Tempo de Paixão

The only comment I have read thus far that encapsulated this film was by a Russian woman from Moscow. Everthing in this film evokes Russia in Summer for the period intended. There is a quality of innocence that is captured by the characters and lost in metaphor. The father represents Europe seducing a young capricious Russian female. Her young lover is the true Russian unable to save his love from her fate until in the end he stands as witness to her ruin and death. Turgenev felt very strongly, as do all Russian writers, that Russians must look to themselves for the future and they felt a duty to warn their country of the temptations that would lead to Russia's downfall. Kirsten Dunst does a very good job of portraying Zinaida as a young woman desperate to grow up and at the same time hold onto her past, much like Russia. Her older lover, Valdemar's father (Europe) cannot understand her devotion to him and abandons her to her fate. He doesn't have the endurance her real lover (Valdemar)has - or the patience.

Yes, this is a period piece -- pre-WWI Russia, to be precise. I only caught the last third of the movie or so, but it was enough to captivate me. The characters were interesting; the music poignant, the scenery stunning. The acting is top-notch with the notable exception of Stahl, who never reflects the agonies and the ecstacies of growing up; he never lets the struggles of the character make their way to his countenance or his actions, and so appears as a painted-face marrionate simply reciting lines and moving about from place to place. The problem is that the retrospective English narrator is used in place of acting; while it's well done and appropriate, it is used to suture up the devestation caused by the poor acting of Stahl instead of complimenting him. But anyhow, enough on that topic. Again, it captivated me, and not many films can do that. Either there's too much trash, or the characters are stupid, unbelievable, or unheroic. This doesn't feel like a cheap Hollywood throwaway flick, and that has something to do with the source material -- Anton Chekov! There is a human warmth about it all and an artistry that is all too often abandoned in pursuit of a quick dollar. Now this isn't to say that this film is the best thing ever put on a reel. But it is enough to make me want to go watch the whole thing, and that is a rare thing.

Maybe the reason why I like this movie is mostly that I like the story "First Love" which the movie is based on. I can understand from another of the user comments that there is a lot of symbolism in the story. This symbolism is wasted on me. I have to see it as just a story. What I see then is a story about youth. Young people who follow their immediate emotions without giving much thought to the future. In the long term perspective we often make stupid choices when we act like that. I myself am not a very impulsive man, but I find myself attracted to people who are, unless they are so in a negative way. Is it not the force in emotions, especially big powerful emotions like love that make life so beautiful?

The main character Vladimir falls in love with Zinaida. She likes him very much, but she doesn't love him. She likes toying with him and her other admirers, and their feelings make them her willing puppets. This is of course not very nice of her, but it seems to me that she doesn't give it much thought and that it is never her intention to hurt anyone, she is just an emotional and impulsive girl. And maybe part of what makes them love her is her impulsive nature. After some time it becomes clear to Vladimir that Zinaida has herself fallen in love. But who is it that she loves? And is her own human nature now taking revenge for her toying with the emotions of her admirers? Will Vladimir and Zinaida mature through their experiences?

For those who thinks this story has no point I will say, that for me the point is simply to study human nature and to allow one self to feel with the characters. We don't always need a great plan to build the societies of the 21st century.

I would like to make a negative comment also. There is a second story in this movie mixed in with the main story. A woman falls in love while her husband is away in the war, and of course this causes trouble. Maybe this story could have a movie of its own (?), but I think it shouldn't have been part of this movie, because the situation of the woman, her husband (if he lives), her child and her lover is far too serious to just pop up for a moment now and then as a side story.

The only reason I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 is because amid the crazy plot, there was some good acting. It seemed like it was going to be a typical period movie. It was far from that. I am not sure if it was me, but I was quite confused throughout the entire movie. Until the end of the movie, I still hadn't figured out if Zinaida was just as pix-elated (as in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town)as her mother or if she was just a very selfish, egotistical young lady who enjoyed playing with people and their feelings. I was confused at what was going on with Vladimir's father and his thought process at the end. If you gave that cast a good plot and script, it would have been a wonderful movie. Its too bad it was wasted on that one.

Visually beautiful with pretty characterisations and some fine acting particularly from Julie Walters. But I had more interest in the love triangle of the serf's that I did of the aristrocracy. It really doesn't come together, but could have been quite a compelling drama if the story had peaked and resolved itself a little more poignantly. I wouldn't spend the two hours of viewing time to sit through this again because it seem's to have been directed by someone with the emotions of granite. Pity because it's so pretty and romantic in a visual sense. Too few scene's from Ms Walters. The character portrayed by Ms Dunst (Zinaida) irritated the hell out of me. Pity I had to wait until the end for her exit !!!!!!!