Fatale

What I find interesting about the prior reviewer is that he could only comment upon the sleaziness of the Jeremy Irons characters. I fully expected to see that in most reviews. It is also most unbalanced, in the manner of the sex role ideologies of the 90's and the oughts.

For any not submerged in feminist victimization ideology, or an exaggerated gallantry, but who can view the situation with a modicum of gender neutrality, the Binoche character is far more culpable than the Irons character. She is no ingenue. Her character must be around 30, and a very worldly 30 plus at that (although she looks 35 plus) -- to his perhaps 45. She plots from moment one to seduce her boyfriend's father, not long after she has hooked up with the boyfriend. She does succeed soon enough, which does him no credit. But he believes she is just one more of a long line of his son's very temporary, and not particularly involved sexual relationships -- and he exudes an obviously sexual loneliness. The Irons and Binoche characters have a very torrid, and mildly S&M, relationship. All along he is obviously conflicted and very uncomfortable that she continue the relationship with both of them. Midway, he wants to leave his wife, make an honest (if marriage destroying) breast of it, and be with her alone. Binoche wants no such thing. She wants both father and son.

What is really maximally warped is Brioche's continued pursuit of the father after the son has proposed marriage, after she has accepted, and after Irons tells her with obvious anguish, but apparent sincerity, that he has decided that he has to break it off, and is breaking it off. It is not a mixed message. He even makes a non-revelatory, but symbolic and emotionally communicative visit to his son in his new, early achieved job as assistant political editor at a tony London newspaper. But Brioche relentlessly pursues him, and lures him back again -- while she is in the midst of planning the wedding.

Further, she spares not a single thought for his public career -- despite the fact that he is a British cabinet minister - or perhaps it is an assistant minister. (She works in a high end antiques establishment).

Sure, she has her troubled childhood history. But even there it isn't clear whether she is more victim, or manipulator. Certainly she was not the most ultimate victim earlier, either. As well, the Irons character, for all his public success, also obviously has emotional issues. They are familiar ones -- a reasonably pleasant, but passionless marriage, a midlife crisis, and a general sense, reflected by his children, that his greatest failing in life is not letting himself go more, not living with more passion. He at least makes some efforts to control himself, and to distance himself after her intentions to commit herself (at least publicly) to his son become clear -- while she does not -- at all.

He of course ends up far more damaged by her than the other way around. She it would seem entered damaged, and left with the pattern just more confirmed.

And yet as I expected, and have so far seen, the currently prevailing impulse is to almost exclusively blame the He -- regardless. Hogwash. Brioche is the ultimate home wrecker.

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.

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 ****.

Jeremy Irons and Juliette Binoche do some "Damage" in this 1992 film also starring Miranda Richardson, Rupert Graves, Ian Bannen and Leslie Caron. Irons is a British cabinet minister who falls for his son's girlfriend (Binoche), a deeply disturbed young woman.

Despite the facetiousness of my summary line, this is quite a brilliant film about emotionally damaged people and obsession. It also comes off as very realistic because the emotions are portrayed so honestly.

On the surface, it seems ridiculous, sort of a sex-change version of The Graduate, with Binoche involved with both father and son. Here is the Irons character, Dr. Stephen Fleming, with a brilliant career, a beautiful wife (Richardson) whose father (Bannen) has had a brilliant career; they have two children and a lovely home and lifestyle. Why threaten it with a tawdry affair?

I kept thinking what an idiot Irons was throughout the film, yet we know that in real life, people have played Russian roulette with their careers before.

It's clear when Anna seeks out Stephen and introduces herself that her attachment to Martyn (Graves) was simply to get to him - and she does -immediately. All they can do is stare at one another.

When she invites him to her apartment, she is sitting on the edge of her bed. Seeing him, she sinks to the floor, her arms outstretched. Because she never wears underwear, they can usually have sex with most of their clothes on and have it anywhere - street corners, tables, Stephen's father-in-law's house. The sex isn't particularly erotic to watch; it's awkward-looking because of the frenzy involved.

Part of the obsession for Stephen is the unleashing of passion that's been sublimated; part of it is the danger - and is part of it having something he didn't have in his own youth that his son has now? Does he look at Martyn and see that Martyn's life is ahead of him and that he, Stephen, is no longer "young?" Possible. Is he angry with Martyn for replacing him in his wife's affections? Perhaps.

For Anna, the motives and thrills are different - due to a tragedy in her life involving her brother who apparently was in love with her too, she is playing some weird psychological game in which there is no real winner.

The acting is marvelous - Binoche is exquisitely dressed though some of those marvelous clothes are ripped off of her - she brings an exotic, androgynous and mysterious quality to the role of Anna. Irons is excellent as an up-tight father and half-crazed lover.

Leslie Caron has a small role as Anna's mother. She's lovely as ever and strong in a dramatic role of a woman who drinks a little but who nevertheless has Stephen's number.

The last 30 minutes of this movie are some of the most shattering moments in film, and what makes them so shattering is not only the situation but the absolutely devastating, visceral, no holds barred performance by Miranda Richardson. She is ably supported by a writer and director who both knew something about profound pain.

Her performance is great - that she had the material to give that performance and a director who let her go makes this film truly unforgettable.

When Damage is over, you won't be the person you were when you started watching it. It's so rare nowadays to see such a fascinating, character-driven film. It will stay with you for a long time.

For this viewer, this was a brilliant satire of the type of self-important love stories that always leave us little people feeling somewhat unworthy. Usually the "star-crossed" lovers are celebrated (Doctor Zhivago, The English Patient), but here they are shown to be what they really are - selfish, shallow morons, callously destroying all that surrounds them in the name of their "special" love. Excellent!