MovieChat Forums > Reprise (2006) Discussion > Why is this film 'great'?

Why is this film 'great'?

posted 16 years ago by groggo
22 replies | jump to latest

'Reprise' has received a lot of rave reviews. Some have called it 'great'. Fair enough, but I don't agree. Maybe you Young Turks (or Norwegians), out there can help me.

I watched the film, but I guess I have to watch it again. Some reviewer on the IMDb board called it a 'screwball comedy'. I was obviously watching a different film. I had a huge problem with the rapid-fire editing, the flashbacks-upon-flashbacks, the lack of a focus and a narrative, although maybe I'm just too old-fashioned and expect a narrative to be there.

If you're young and accustomed to dizzying jump-cuts everywhere in visual material, this film probably wouldn't bother you.

I love European films in general, and I admit to being an old fart. But I don't like films that are stylish for the sake of being stylish, or avant-gardish for the sake, etc. There are important things happening in the film, but they are beaten into relative muteness by the director's relentless urge to over-edit.

The pacing slows down measurably -- and abruptly -- about the 55-minutes mark, when Phillip and Kira return to Paris. This is a jarring departure from what we have previously seen. Suddenly, the film becomes linear, and we follow the madness of Phillip as he tries to replicate time and place, an ultimately futile exercise, as it must be. This is the theme throughout the film, it seems to me -- a search for lost time, time never regained. Through the sizzling editing, perhaps director Joachin Trier was trying to capture this cinematically -- life is not a straight line and all that stuff.

This 7-8 minute Paris segment is crucial to the film, and here's the problem: to do that, director Trier, after 50 minutes of dazzle, had to resort to 'old-fashioned' methods to make his point.

A reviewer said this film was 'all over the place'. That pretty well sums it up for me too. Guess I'll have to reprise 'Reprise,' and try to be a little more understanding. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear from anyone who might be able to explain what I'm obviously missing. I didn't think this film was 'great' at all.

[–] Jack_Bickle 16 years ago

In regards to the style - dizzying jump-cuts, it reminds me alot of French New-Wave films which this is clearly in the style of. The freindship to me is directly reminiscent of Jules et Jim (not a film I particularly loved, but this does remind me of it.) Jump cuts are beoming more fashionable by the year - from Breathless to Moulin Rouge!, so I wouldn't see it as a problem as I was brought up in the MTV generation.

Also, you mention the pacing of the film changing. I think that's because in the first 50 minutes we are introduced to all the characters, and it adds the effect of meeting new friends yourself. You forget peoples names, but as you fall in love with the characters (around the 50 minute mark), you see them for individuals embarking on their own lives and breaking away from the group.

I think the film is mostly about the nature of friendship/love, and what/why we become friends. Hence, it puts you in the position that they would have been in (e.g. at the gig, there are all the people each other recognise/just met and us too, are just being introduced to them).

I'm not sure if I've made much sense, but definitely revisit Reprise.

That's a Dead Dog.
Yes, it is.

[–] groggo 16 years ago

Thanks for your comment, Jack Doherty. You actually made a LOT of sense.

I watched the film again, and I do believe it has a lot of important things to say about friendship and love. My big problem is that I don't think the excessive razzle-dazzle editing was required to convey the 'messages'. I can understand moderation in editing (periodic, rapid-fire jump cuts are often effective), but when a movie turns into a showpiece for an editor's dexterity, it loses me.

I think you underlined the problem that I have with this and other movies: you were brought up in the MTV generation, and I wasn't.

I just can't get around the purpose of this stupefying, repetitive and ultimately predictable style of editing. I find it most distracting: rather than concentrating on dialogue and image, I'm waiting for the next fast cut, the next rapid-fire 'disconnect'. To me, it's self-defeating.

I recently watched 'Ghosts of Cite Soleil' (a documentary from Haiti), and I became really irritated with the excessive use of jump-cuts. It was an important story; it could have been a POWERFUL story, but the jump-cuts and other editing 'tricks' drained a lot of the poignant drama from it. For me it was lost in (editing) translation, it was another triumph of style over substance.

I just don't get it. I can't watch Hollywood movies these days. Maybe it's just my imagination, but it seems to me that 9 out of 10 of these flicks are dominated by computer-generated imaging -- not subtle stuff either: this is blatantly OBVIOUS tinkering with computer toys. With this kind of excess, I keep thinking I'm watching a cartoon or a video game, not a genuine drama or comedy. (Note: I wasn't brought up on video games either.)

The bottom line is that I'm not convinced all this bewildering excess is NECESSARY to tell a great story. Thanks for your remarks.

[–] Jack_Bickle 16 years ago

The bottom line is that I'm not convinced all this bewildering excess is NECESSARY to tell a great story.

I agree completely. So much CGI and post-production work kills alot of films these days. But I really don't think the work in 'Reprise' was too excessive. Perhaps Trier was just experimenting with style, which many do in their early works. You obviously aren't too keen on his style here, though I thought it was superbly directed and I also loved the editing.

That's a Dead Dog.
Yes, it is.

[–] groggo 16 years ago

You're probably right, Jack Doherty. On re-watching 'Reprise,' I think, all in all, it was a most thoughtful, important and even philosophical film. I hate to admit it, but I overreacted on the excessive jump cuts. Still far too many for me, but not as much as I thought on first viewing. Jeez, what does this mean? We have to watch EVERY bloody movie TWICE? That means, instead of my usual 180 movies a week, I only get to watch 90? Gadzooks and horrors. How can I go on?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Martey 16 years ago

I just have to say that, here in Norway nudity in movies is accepted, this movie is by no means softcore porn by Norwegian standards.

[–] rafi_c 15 years ago

there was hardly any nudity in the film at all.

[–] mcgillliang 16 years ago

I completely agree.

[–] hs_j 16 years ago

I agree completely.

I usually love these kinds of "slow" movies, but this one was just bad in my opinion. My first reaction was "all style", and I stand by that. I really find the characters quite bad, the dialogue bad (and I'm norwegian, this wouldn't be so obvious to others I suspect..).

All in all I was very disappointed with this movie, that looks very good, but doesn't deliver much more than that.

I'll go watch "Dolls" again, this movie reminded me slightly of that "feel", but "Dolls" is infinitely better. (And yes, there are probably a ton of other movies the same could be said for, that just happens to be my favorite.)

[–] farnoy-1 16 years ago

The people you are criticizing are the very same people this movie is poking fun of (though in a pretty sympathetic manner). I can't help but get the feel that you didn't get this movie at all, but then again we are all entitled to have our own opinions. I do get your point about doing stuff for the sake of being an "artist", but I disagree that this is the case with Reprise. Needless to say I loved it!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cinepinion 16 years ago

Reprise is about digressive, short-sighted, self-absorbed characters and so its style is digressive, short-sighted and self-absorbed. Trier was, one can assume, matching form to content.

In response to some of the other comments: yeah, there's a romantic sensibility to the film, that being an artist is great and cool and fun but that's also significantly undercut at points. The film is both celebratory and critical.

Furthermore, there's no celebration of bourgeois morals here: the one character who does go all "middle class" on them--dressing in sweaters and holding white linen dinner parties--is spurned.

And to the above poster, who said the film is a cliche: the film acknowledges that when one of the girlfriends tells her beau, "you're such a cliche!" That's part of the characters' complexity: that they're modeling their lives on literary conventions, which as the film shows is a terrible idea because it doesn't work.

[–] sosiopat 16 years ago

Great post!

I'm a young aspiring writer from Norway, and this movie really resonated with me. The romantic sensibility combined with the undercutting is essential, and eye opening. I have a lot of aspiring artist and/or art loving friends, and this movie nails both the naïve romanticism and the inherent immaturity of it all.

10/10!

[–] wtf322 16 years ago

"And to the above poster, who said the film is a cliche: the film acknowledges that when one of the girlfriends tells her beau, "you're such a cliche!" That's part of the characters' complexity: that they're modeling their lives on literary conventions, which as the film shows is a terrible idea because it doesn't work."

That is exactly right. And brilliantly put.

[–] wtf322 16 years ago

"If you ever read any of the actual directors of the New Wave, such as Truffaut''s or Godard's criticism before they became directors he was into cimena because he LOVED doing it well, the art of it. Not the idea of being an "artist". As everything else before him was purely static material driven out according to societies expectations. Goddard wanted to introduce an entirely new aesthetic, an intellectualism to cinema. "

I think this was actually purposefully critiqued in the film. We are rarely privileged to see the actual content of any of their works (excepting Erik's botched TV interview in which he says his character was looking for the absolute language). It's not a film about art as much as it is about artists who want to be artists, and through that, the relationship between expectations, ambitions, insecurities and the conflict or synthesis that those youthful tendencies have with reality. That is a very human theme, and this film is not just for and about writers or artists. It is for anyone who always looks forward and backward at their life, who is constantly piecing the expectations, dreams, and events together. There is a lot to explore here, and self criticism is an essential part of this. Hence, the Newspaper article that labels Erik's novel as "form over substance" is definitely self-referential critique of the film itself - how it will unavoidably be, considering the subject matter. Dahl's suicide, as well as Philipe's madness and eventual withdrawal from writing - being an artist - also illustrate that the film has no absolute affirmation or celebration of the idea of being an artist. There are moments where it is celebrated but also those where it is sharply critiqued.

As for the jump cuts, I thought, in certain instances, that they were used very well. When Philipe and Kari are in the coffee shop, and the dialogue does not match the image, I thought this perfectly represented the way those heavy, relationship conversations happen. The context of the past, arising in these pieces of memories, bits of old dialogue, old looks, and old habits, affect you in that way as you are in the situation. I disagree with groggo because, in that scene especially and others between Philipe and Kari, I think this style of editing was used very evocatively and in such a way that the viewer's focus is on the dialogue as it remains constant, while the images cut back and forth chaotically the way lovers' eyes do in such heavy situations. When you are speaking to someone you were very emotionally attached to, but have not seen in some time, your focus is often manic. It is singular, in that you are focusing on the person, but also manic, skipping back and forth between relevant memories and past situations as the context of past expectations meets the reality and singularity of the moment.

I liked that some of the most dramatic events were told around rather than conventionally shot and told as Hollywood style melodrama. The film is not about those moments, it is about the process of connecting and integrating them into one's view of one's own life, and the way different characters are or are not able to do so. In many ways life is not a linear narrative. To suggest that it is would ignore all of our psychological tendencies to look ahead and look back and constantly try to figure out the present using the expectations for the future and the failures of the past (Erik remembering the last time he was mean, for example).

As to the comment that films on artists or writers should be a banned genre - Adaptation was brilliant, and I really enjoyed Reprise as well. The problem is that a lot (and I mean A LOT) of mediocre writers are not creative enough to think about something else, and they unfortunately have the ego to think that the cliche "write about writer's block" technique is somehow original, and worth telling. Like any genre, however, there exists a lot of bad examples that bring down those rare films and stories that are truly genuine, told well, and offer the viewer or reader a glimpse into the (often neurotic, often crazy) artistic mind.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bruce-129 16 years ago

this movie was a "rorschach" test for people to see what they want to in it.
i think there was no art in it, and it does not believe in the idea of art, or
literacy, it is all BS ... well it was in this movie that's for sure.