Flirt

Flirt being the fifth Hal Hartley-film I've seen it's also the one I appreciated the least.

You get to follow the same story in different places of the world (NY, Berlin, Tokyo) with different people.

Although the run time wasn't even one and a half hour it felt longer. It must depend on that Berlin and Tokyo didn't really pass my quality control. And that might depend on that the previous Hartley-films I've seen have really been great and that Flirt's NY-episode also was great. It would have worked better as a short film. All by itself. But then seeing almost exactly the same "short story" again only with a twist didn't appeal to me much I discovered later on.

If you like Hartley maybe you should see Flirt all because his trustful actors (Martin Donovan, Elina Löwensohn, Bill Sage, Michael Imperioli), his pretty unique way of making film and of course because of Ned Rifle's music.

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.

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.

Although I'm a big fan of Hal Hartley's previous work (Trust, The Unbelievable Truth), I was a bit disappointed by Flirt. There are some clever elements to the film, including Hartley's always excellent dialog sequences. The repetition, providing different views on the same plot sequence, was well done. Overall, an above-average movie, particularly for Hartley followers.

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.