Regarde la mer

Ever since I've started writing comments on IMDb I've been writing about European movies more than about American, and I've suggested readers to watch most of them. I gave good marks to French movies, though many others (mostly American) movie-lovers found them pretentious, false artistic or boring. But now here's the movie that expresses everything bad people have ever thought about French movies. Too short for a serious standard movie, too long for its weak story. Too much nudity for prudes, too little to be a soft-porn. Too many unimportant scenes, too little developing of characters. If Americans often make cover versions of French movies, this one shamelessly steels from US movies and still succeeds to make it boring, because we can expect in advance every important event and the revealing of secrets doesn't surprise us very much. Finally, the "shocking" end of the movie is in fact the only logical one.

What's good in the movie? Photography maybe, but it is so common in French movies that it's not necessary to emphasize it (no better, no worse than average French photo). The acting is also far below French standards. Paul as character might have also been omitted from the movie, he might have been left just as a person somewhere far away: it would have been intriguing for us to think if he existed at all. But it would be too, too much for writers to understand that.

The story begins with a crying baby and ends with a crying baby (but under very different circumstances) and in between we become involved in a intriguing and somewhat sinister drama about two very different women. The beauty of the beach location with its golden sand contrasts in an interesting way with the ugliness of the tragic events. Simmering not far below the surface is the sexual yearning of two women, each of them lonely in their own way.

Baby Chiffre is a great little actress - smiling, gurgling, crying and doing all the right things at the right time. The two women made a nice contrast in characters - Sasha Halls as the lonely elegant wife and Marina de Van as the intruding back-packer. The development of the plot as the cunning back-packer with her insensitive questioning manipulates the wife into accepting her presence inside her home is an exciting thought somewhat frightening aspect of the story.

There are a couple of details I would like to question: Firstly, would the obviously well-bred wife put the toilet roll at her feet on the bathroom floor? Secondly, whilst admitting she was very hungry, would the backpacker pick up her dinner plate and lick off the gravy with her big fat tongue? While the toothbrush scene might offend some people,I found it quite acceptable in the context of the desperate character.

Husband Paul appears late in the film as a businessman returning from Paris. The shocking scene which he discovers on arriving home stuns him into absolute silence, hand over mouth to stifle his cry. I think a cry of terror, panic, disbelief - call it what you will, would have added more dramatic impact.

Summing up: top quality film, interesting, exciting and disturbing. I am still trying to understand the significance of the title.

This is a good shocker, using something of a Wuthering Heights scenario in miniature. It would have made an excellent 30-35 minute short, but was unnecessarily extended for probably commercial reasons. If some scenes appear to add little to the story, try to think about the link between:

-What Tatiana says about the consequencies of women ripping during childbirth

-Tatiana's disturbed personality

-the toothbrush incident

-Tatiana's knowledge of the men in the forest, yet lack of interest in joining Sasha for oral sex there

-The closing scene

The director nicely sets up the atmosphere of foreboding, which after all, is what horror movies depend on. I though the rope on the victim was a clever and disturbing touch; it's something I've never seen before, although I admittedly haven't seen many horror flicks. While you can guess how it ends fairly early on, the twists and turns in getting there, and the denouement, are quite unexpected. Compared with Ozon's other shorts, this has some substance mixed in with his usual puerile, tedious obsession with the dark side of human sexuality.

I like films like this (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey)where you have to think afterwards about what you've seen, and maybe see it again, to make complete sense of it. Your mileage may vary.

See The Sea is one of those films that's truly horrifying. This is one

of the few movies that gave me a true scare, not a cheap one. A mother

and her child live in a cottage that's located by the sea. Her husband

is always on a lengthy business trip, leaving the two alone for long

periods of time. One day, a female drifter comes into their lives. This

is when the fun begins. Mere words cannot describe what happens next.

But the end results are down right scary. If you want a nice scare or

if you enjoy a real good thriller every now and then, this one might be

your cup of tea.

Highly recommended.

A-

The film is directed by the controversial François Ozon. See the Sea is also his first long feature, as that said; the film isn't very long, only 52 minutes.

See the sea is very short and very powerful, but it's also very minimal. Like, there are only three characters in the film, and only two of them can talk, and they barley do. And there is no music or sound effects, everything is quiet, and it's stylistic photographed. It kind reminds me of Roman Polanskis masterful film Knife in the Water.

See the sea is a good and very rarely film, but where the film totally failed is the "shocking end", because it isn't shocking, I saw the ending just after five minutes.. So the surprise effect is totally gone, and that ruin the film a lot. But still worth watching.