360 - Jede Begegnung hat Folgen

Taking as its, admittedly uncredited, source Arthur Schnitzler's play "Reigen", screen-writer Peter Morgan and director Fernando Meirelles' 360 combines several stories in something of the disjointed manner of Inarritu's "Amores Perros" or "Babel". It's very skillfully made and yes, it holds our attention but that's all it does. On an emotional level it never really engages us and the 'stories', which are naturally related, aren't particularly interesting. The film is clever, well-written, often beautifully directed and the large, international cast are all fine but there's a distinct lack of substance; this isn't a memorable film. Still, there is at least one thing about this film that is great and it occurs whenever Anthony Hopkins is on screen. It isn't a big part and there isn't a great deal of character development in the writing but Hopkins is such a great actor that he makes the part great. You get the impression he's making it up as he goes along; in other words, you feel you are seeing a real person rather than the actor playing him. He's only on screen for much too short a time but he's magnificent. As can he guessed from the title, the film is called 360 because the stories go full circle; if only they had been better this film might have been as great as something like "Amores Perros" or "Pulp Fiction" which were constructed in much the same way. It's certainly not a bad film but it could have been so much better while the closing story seems both melodramatic and really rather tagged on for effect. On hindsight this would probably have made a good six-part television series rather than a two hour movie.

Movies linking different stories taking place all over the world are usually are praised for the interweaving plot coming together with some big revelation. Think about Babel, universally praised for mixing intercontinental tragedy. I liked it moderately, as it was a bit too gloomy, and I would not put it in my top-ten list.

On the other hand, 360 working on a similar take, was vilified almost unanimously. On a different merry-go-round we have the stories of an English businessman ready to stray with a prostitute in Vienna, while his wife is already straying in London with a Brazilian guy, whose fiancée is dumping him for said infidelity and traveling back home, etc… Since the prostitute is having her photos taken by a photographer for her online advert, the movie starts and finishes with a girl entering the study, thus coming round 360 degrees. A couple of stories are quite weak, such as the Brazilian girl meeting a sex offender en route to Brazil and the prostitute's sister running away with a stranger. However, compared to Babel what is missing here is mega tragedy and that is exactly what made Babel so pretentious, with its existentialist grandeur.

Therefore, I liked 360 better because its characters are more "normal" – except, perhaps, the Russian mobsters – and their lives are not experiencing huge calamities. They just change or adjust slightly. I guess that was not liked by the critics (and public). Nowadays, a level of extra-drama seems to be required in ever massive doses to relieve with excitement our numbed existences … at least for a couple of hours.

360 (2011)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Director Fernando Meirelles' latest takes place in seven cities as a wide range of people with different backgrounds are thrown into difficult decisions due in some way to sex. A Russian (Gabriela Marcinkova) woman decides to turn to prostitution; an older man (Anthony Hopkins) searches for his daughter who is missing; a sex offender (Ben Foster) is released from prison and fears he's going to commit another crime; a married man (Jude Law) thinks about having an affair while a married woman (Rachel Weisz) tries to end her affair. 360 actually delivers what the title promises as the story really does go full circle but the entire ride through it isn't nearly as entertaining as I was hoping. There's no question that there are some good stories scattered throughout but by the time the end credits came I felt that there really wasn't a point to any of them. The funny thing is that while each character here gets several bits of development, all of the stories pretty much end without anything ever being solved so the viewer is left to wonder what will happen or if they'll be connected in some sort of way. I think one of the problems with a film like this is that the great stories don't get enough time while the more boring ones feel unfinished or you wish that they'd get to another story. The best one here is the sex offender as we get a terrific and very intense story as the man feels he's about to relapse and commit another crime. Foster's performance is right on the money and downright chilling. The Jude Law sequence really doesn't add up to much and the twist his character takes from a rival really isn't all that interesting. The stuff dealing with the prostitute was actually quite interesting as was the piece with Hopkins and his relationship with a young woman (Maria Flor). Both Hopkins and Flor deliver strong performances that help their stories. 360 is directed with style and there's no doubt that it's a well made film but there's still too many frustrating or weak things that keep it from being a good movie.

I ran across 360 by chance and really enjoyed it. Yet, when searching for more information in internet the generic title proved difficult to google. After some clicking things started to unfold: the same author directed City of God and the movie is a loose adaptation of one Arthur Schnitzler's play. Although i can't say much about the latter, the former impressed me even more since i've enjoyed that movie, as well.

The cast is brilliant with famous actors popping in and out of view and blending discreetly with otherwise great performance of less known colleagues. We effortlessly move with them across cities, countries and continents as it otherwise is the case in globally interconnected world at the start of the 21st century.

The more i think about 360 the more interesting details i discover in retrospect. Probably the strongest message is that there is a good seed even in the worst of us. The other is that we all eventually get what we want but some of us also get what they deserve.

What i particularly enjoyed is that a lot of things are either foreshadowed or left unsaid. This gives room for viewer's imagination to kick in, which, in turn, is rather uncommon in the era of realism and boredom in movies with artistic tendencies.

To sum it up, the only reason my vote is two stars shy of the best note is that i understand how this kind of movie might not be everyone's cup of tea.

The idea of narrating different linked stories of characters is certainly not new and the material in this picture is quite abundant: a lot of complex characters, a lot of deep and tense backgrounds. The limit was that the director probably wanted to explore too many characters and too many situations, and the result is that no single story or character is sufficiently developed and seem to be more kept separate than interconnected. The idea that people's lives are connected comes out as banal and evident, as part of any person not living secluded at home, and the fact that in the picture the links go from Europe to the US to Brasil is simply because it deals with dynamic people who move across the world. Some story lines, such as Hopkins' search for his lost daughter could have been explored more deeply, on the contrary it remains faded like the other stories.

Nothing to say against shooting, the use of split scenes is effective and tries to underline the idea of interconnections, and the subtle use of camera tries to make the characters' personalities come out, but in the end do not make up for a general underdevelopment. Nothing to say against the talented, but a little wasted cast, who give depth to the characters, although in the end we cannot but miss some more insight and deepening of both characters and stories.