This isn't the movie I expected, and I mean that simply on account of how challenging a view it is. Yes, some of the imagery of or reflections on the destruction of Hiroshima are tragic and disturbing, but difficult content is a different matter. No, what makes this so challenging is the emphatically sideways and underhanded approach to its storytelling, and the presentation of its themes. There's the active narrative of the time that the man and woman spend together - and then there are the fragmented, indistinct discussions of past events, that even with depicted flashbacks become clear only very piecemeal, and with very deliberate, irregular pacing. At all times the writing takes the longest and most winding road to weave its tale of fleeting romance and recollection, all but proverbially doubling back and glancing behind to ensure that no one is following it except by the beacons that it lays down itself. Characters, story threads, dialogue, and any bigger or more overarching ideas are treated like a book that only this film can read, with pages that only this film can turn, as it pleases. And for all that, still I'm not entirely sure how coherent or complete it is, or therefore how meaningfully cohesive and cohesively meaningful it is. 'Hiroshima mon amour' is a picture that will be right up the alley of anyone who likes art films. If it's a straightforward drama you're anticipating or otherwise seeking, maybe you should keep looking.
Chief stars Emmanuelle Riva and Eiji Okada are fantastic. Alain Resnais' direction, and the cinematography of Sacha Vierny and Michio Takahashi, are lovely. I admire the sheer daring of Renais, and screenwriter Marguerite Duras, to make a feature that goes against almost all convention of (cinematic) storytelling. I wonder, however, if the end result doesn't lean too hard into that thrust, clouding if not outright losing sight of the actual storytelling in the process. As if to accentuate the point, He is little more than a sounding board for Her, and perhaps it speaks to my expectations more than anything else, but the feature seems imbalanced as it becomes almost exclusively all about Her without any palpable development of His character. I wonder if this marked an intentional effort to turn away any viewers who couldn't engage with the title at its most abstruse level, or if there was just no thought put toward viewership at all. Obviously 'Hiroshima mon amour' has enjoyed high acclaim since its release, and I can understand why; the artistic bent here is undeniable, and there are plentiful juicy notions herein. The question is one of weighing the value of the feature's content, and the pure fancifulness with which it's laid before us, against the challenge (and subjective vexation) of that obfuscation. It's a question of personal preference, and while I like this, and its convoluted exploration of love, impermanence, constancy, memory, and so on - well, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have preferred a film that didn't try so hard to reach for lofty pretensions. Sometimes less is more, and I feel like Resnais and Duras could have practiced a tinge more self-restraint, opening the movie to wider audiences, without truly impacting the integrity of their vision.
I'll watch almost anything, no matter the genre or expected quality; some titles I love, others I hate, others I'm just indifferent to. I suppose 'Hiroshima mon amour' is a title I altogether don't "get." I don't think there's any shame in that; I'm glad for those who appreciate it still more, and derive more satisfaction and fulfillment from it. I want to like this more than I do; maybe a second viewing would reveal something to me that I've missed out on the first time. I think it's worth checking out - with the caveat that one rather needs to be especially attuned to the same very particular wavelength to really draw the most from it. Take a look, by all means, but just first consider what exactly it is you want out of your movie experiences.
Chief stars Emmanuelle Riva and Eiji Okada are fantastic. Alain Resnais' direction, and the cinematography of Sacha Vierny and Michio Takahashi, are lovely. I admire the sheer daring of Renais, and screenwriter Marguerite Duras, to make a feature that goes against almost all convention of (cinematic) storytelling. I wonder, however, if the end result doesn't lean too hard into that thrust, clouding if not outright losing sight of the actual storytelling in the process. As if to accentuate the point, He is little more than a sounding board for Her, and perhaps it speaks to my expectations more than anything else, but the feature seems imbalanced as it becomes almost exclusively all about Her without any palpable development of His character. I wonder if this marked an intentional effort to turn away any viewers who couldn't engage with the title at its most abstruse level, or if there was just no thought put toward viewership at all. Obviously 'Hiroshima mon amour' has enjoyed high acclaim since its release, and I can understand why; the artistic bent here is undeniable, and there are plentiful juicy notions herein. The question is one of weighing the value of the feature's content, and the pure fancifulness with which it's laid before us, against the challenge (and subjective vexation) of that obfuscation. It's a question of personal preference, and while I like this, and its convoluted exploration of love, impermanence, constancy, memory, and so on - well, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have preferred a film that didn't try so hard to reach for lofty pretensions. Sometimes less is more, and I feel like Resnais and Duras could have practiced a tinge more self-restraint, opening the movie to wider audiences, without truly impacting the integrity of their vision.
I'll watch almost anything, no matter the genre or expected quality; some titles I love, others I hate, others I'm just indifferent to. I suppose 'Hiroshima mon amour' is a title I altogether don't "get." I don't think there's any shame in that; I'm glad for those who appreciate it still more, and derive more satisfaction and fulfillment from it. I want to like this more than I do; maybe a second viewing would reveal something to me that I've missed out on the first time. I think it's worth checking out - with the caveat that one rather needs to be especially attuned to the same very particular wavelength to really draw the most from it. Take a look, by all means, but just first consider what exactly it is you want out of your movie experiences.