What was it all about? On a scale of 1-10 I generously give it a 1. Boring. I couldn't wait for it to be over. I wasted 100 minutes of my life. I could have been more entertained watching paint dry. Veronique, trying to escape her stalker, invites him to her hotel room and they tell each other "I love you." Really! This girl was one short of a six pack. She has never looked at the picture she took of the Polish girl? Please. A lot of symbolic nonsense.
shareIf you think this film is dreadful and "a lot of symbolic nonsense", then you better stick to movies you can enjoy like Saw and Bad Boys, I am sure you will consider them as your all time favourites.
shareROTFL , good reply ....
shareYou think? I think he came across as a condescending jackass, personally - and logging on on Christmas Day to post it, too...?
It's an annoying trait on IMDB boards for someone to make a criticism of an arthouse or mainland European film, and for the points to be ignored in favour of ad hominem, self-aggrandising retorts along the lines of "Go and watch (insert name of brainless action flick here) instead, then". The problem with doing that on a thread about Véronique is that NOBODY "understands" this film. There's not one Kieslowski film which isn't open to various interpretations on at least some level, and this one is the most open to interpretation of the whole lot (excepting perhaps the endings of Dekalogs 4 and 8, or Blanc). It's quite a strange plot, in many ways (and it *does* jar slightly that she's never noticed the picture in her bag, a photograph that she herself took, of her exact physical double) so the original poster's comments aren't particularly off base. Personally, I love it for so many reasons, not least that like all Kieslowski's best work it leaves the biggest questions up to the audience and thus allows each viewer to take their own unique interpretation away from it, but I also personally know a couple of self-stated "film buffs", Kieslowski fans both, who consider this his weakest film, simply for the reasons stated; it's extremely dense and very tightly packed with overt symbolism and strange happenings, and I think it's perfectly valid to find oneself frustrated or bored with it without being told to go and watch Big Momma's House or something.
"I think he came across as a condescending jackass, personally - and logging on on Christmas Day to post it, too..."
I might actually agree with your assessment of the post in question, but the "logging on on Christmas Day" comment, cracked me up!
'Sir, have you no sense of decency? To post such condescending drivel on Christmas Day, is to add insult to injury. Why, it's an affront to the members of this forum!"
Except us atheists, for whom a Christmas Day post is a post like any other. Too funny.
To *you*, perhaps, imagining an outraged evangelical Christian in Victorian England (possibly posting by firelight and polishing a monocle/twiddling a handlebar moustache, I couldn't say). Though the England part is right. And I intend to talk exactly like that from now on.
What I actually meant was that someone bothering to log in and post a cock-waving "My deep and meaningful taste in movies is deeper and more meaningful than yours" on an IMDB discussion board for a relatively obscure European arthouse film was sad enough, but to do it on *Christmas Day* - a day which, regardless of whether one is Christian or not (a category which would include other religions as well as atheism, incidentally), is both a public holiday and a time of general socialising with family and/or friends (themselves of whatever non/religious stripe) - well, it gives kind of a sad little window into a poster's social environment. It wasn't indignation, certainly not *religious* indignation... it was me being condescending back. As in, "Blimey, get a life".
Not to elevate this argument beyond it's significance, but for you to label a X-mas day post as a "sad little window into a poster's social environment" is a judgement which you're in no position to make.
Not everyone observes Christmas, or gathers with family and friends, or goes out of their way to do anything out of the ordinary on that day. It's just another day, so why not spend time on the internet, and maybe even drop a post or two; which may provide a "little window", but there's nothing inherently "sad" about it, except in your estimation.
For all you know, the author was at a family get-together and was bored to tears, and decided to jump on the internet. Me and my cousins, upon reaching the same point of holiday boredom, would make crank phone calls, in that ancient time before the dawning of the internet. Another "sad little window"? You tell me. I know we were young, obnoxious, and having a great time. On Christmas, no less.
Yes, for all I know s/he has a fantastically rewarding life and is in no way lonely or insecure. I just thought they were being obnoxious for no reason, and so I was just being obnoxious back - the "condescending jackass" bit was a hint that I wasn't making every effort to consider their feelings in a rational and adult manner. Though I do think there's a bit of a difference between you (and your cousins) making crank calls for a laugh, which is still a fun social activity, and someone posting on an internet board blah blah obscure French arthouse film blah blah you know my speech by now.
Anyway, as you say, we're on the verge of escalating this a bit far now. I found it funny, you found me finding it funny funny, the poster I was mocking doesn't seem to care (or have noticed - perhaps they're only here when bored at family get-togethers... sorry), none of us know what each other's personal circumstances are, let's leave it there.
So ANYWAY. What do you think about the original (very first thread starting, as opposed to the one from Dec 25th) post?
Why do you consider this film obscure? Not that it is unknown (in Europe at least). It won numerous awards including multiple awards at the Cannes festival. It was also nominated at the Golden Globes for the best foreign film. I hope you don't think that it's language not being English makes it an obscure film.
shareRegarding your last sentence... I don't know how you got *that* idea, but just to put your mind at ease: I'm European myself (half-French and half-English), and only one of what I'd class as my top 5 favourite films is in English.
Anyway, to answer your question... Obscurity is relative; one could argue that even in the world of French (as opposed to Polish) cinema, Kieslowski doesn't rate as a truly *major* figure in the general consciousness; in terms of the American-centred worldwide perspective of the IMDB and the vast majority of its visitors, he's a drop in the ocean. Despite being my personal favourite director of all time, Kieslowski is obscure by IMDB standards. A while ago, I posted in one of those "best directors ever!" type threads on the Directors board and suggested Kieslowski - only to be met with either complete baffled indifference, or posts asking "Who is that?" My point is that among actors, critics and even other directors Kieslowski is a major name, but among the IMDB public - which is in my experience heavily weighted in favour of being the American filmgoing public - he's a footnote. Pick up a book on European cinema, even on "Great Directors of European Cinema", I guarantee he'll barely rate a mention - even books on French cinema are obsessed with Renoir, Truffaut, Godard, Bresson... I speak from years of experience collecting any Kieslowski-related material I could get my hands on.
As for this film... I think the fact that this has languished unavailable for so long on DVD (or even video for the last five or so years) has, I think, seen it left behind a bit compared to other Kieslowski films, at a time when many stores' "world cinema" DVD departments are expanding beyond recognition, so hopefully this new version will right that wrong, but even so... if you compare this message board to other IMDB boards, discounting the queries about when the DVD is coming out and even with a recent limited European arthouse re-release, I think "yeah, this probably qualifies as obscure by these standards".
What a long reply. I do apologise!
I feel strongly that some sort of charity should be set up for the pitiful victims who lose 100-110 mins of their life watching a film all the way through which they dont like/get/appreciate....those poor lost souls!
shareFine...you felt it was dreadful...I loved it. The photography was beautiful and the story line kept my interest from beginning to end. Do I know exactly what happened in the end? Nope, but this wouldn't be the first movie that I had to think hard about that I enjoyed. And if you think that guy was a stalker, were you really watching the movie?
If I am truly bored with a movie, I walk out. It's not hard to do. Watching the whole thing and then whining about it on an internet forum is lame.
One of the best movies i have ever seen. I have not seen it in a while,but the one scene I will always remember is the shot when Irene Jacob is on a bus and there is a cut scene through a drop of water on the glass that pans to a scene from outside the bus.A lovely movie.
shareI just wanted to say that this is my favourite film of all times. The combination of poetry, music and meaning is unique.
The people who don't like it can't obviously appreciate such things. It's too deep for unsensitive people.
I'm sorry if I offended anybody for expressing an opinion that several of you disliked and then took the opportunity to ridicule. It's simply my opinion which I am entitled to have. The film was not entertaining to me, and I view a movie for entertainment and not for an in-depth analysis of the director's motives. I also read reviews on MRQE by whom I assume to be paid reviewers. MRQE reviews are usually written in the vernacular and do not contain the esoteric and stilted prose that often appears on this board written by wannabe reviewers. Internet board posters frequently lack civility and enjoy insulting posters with whom they disagree. Try civility and tolerance, it can be refreshing.
shareSorry, but your statement "A lot of symbolic nonsense" does not come across as civil and tolerant. Please take your own advice.
shareIf you are that sensitive when it comes to people disagreeing with your "opinion," then why did you post that opinion on an internet forum?
You do have the right to a bad taste in cinema, but if you are going to force that bad taste on other people because you were incapable of understanding a film, then you should be prepared for some negative feedback.
Why would it be unpolite to ridicule the opinion of a person who does not even try to do justice to the film he discusses but is just insulting. I always wonder why people that like to express themselves in a polemic and harsh way complain when they get answers of the same kind. This said, I agree that one can love Kieslowski or one can be untouched by him. However, if somebody remains untouched by a film and still wants to share his impressions with others, he should do it in a founded and thoruough manner and take perhaps more time to edit his contribution than he would take for a mere praise.
shareeither you're into it or you're not. most people react the way you do (which i do not blame, i mean this film is not flawless and irene was very young at the time and still lacking acting skills in many ways). but some people were truly moved, and to those people this film is priceless. i'm sure there are films (or music) which feel that way to you too. just not this one. ;-)
shareshe couldn't lip-synch for crap, that's for sure
shareand yes, the fact she never looked at the picure does not make any sense. if you take pictures you usually end up looking at them (though not always, but still: these were obviously developed, so...)
shareThe movie is boring and pretentious, full stop.
And I hate Bad Boys and never heard of Saw though I quite like Buster Keaton movies and my all time fave films consist of Sunset Boulevard, The Gold Rush, All About Eve, The 400 Blows, Bycicle Thieves, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, The Shop Around The Corner, The Big Sleep and so on and so forth.
Go ahead, criticize my taste!
PS. I quote, "a lot of symbolic nonsense". Spot on! And my two girlfriends, one of them a scriptwriter the other a film student, agree.
>> Sunset Boulevard, The Gold Rush, All About Eve, The 400 Blows, Bycicle Thieves, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, The Shop Around The Corner, The Big Sleep <<
All of them are for old farts. Quite boring too. Just like Buster Keaton.
My three boyfriends agree. One of them is director, second is producer and third rules them all.
Hahaha! Good sense of humour. But that doesn't change the fact that The Double Life Of Veronique is pretentious crap.
With all due respect, however, allow me to enquire: have you actually watched any of the movies mentioned? Because to find one or two in that list which you may find unworthy, well, that is commonplace; but to find every single one of these magnificient movies not good, well, that is simply quite bizarre.
I am interested in hearing about the sort of movies you watch, sir Bobby Robson. I am sure of course that none of them are boring old farts but are in fact interestingly super, ultra modern productions. I would venture insofar as to say that you probably only subject yourself to world cinema of the highest order and have, never, ever in your life watched neither Bad Boys nor Saw. In fact, with your refined cinematic culture, you probably wouldn't even allow yourself to hear of them, much less allow the words to even penetrate your ears.
Please! Do tell the rest of us about the cinematic gems that occupy your time, we are eager to learn from you...
Yours Sincerely
Bogartsthebest
PS. When you say, "[...]third rules them all", who exactly do you mean? As in who, above the producer who has the right to final cut and the financial means to produce a film, do you think rules higher in movieland? Perhaps you mean God, who supposedly holds the power of life and death in his (though some people suspect it's a her) hands? You must tell me about this. I think it's fascinating that you hold such an intimate relationship with the big boy up there!
The problem is that there are always those people who need not to speek their mind, but to sp/h/it on something beautiful in order to make them feel better or intelligent, simply because they don't find it amusing. I don't know why, but films like this one really bother them and they would probably wipe out every single artistic creation from the face of the earth, for all of us should be the same: plain.
share[deleted]
could it just be a matter of taste? i hate pasolini (most notably theoreme - how boring was that!) yet he is labelled a great movie-maker. and yes i love all about eve, buster keaton, lubitsch. les 400 coups gets on my nerves, though. can't have it all. it still is a matter of taste.
That's cool. You don't have to like Les Quatre-Cent Coups. I just find it weird that someone would dislike every single movie I mentioned in my reply, that's just odd, certainly never seen it before...
And the weirdest thing is, the guy disliked The Gold Rush and apparently has no interest in Keaton. How can that be? How can you dislike Chaplin and Keaton at the same time? Is that possible? Oh well... His loss...
"The film was not entertaining to me, and I view a movie for entertainment and not for an in-depth analysis of the director's motives. "
Well, there you have it.
hi everybody. well, I only scanned some of the comments, but to me it seems like the so-called annoying comment was not in any way offensive, but just an opinion to respect. This is not an intellience contest, is it? I like a lot of movies,and I love this one for a lot of personal reasons.
shareI think this is my favourite of Kieslowskis. The one point I want to make is that about the photo of 'herself', in Poland from the bus. This idea really just struck me as I read the 3rd or 4th comment. People are not necessarily aware of their own image, and to this end, it is not a let down in the plot for her not to see this. The fact that the puppetier sees it is perhaps more telling, in terms of plot, emotion and so forth. Anyway, watch the film if you haven't.
shareI agree with the point made by bruce01. And how refreshing to read a contribution which is actually a serious comment about the film, rather than the slanging match which has occupied most of this thread.
shareLord knows why I came to read all this stuff here. I was scouring the net for good deals on the new 2-cd DVD version of this movie. I love film. I'm a BAFTA member. What it is (film) and what it does changes lives. This is one of my favourite movies of all time. The last two posts (above) aside.... what is wrong with people? Surely people can take from movies what they want. If they want to be entertained simply, fine. From Hogan's Heroes to Bridget Jones - there are millions of films to while away an hour or two. But please keep out of the cinema when I'm watching a more serious film. Serious decent films demand a little more attention than most 'ordinary' blockbusters.
Quite what the point was coming on here and showing such ignorance and lack of understanding in such an unacceptable way is beyond me.
Thick and ignorant.
Now then, where's that Three Colours Box set.....
It is also my favorite KK movie. My take on V not noticing her own photo is that being inside her own purse, it is a part of her own private or inner life, which she almost totally ignores as she favors her social or outer life. There is a private self inside somewhere, but V seems unaware of it, and is in the process of losing it. Also those lost eyeglasses that were inside her purse for a long time suggest a lack of vision within. Her counterpart W is the reverse, as she stumbles through her social relationships and ignores her obvious heart disease as soon as the pain goes away; but is keen on taking care of her life of the spirit. The two girls are badly one-sided and over-specialized in the development of their personalities. That involves brilliant success but also disaster for each of them. Is this movie really so incomprehensible and vague as many say? I'm thinking that this movie may look impossible to figure on the surface at first, but that it is not so hard to interpret in fairly straightforward ways, after a more careful and deeper look at it. (Of course, anyone has the right to choose not to interpret it at all. My guess is that more viewers take this approach to this movie than any other.)
shareWHAT DOES THE MOTORCYCLE MEAN?
I don't agree with you .
http://www.imdb.com/list/iFa7p7uwsr8/
My dear, sometimes you need to think outside the box to stand a chance of enjoying certain films.
My Blog
http://anothercrying.blogspot.com/