L'Écume des jours

Usually, I do not care about how a book is adapted, as long as the movie is good on its own. In that case it was completely different; I am a huge, massive Boris Vian fan, and I never thought his style (for example the way he took metaphors literally) could be set upon a screen.

That is to say, until I've heard that Gondry was directing L'écume des Jours. Sometimes, those things just make sense; Gondry is the only one who could have transformed Boris Vian into something visual, and that is exactly what he did, and with no CGI, only old fashioned tricks. The DIY way ladies and gentlemen, that's what it is all about.

Maybe many will dislike this movie. Others, like me, will love it passionately, for its effusiveness, for its communicative joy, for its unrelenting sadness. But at least, people will feel what Boris Vian is all about. And I mean especially for the English speaking countries, where Boris Vian is really not well known and most of the time poorly translated: by transcribing his style to a visual dimension, Gondry made it universal.

I went in to the theater without checking out the reviews beforehand, completely open-minded. I was drawn in by the word "surrealist" in the description, and curious to see whether the movie was going to compare with the early day movies like the 1902 A Trip to the Moon. This was when the totally new possibilities of film were being enthusiastically embraced, and for those long-gone creators the sky was the limit. I wasn't disappointed. It is fabulous how the director has created the most absurd situations and effects, giving the viewer the feeling of bouncing from one surrealist painting into another. It looks like a movie which must have been incredibly time-consuming to bring together, and in my mind Michel Gondry has totally succeeded. Bravo also to Marie-Charlotte Moreau, for her wonderful editing to bring about this beautiful result.

To me, this movie does what movies are for: activate the imagination. In this case, touching a theme not as alien as one might wish it to be in a fantastic setting. The 'fantastic' way in which people and institutions appear is far from random; it feels to me like a hyperdream of familiar entities and sensations, their logical extreme. Rich, vivid imagination which enters your brain and puts hooks in it. Loved the book and Gondry made it even more alive for me. Quite a feat. If you do like the movie, please check out the book (and also other titles by Vian). Don't want to generalize too much but if you like movies by Terry Gilliams you will probably like this a lot, too. Rats, writing reviews is hard and I'm not very good at it; but i so disagree with the IMDb-grade for this film (currently 5.8) and the general reviews I've read so far that I had to create an account just to weigh in. So please go see this film and find out for yourself!

Did I mention already that it is beautifully made, and at times very funny?

I read the book many years ago and barely remembered it, but I still felt that magic of the absurd or weird that had impressed me so much. The film indeed manages to translate this feeling into visual images, but I felt that it was too much, and while with the book I never felt it tried to be funny, the film did. At least it was my impression that it was a bit slapstick in part, and through some parts I did get bored. However, it did become strong towards the end, in the tragic part. Suddenly the absurdity and weirdness became a proper language for the tragic development, it became a mirror of the protagonists inner world and feelings. It really impressed me there.

This film tells the story of a young man who lives a great life in his fantastic apartment in Paris. He meets a girl and fall in love, and his life is not the same again.

The film starts off great, with the signature Michel Gondry style of bizarre visual feast. I really like the clash of old and new technology, such as typing into a computer where there are tall people at the other end to process the command. It's imaginative and fun to watch. After an hour of visual feasts, we get to the main advertised plot. The film is not the same anymore, as it moves into a sombre direction. Then the plot derails into a fragmented mess, and I didn't quite know what the plot is really about. Overall, I wish the film was shorter as it really didn't need that much time to tell this story.