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.

First of all, i must admit that I didn't read the book. So perhaps that's the reason I didn't get the purpose of this film.

I was attending this movie with great expectations, I love the work of Michel Gondry and I couldn't wait to see Audrey Tatou and Omar Sy playing together.

The special effects were great, and as I said before Michel Gondry is one of my favorites. But here's the thing, I was unhappy during the movie. I couldn't develop sympathy for the main characters, because the storyline felt missing too often. Combine that with the weird dialogs and the straying from one scene to another without a proper connection, you'll get why. The dialog, and I understand that this was adopted from the book, but in this movie it just didn't made sense.

I couldn't feel what I wanted to feel about this movie, I wanted to like it so badly but I couldn't. I feel the film was more focused on the special effects than on the actual character development and storyline.

It's been a long time since I've been acquainted with Michel Gondry. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep are two of my all-time favourite films. Be Kind Rewind was an unfortunate misfire but I already warmly welcome his style. However, I've never seen him quite so unrestrained like this. Mood Indigo is a truly fantasy world. No dream, no drugs, and nothing is how you'd expect. Not even dancing, not even a handshake. To say the world of Mood Indigo is surreal and absurd is an understatement and no words can quite grasp the chaos on screen. It's like an R-rated Dr. Seuss. Like Gilliam's Brazil. But, it's an absolute delight. Things may not make sense at any point, but it's not about symbolism, it's about expressionism. The characters are deeply human, and that's what counts. All these inventions, twists, obscurities all about emotion. And Mood Indigo constantly had me bellying with laughter or sinking an anchor in my stomach when tragedy strikes even when I wasn't sure what was happening.

That's the spirit of filmmaking really, to feel how the characters are feeling, and this film achieves it admirably. But at times it is so dense that its hard to keep up. The special effects and production design are wonderful, but the way it's shot in HD does sometimes nullify its effects and brings us back to reality in a way it doesn't want (I would've preferred Gondry to not have his cameo). Sometimes the cast can't even keep up with it. I really wasn't sure about the cast at first. They're familiar faces, but they didn't seem to suit the tone, plus they felt too old. However, with the film's dark twist in the second half, so dark the film turns black and white, it did become apparent that these cast members fit this melancholic side of the world. I wish it wasn't so bloated in characters and was more restrained like The Science of Sleep. The great soundtrack definitely adds to its rich atmosphere too. I do hope this film will stick with me like his two best films. It may be manic, but it's thoroughly charming. Not Gondry's best but his best in a long while.

8/10

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.

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.