Brownian Movement

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.

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 Days of Wine and Roses (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 Repulsion (1965) and Belle de jour (1967).

Charlotte rents a secret apartment. She lives with Max and their son Benjamin in Brussels. She's a researcher professor and she takes some of her male patients to the secret apartment to have sex. She encounters one of those men later and violently attacks him. She goes to therapy with Max and she loses her license to practice. Next, they're in India with the new addition of twins but it's not as good as it first appears to be.

There is little dialog especially with the large number of sex scenes. It's a quiet movie. My main problem with that is the lack of emotions for much of the movie. Sandra Hüller plays the cold lead character. She never really lets the audience into the character. Nanouk Leopold is the writer/director. In between the sex scenes, this is a character study movie but it doesn't necessary do a good job. There are little snippets of insight but a whole lot of nothing.

I had no idea what this movie would be about. But it played at the Berlin International Film Festival this year and the title sounded intriguing. Plus it did fit into my schedule. It really goes all the way and is pretty harsh and raw. While you never really get into the head of our main actress, she seems to bear it all. So this isn't for the delicate viewers amongst us.

Unfortunately it is not as good as I'd wish it would be. It tries very hard to be something poetic, something that will make you think about things. Philosophical even, if you want to call it that. And while it has really good points, it never achieves its goal.

This is an exceedingly fine film. It explores issues that arise when a marriage is put under a "pressure test" – through its exploration of cause and effect it raises the challenging question of 'what is the nature of marriage?' The issue is "what is enough?' as one of the characters asks. As the wife and husband cope with events the camera focuses on their faces for very long durations of time; this is done in total silence so we, the viewer, is given the luxury of having time to explore our own thoughts about the progress of the film, and how each character does (or one thinks, should) react.

This film flies its 'Art House' flag with pride, being slow and low key (but beautifully set and filmed). It is a film in which deep thought has gone into its making, and to do it justice it deserves the same respect from the viewer. Watch it, and see if it gives you cause to ponder the significant issues that it raises.