Flerte

Definitely an Art movie, sort of the anti-Rashômon: three different events described as if they were the same. Obviously such a film foregrounds the direction, and the dialog is recognizably Hartleyesque.

Hal Hartley weaves the same dialog through three only roughly similar stories given by their settings, the characters involved, and the cinematic treatments different meanings.

An art film about how films make art out of life. Or something.

Warning: if you lack intellectual curiosity (it's definitely not for the passive viewer) or are homophobic this will push your buttons; hence the 1-out-of-10 ratings above.

I remembered this film from seeing it 20 years ago. It turns out it didn't age well. I don't know what attracted me to this film back then (as a teenager).

Dwight Ewell is the actor that stayed graved on my memory, and their acting performance is the best thing about this film, and in stark contrast to the other actors, most of them spurting out the lines of the text mechanically.

The concept of the film is not bad, and imagining the exact same dialogue in different context (hetero relation vs gay relation, different cultures) is food for thought, but the film fails to engage and keep it interesting.

The same story told three times in three countries but with different characters and culture values. Hartley goes for the Godardian style but without the political cheekiness. Nice to see Hartley try his hand at something a little different.

I'm a big fan of Hartley, and I went into this film with no idea of what it was about. I felt disappointed pretty quickly. The trademark Harley weirdness felt forced, but more importantly the dialog was less interesting, so that it all felt very static. There were a few interesting moments sprinkled in here and there, but I only kept watching because I hoped that at some point it would all come together and click into gear.

And then, 20 minutes or so in, the story ends, we're in a different country and the same exact story with the same dialog that wasn't interesting the first time is done a second time. And then, when that plays out, a third time.

Why? I have no idea. What is this meant to show us? That people all over the world have boring little stories to tell? It doesn't really matter what Hartley's intent was, the final product is pure tedium, with just a little purely gratuitous nudity thrown in to spice things up.

One short film script repeated three times in three different cities in the United States, Europe and Japan. The dialogue is identical in each; the plot plays out the violent and alienating repercussions of chronic flirtation and self-destructive covetousness. The subtle differences in each scenario are due (theoretically) to the changes in setting, sexual orientation and cultural backdrop.

If you're a Hal Hartley fan you'll probably enjoy this film to some extent; if you're not then you may be easily put off by the repetition of what could be seen as stiff artsy banter. The dialogue is clever, sharp, witty - characteristically quirky Hal Hartley writing. But the first scenario, set in New York and involving Martin Donovan, Parker Posey and that other favorite Hal Hartley actor from Simple Men (Bill something), is easily the best of the three and the high point of the film.

There's some really nice editing in this film, for those who have an interest in technical considerations.