This isnot an easy film to watch, it is not a simple crap made in Hollywood. Besides, you need to be in the mood to watch it. First time I saw it I was very young and didn´t like it, now I see it with a different "regard".
Freud explica!
The cinematography is truly astounding. It's easy to see how this film inspired Japanese directors in the 60s like Hiroshi Teshigahara and Shohei Imamura. The music is beautiful. The plot is interesting and daring, especially for its time. The only thing that spoils this film (and Marienbad for that matter) for me is the artificiality of the dialog (an all too common crime in French new wave), which makes the film rather dated. I don't think that being dated is necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it is. I wish the DVD could have an option of hearing just the soundtrack without the dialog.
share[deleted]
The dialogue & monologues as written by Duras are indeed kinda pretentious - awkwardly literary, forced and occasionally downright goofy. It´s really terrible and more or less ruins the entire film. And it was also not the best idea - by whoever the idea man was - to spin the entire film around this fairly cheesy love story. In the end, what could have been something really great & perceptive, ends up being some soapy melodrama displaying occasional overwrought histrionics. Good thing though that Resnais snapped out of this Hiroshima coma and went on to much better, more interesting things.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
What, seriously? Hiroshima, Mon Amour, it seems to me is about the impossibility of communicating pain; the two characters are unable to make know to each other the suffering each has experience. The film, so far as I can tell, concerns, not merely the difficulty of inter-personal communication, but the fear that all communication is contemptible and pointless. Moreover, George Delerue’s score is outstanding, as too is the cinematography, and all else. It pains me to know that people despise this film, being as it is a masterpiece.
shareWhen a movie has dialogue (and monologues) as terrible as here, written by that Duras woman, it is almost impossible for anything to save it - especially when all that awkward stuff comes with equally goofy line delivery by the actors. REALLY sophomoric writing. Had Resnais teamed up with Robbe-Grillet as he did for Marienbad... it coulda been a contenda. Now all the other elements you (rightfully) praise, are just wasted.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Odd; I own both Marienbad and Hiroshima, and nothing could persuade me that the former is superior to the latter in any way, except, perhaps, in terms of cinematography. I'll have to rewatch both.
shareIt was drivel. The only reason I watched it to the end is because the lead actor was so good looking. Otherwise I would have bailed about a third of the way through because at the same time that every frame screams out at you, "Look: I'm 'ART! Be impressed!", the whole thing is pointless, ponderous, stilted, and superficial. Any film that leaves you thinking, "Huh?... I don't get it," has FAILED. It has failed the purpose of its existence. It's like those pieces of visual or installation art that need a long written explanation attached to them to explain to the viewer what the artist is "saying" with the piece. If it needs an essay to explain it it has failed. The earlier post that said a film needs a plot and discernible character development in order to be viable is totally right. That's the MEDIUM, folks. That's the language of film. In this one, lets face it: she's psycho and he shouldn't have been cheating on his wife. They're worthless; who cares?
shareYou know nothing about cinema, Shame on you
My TOP 200 Movies -http://www.imdb.com/list/iFa7p7uwsr8/
It's like those pieces of visual or installation art that need a long written explanation attached to them to explain to the viewer what the artist is "saying" with the piece.
The earlier post that said a film needs a plot and discernible character development in order to be viable is totally right. That's the MEDIUM, folks. That's the language of film.
That was the most pretentious s**t I've ever
seen.
wasn't for me either, only the first 5 minutes were remotely interesting
so many movies, so little time