maximkong

Asghar Farhadi is fast becoming my favourite storyteller of the century. Bringing Le Passe into the screen after his success with A Separation (I haven't watched Elly yet), I am happy to see the same elements (which made Separation memorable) existent in this film.

Both films at the core are focused on family drama, but different challenges altogether. Separation deals with the complexities on a religious viewpoint, and requires swift, high-level decision-making and clever communication skills to undo what could go awry easily in many places. Le Passe's challenge is different in my opinion, it is about the complications on relationship issues - something that is much more relatable to many families out there - that always appear irrational, devastating, and at times result in repercussions through generations.

Farhadi's skills as a filmmaker are unmatched - every single moment in this film is not wasted. His stories are like humanity itself, where things do not appear as they are on the surface and there is always something that more than meets the eye. Similar to Separation, in Le Passe, we see layers upon layers of twists, uncertainties, and agenda unfold and it ends up with the audience knowing that things cannot conclude with a simple solution. These factors, packed with impeccable performances by the lead cast members, are fortunately very very realistic i.e. not over-dramatic or nonsensical(though a lot of shouting war was shown).

The combination of brilliant, intelligent storytelling and impressive delivery of emotional performance is certainly what La vie d'Adèle fail to match - Le Passe is my top film to win the foreign Oscars this year!

The artistry of this film is a Great Beauty in itself. But in terms of realism, I feel disconnected from the behaviour of the characters. I really wonder if the "activities" represent what most middle-aged people (and loaded with cash, of course) would do when they ponder what to spend, or think, through the remainder of their lifespan.

I am assuming some of these old guys do not have grandchildren, and are in the arts business, to go through nightlife and play around like a youth fresh into university. Because, common sense will tell you the 'priority list' that old people will do for the rest of their lives - i) spend more time with family, especially with grandchildren, ii) managing investments/ wills, iii) catching up with old friends or attend funerals, iv) probably play around with hobbies that are more relaxing and make more sense than 'night-clubbing', v) travelling. I am not against nightlife for the older generation, but the movie over-emphasized this.

By the way, they all look perfectly healthy (no medical appointments??). This is a very obvious point because health is likely to be a daily topic amongst the elderly, but there isn't' a single conversation on health in this movie! BIG BIG minus point. Some guys in their 20s already have more medical problems than the old men and women in this film!

I am not an art person and therefore I am giving some leeway that there may be some intention on why the film is designed as such. But, I feel the movie could have been more wholesome. Wholesome-ness is definitely not a beauty found in this movie. More importantly, the age group is totally out-of-whack. I would have enjoyed the movie more if it were people in their 30-40s (i.e. mid-life crisis) but I refuse to believe that it represents the lifestyle of an ageing Roman society. I hope it stays away from winning major int'l awards.