technically, "Brownian Motion," is the random motion of particles suspended in a medium, a concept named for Scottish botanist Robert Brown (1773-1858). It describes an observation relating to plant pollen that he first postulated in 1827.

In this story, the "particle" is Charlotte, a physician, and the "medium" is the hospital where she works. Charlotte circulates among the patients and selects them at random to engage in sexual encounters at a secret flat that she's rented. In contrast to her husband, an engineer who is handsome and masculine, her pick-ups are often physically repulsive and weak.

Others have criticized this film as dull or boring, but I found it engaging in the tradition of films by Yasujiro Ozu, Ingmar Bergman, Alain Resnais, and Agnes Varda. The visuals, especially of the illicit flat, are exquisitely composed and reminiscent of the artist Edward Hopper's interiors.

Except for one startling outburst, the film is a quiet psychological study to be savored slowly. The action is often limited to the actor's expressions and if you're looking for a fast-paced plot punctuated by lurid sex, then move on.

Until I watched this film, I considered Marie Antoinette and Forrest Gump to be the two worst movies I had ever seen. Brownian Movement outdoes them.

I only watched it because the description said that to moved to India, my home country. Was curious why they would do that.

The movie has barely and plot AND it makes no sense. Charlotte is married to a very attractive man, as she acknowledges. She also has a good job. Yet, she chooses to hook up with only unattractive men and we don't have a clue why.

The therapy session is superficial. We get no sense of why Max stays with her and has children with her.

About half the movie is comprised of silences. Apparently, the writer and director could not bother to write some helpful dialogue.

PS Another reviewer says that this film manages to make nudity and sex boring. Actually, the top honor for that goes to Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut.

Dull. Not a long movie, but it feels long. Just drifts from the first minute to the last, and ultimately goes nowhere.

Quite pointless.

The star's write up in the current New Yorker Magazine led me to this film. With all the predictable, derivative fare these days, it is a welcome relief. I lament all the panning user reviews, entirely missing the point.

Charlotte the brilliant research physician reminds one of the Good Doctor and Astrid Neilsen in her extraordinary professional abilities. But unlike them, she passes for neurotypical. Her relationship with her pre-school-age son is normal as apple pie.

The linguistic fragmentation of her daily life portends what will happen. She is German. She is married to an American. English is spoken at home and at work. Official stuff in Brussels is in French. The language of the streets is Flemish.

She has a crack-up, taking the form of sexual acting out with unattractive, Flemish-speaking men. The lurid sex scenes make the sheer perverseness vivid. She has encountered ugly bodies alive and dead in her time, after all. The sex is much like the drinking in Die Tage des Weines und der Rosen (1962). Only if those scenes are misunderstood out of context can one think this is mere soft-core porn.

Against all odds, her husband stands by her as the repercussions blow back. Perhaps he would not have done so, had she not been such a good lay. The moral of the story? When someone in your life experiences a crack-up, the right thing to do is be there for him/her.

While recovering, she gives birth to twins. The symbolism cannot get heavier-handed than that!

I think this film stands on the shoulders of Ekel (1965) and Belle de jour - Schöne des Tages (1967).

This movie is simply fantastic. Shots are incredibly beautiful with minimalist presentation. Delicate and sensitive. Loyal yet uncompromising. The moves by the protagonist are bold and way ahead of our times. Let's not be the arbiter of "morality" here. Passing judgement based on the male perspective of what the characters are expected to do or by the cultural standards that we have grown accustomed to or expect, is juvenile. If you are conditioned enough to look for messages in a movie then you are missing the forest.