Ce que je sais d'elle... d'un simple regard

A look at the lives of several different women in five separate stories. Writer-director Rodrigo García isn't indifferent to the characters he's depicting--one can sense that he wants to dig to the very core of a woman's emotional being with these portraits--but his chapters are handled oddly, in clinical fashion. Garcia also fails show off his star-actresses to their full advantages, particularly in the cases of Calista Flockhart and Holly Hunter--both weakly used. Of the group, Cameron Diaz is the most surprising, delivering a focused, balanced portrayal of a blind woman (her crying scene, shot in close-up, is quite stunning); however, these ladies aren't the living, breathing, suffering people they're meant to be. This unreleased theatrical feature, facile though it may be, was certainly a step forward in showcasing great femme talent, but the end result is a mixed-bag. ** from ****

Things you can tell just by looking at her

In Things you can tell just by looking at her we meet several women who for different reasons seem to be playing bit parts in their own lives. One of them takes care of her mother in a big lonely house, Rebecca stops listening to her own feelings because a baby does not fit into the life of her married lover, Rose discovers that her son is growing up, Calista's girlfriend is dying and ? takes care of her blind sister.

After watching the film I thought: what does this film want to tell us about women? Or perhaps people in general. Some of the lines in the film stuck in my mind: The blind girl says about the woman who committed suicide: `I bet you could tell just by looking at her that there was a man involved.' When giving this line some thought I starting seeing the film as a comment on `loneliness' in general. What do people really want? They want to be involved with people. They want other people to see them.

The film suggests that when people don't depend on anyone anymore when they have no one `to be' for - they chose to actually become nothing to die. The loneliness at the heart of existence is too hard to bear. I think the film is about the nature of making connections and being involved with other people although it is painful and sometimes lead to self-sacrifice. It shows us the horror which is tied with the fear of being left alone, although the connections which are made does little to remove the feeling of loneliness. It is the horror of a stranger walking into your personal sphere and immediately being able to see through you and see what lies beneath the surface. It is the horror of revealing your interest in other people - looking in on other peoples lives, in a desperate attempt to connect and to become involved. It is the horror of becoming involved with someone who cannot stay, the horror of losing those whom you connect with. When you are involved, and when you connect with someone, you face the danger of being hurt, being dumped - of sacrificing your own life in your care for others. It is the horror also that your sacrifice is not appreciated, the horror that when you are no longer a lover or a mother then you will certainly become nothing that your identity is so intricately tied with the dependence of those who need you that you cannot be `you' if they don't need you anymore. It is ultimately the horror of being defined by relations of interdependence where the people you care for in effect give you identity. It is the horror that you really are nothing without other people to mirror yourself in.

Why is this form of `self-sacrifice' then particular to women? We learn from Walter's daughter that when he really gets involved `He dumps them like a hot potato'. Are women victims and easy to exploit? Rose's teenage son confides that people `are always' looking for someone. But is the act of making these connections and becoming involved truly more important to women - truly more essential in their attempt at becoming someone - of gaining an identity. Are women always characterized by either being cared for or being the ones who take care of others? Interestingly, none of these women are wives - they are defined by other types of relationships than those that arise between man and wife.

I do not think I can answer these questions and I don't think the film wants to answer them either. But I think the film is a point of departure for discussing the nature of being - and the way we all perhaps depend upon others in order to become.

7/10

This film consists of several different stories that are very loosely connected to each other. I was drawn into each individual story but would have liked to have known more about them. What would have made this film really good in my opinion is if there had been a single strong story line woven through all the stories; an interconnection that would have kept the coincidence intact, but would have made it an unseparable whole. That is what I missed. I am very happy though that at the end there was a kind of closing to each of the stories, but that really deserved more time. So a good film, with interesting characters and good portrayals, but it lacked the depth and interconnection that it made me both expect and hope to find.

This film is very slow but never boring and that's a remarkable feat. The acting is superb and the stories are emotional but never too sentimental. Just some more or less tragic women's stories in modern-day life.

Of course, there are many politically correct moves, like the lesbian couple, the black husband, the blind girl, the dwarf and the beggarwoman, but this is not really annoying. The only thing that I found a bit out of reality were the overly smart kids (i.e. Rose's son and the blind daughter).

All in all, good work on women's issues by male director.

The greatest virtue of this movie resides in the close look the camera focuses on stories and characters. Slowly but relentlessly, humorous and cruel at the same time, it allows the time needed for seven wonderful actresses to reveal their most intimate and contradictory feelings, without relying exclusively on the dialogue. Thus, the stories really turn to be things you can tell about these women by just looking (attentively) at them.

And isn't watching carefully what a movie is about?

The result of this very "objective" look is the healthy absence of a moral, a trap writers tend to fall into when dealing with lesbian love, mortal diseases, abortion, loneliness, egotism, discrimination, etc.

It's been labeled by some as a "feminist" film, another often mistaken category into which films with women protagonists fall into. I believe it's far from being such. It should appeal to both sensitive and sensible men and women.