MovieChat Forums > Trois couleurs: Rouge (1994) Discussion > 'Anti-Romance'...

'Anti-Romance'...

posted 14 years ago by Carabao_Horn
8 replies | jump to latest

This movie was described by Roger Ebert as 'anti-romance', Blue being anti-tragedy, and White anti-comedy. (also stated in wikipedia, so I'm uncertain whether this is merely an expert's qualified opinion, or a generally accepted fact).

I don't understand though, how the term 'anti-romance' can be accurately ascribed to Red, when it could have been the opposite. In my humble opinion, Red is nothing but profoundly romantic, though very subliminal maybe, and the subject of romance thematically secondary only. But this quality of understatement and restraint, at least in this film, amplifies the romantic aspect in this movie, while still being largely focused with the primary subjects (fate, interconnectedness, etc.).

Now, I'm quite confused, and I completely fail to understand the label. Unless, of course, 'anti-romance' is a jargon which defies the common notion of 'anti'- as averse - thus averse/against/opposed to romance - and carries a different meaning instead?

Some help. I don't know if I'm quite deluded in hailing this as the most romantic movie ever, if it isn't even trying to be one in the first place.

Hark

[–] Grethiwha 11 years ago

My take on it (which may be all wrong), is it just means it's a romance that defies all the conventions of a romance; it is nothing like a normal romance film. Obviously anti-comedy, in the case of White, doesn't mean White is not a comedy (because it's hilarious), but it's so dry, so anti- everything a typical comedy is (Wikipedia uses the "Why did the chicken cross the road?" joke to exemplify its definition of anti-comedy). Same idea with tragedy and romance for B. and R., I figure (and I quite like this way of looking at these films).

--- grethiwha -------- My Favourite Films:
http://www.imdb.com/list/Bw65XZIpkH8/

[–] murph24 11 years ago

Although the Wikipedia article states the three films have been "interpreted" as anti-tragedy, anti-comedy and anti-romance, it cites Roger Ebert as the source of that interpretation. On the other hand, the trilogy's director and co-author NEVER uses those terms when he discusses the films in the book Kieslowski On Kieslowski; he makes it clear his main interest was examining the three political ideals of the French Republic (liberty, equality and fraternity), but to dramatize them in human rather than political terms. The stories unfold in surprising and unpredictable ways, and perhaps this is what Ebert was getting at. But the "anti" descriptions he came up with reflect his own analysis and not the viewpoint of the trilogy's director or two screenwriters.

It's great that Ebert responded favorably to the trilogy, but I've learned (especially after his two reviews of Au Revoir Les Enfants) that he reaches questionable conclusions and gets plot details wrong.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviefool09 10 years ago

I hate to dump on a dead man but I would tend to agree. Ebert got lots wrong and if you read his reviews, early and late in his career, he tended to get lots of plot details wrong, names wrong, and didn't seem to understand some fairly simple things about the film he was reviewing. I never put much stock in his opinions. Siskel was the far shrewder and tougher critic.

As for "Red" and the trilogy, I think it's a mistake to put labels on any of these films, 'anti-romance', etc. The great thing about the films is that they can capably stand on their own. If you didn't see them as part of a trilogy, they would all make contextual sense on their own. But they are meant to be seen as a trilogy and are supposed to make more sense and have more value after their completion.

Personally, I just saw these films for the first time and I think they're a very personal experience. What they mean to you depends on your attitude to romance, desperation, love, obsession, etc.

"You're telling me the future is video and not film?"

[–] horrorshowmovie 9 years ago

Ebert did get things wrong -- he said that the dog in Red is a golden retriever. As far as the anti thing, I think he meant that each movie subverts its genre. I don't think he's correct, but the term has stuck because it's a good soundbite. It's a way to explain the movies that sounds convincing, without saying anything specific enough to argue with.

I like Ebert's reviews because he was a great writer. I don't think he was a brilliant analyst, but his reviews are great to read.

[–] remembervhs 9 years ago

ebert was a fantastic writer and i still read him often but he was not (and is not) the sharpest critic out there.

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

ebert was a fantastic writer and i still read him often but he was not (and is not) the sharpest critic out there.

I like that Ebert brought a very personal slant to his reviews. You knew why he liked a film, inside and out. Maybe it reminded him of something in his childhood, or something else. But film was very personal for him.

Too many critics today are very distanced from the product. Ebert's love of film was very evident, even if he was (as you said) not the sharpest critic out there.

"The future is tape, videotape, and NOT film?"

[–] heyuactor 8 years ago

...this quality of understatement...

That's a good way of putting it. Maybe Ebert meant anti like in 'anti-hero'. There's a sort of hero there, in those kinds of films, but in a reluctant fashion. I find Three Colors: Red romantic, in it's own way.

Harmonica: http://ferdyonfilms.com/West%202.jpg