Liebestraum

The main problem with Mike Figgis' overly arty 1991 offering is such a diaphonous plot it's a wonder he got the financing in the first place. His 1990 Internal Affairs had been a smash (and also one of the most unpleasant of the Nineties) so he pressed on with this beautifully lit slice of old tosh in which the leading man gets to look moody a lot.

Not so much a movie as a coffee table book screened at 24 frames a second.

On the plus side, Pamela Gidley is gorgeous, there's a creepy scene toward the finale with a wheelchair and nice to see Kim Novak back on the big screen.

Watch it for the great lighting and soundtrack and you may not be disappointed. Might be better to read a book as well as there's little point paying attention to the threadbare plot.

2/5

Kim Novak returned to films in this Mike Figgis film. During the shooting there was a lot of PR generated by the legendary star's return to films including an interview with Kim Novak by the Sunday New York times Movie Section, great advance PR for the film. The back story of this movie would have been a better film than what appears on screen. Ms. Novak fought bitterly with Mike Figgis who threatened to cut Kim Novak's part to shreds, and Figgis did. What resulted is a muddled film that stars Kevin Anderson a fine actor whose part must also have been edited. Ditto Bill Pullman. Liebestraum - a brilliant title- makes little sense as a film.

Liebestraum started out as a Warner Bros film but ended up as a MGM film and that once fabled studio was going thru one of its periodic slumps and financial distresses and gave this film a very very limited opening in only two cities Los Angeles and New York. The New York Times favorably reviewed Ms. Novak in its review which should have given MGM and Figgis to open the picture more widely. The mystery here is not the film's murky subject but the fact that Kim Novak a worldwide star and a very under appreciated actress was given so little to do but moan. Novak is seen basically bed ridden and moaning during the film until a shocking windup.

In a purely business observation, Kim Novak was at one time a huge box office draw with films such as Vertigo, Picnic, Bell Book and Candle, Pal Joey, Strangers When We Meet, The Mirror Crack'd et al and MGM and Figgis should have sold this as a Kim Novak return project and they would have made their money back on that. Instead, Kim Novak was ignored by Figgis who in turn ignored this film refusing to do any PR for the project upon its release and sadly this film ended the film career of Kim Novak.

Madonna was supposed to do the female lead but told her then beau Warren Beatty she did not understand the script. Beatty wisely told Madonna if she did not understand the project do not do it. Pam Gidley stepped in to replace Madonna. Wise move on Madonna's part.

But given that, not a terrible watch. I read a comment about the lighting being special in this film. This really added to my enjoyment. I suppose that Kevin Anderson and his management expected his career to take off, because he did Leibestraum the same year (1991) as "Sleeping With The Enemy" with Julia Roberts, whose career was blossoming. Not that Kevin hasn't hit the big time since then. Who knows. Maybe he has wildly surpassed his personal goals. I enjoy his performances, including the TV thing about a Catholic priest a few years back. For DVD renters, catch the deleted scene. This is the coolest. The ladies at the Cat House, are also the nurses in the hospital. This revelation was the highlight of the film. For that reason, I don't understand why it was left out. There are equally explicit scenes that were left in, and they dovetail with the deleted scene. But, I was not the writer and director of Internal Affairs, successfully released the previous year.

I first saw a trailer for this on a now defunct late night TV programme back in 1991. It had me hooked from the start with stylish lighting, great music and sharp editing promising a modern noir thriller with shades of "Dead Again". Due to a limited cinema release the first chance I got to see the film was a couple of years later when I saw the box in a video store. I bought it immediately, figuring it might be interesting. I underestimated. This is a fantastic film filled with emotion and beauty. The first time I saw it it blew me away. I expected a cool little thriller and was rewarded with something much more. This is not a murder mystery or a thriller, per se, but a love story shot through a noir lens. The soundtrack (also by Figgis) is astounding and the acting is perfect. Particular kudos to the then-unknown Bill Pullman who puts in a career best performance. Also, if you actually figure out the central twist of the film (listen to the conversation in the car between Jane and Nick) you will wonder how on earth Figgis got this past a studio. Ever since I first saw it I've been trying to convert my friends to it's wonders with much success. See it now and your life may not be better, but two hours of it will have been well spent. Remember: Only you can prevent forest fires

Some of the comments here on this movie seem to point in the direction that people simply don't seem to be able to grasp the subtle implications of this movie. The movie consists of two intertwined stories, one in the past and one in the present, and until the very end, the story of the present is a direct repetition of the story of the past, only in a different setting. And some of the people from the story of the past are still alive and present in the story of the present.

Most importantly, Bill Pullmans character, Paul Kessler, plays the repetition-role of the angry husband, who one generation ago killed his wife and her lover. Only Paul Kessler doesn't (yet) have an adulterous wife to kill, so his hate and anger is pointed at the building, in which the past act of hatred took place. Paul Kessler is the engine that drives the repetition-pattern in the present of past events, and the two main characters, Nick Kaminsky and Pauls wife Jane, can't help but to play their part in repeating history.

The love- and the hate-stories of the past and the present and their repetitive nature are the drives and motivators of this movie, and everything else evolves and is motivated from this pattern.

The movie really isn't that subtle, it simply can't be explained by mere deductive logic. It's a love- and hate- and crime- and almost a ghoststory and if you absolutely have to have an explanation for everything in this movie, the explanation would have to be found in the explanation of the present through the past and in the illogical event of the almost complete repetition of the past in the present.