Depending on where you come across this film, you may see the genre label "mystery" used to describe it. This is, it turns out, the single best label. Here is a list of those things about this film that are not mysteries: the gentle, pleasant cinematography of Sacha Vierny; the lovely shot composition of filmmaker Marguerite Duras. The latter is bolstered by fetching production design, and excellent hair, makeup, and costume design. The filming locations are swell. And the single most clever thing that 'Baxter, Vera Baxter' does is to have the exact same song playing in the background for the entirety of the picture - and to have characters comment on it. I would love so much to say that I have more praise to offer here, or other remarks that are baseline positive. I don't.
To be honest, beyond those above aspects, things get murky. It's especially true in the entire first third of the feature, but continues to be a striking facet thereafter, that this often wants us to believe two (or more) separate and opposite statements are simultaneously true of the same thing. Or is there some major puzzle piece that I'm just not seeing? It sure seems to me as though the film is extraordinarily bad at identifying its characters - who they are, and what their relationships are to each other. This is especially true since Vera is spoken of in the third person even by people that she talks to, making me second-guess that the character identified as "Vera" actually is Vera. During the course of a conversation the dialogue may give two or more different impressions of who a supporting character is, or who they are in relation to Vera. Inanimate objects, and locations, receive the same treatment, being spoken of in conflicting ways even within the same conversation, and sometimes not being particularly identified at all. I spent an unreasonable amount of time watching unsure of the answer to basic questions of "who," "what," "where," or even "when" within each "scene."
I detect some story ideas in this. They range from "fair" to "great." I have a hard time believing that those ideas have been organized into a meaningful collection, let alone a singular plot, beyond what a one-line description might portend. "Might" is a key word, mind you, and the possibility of discerning "themes" is right out. Between that lack, the stated enigma that is the writing at large, and the very subdued tone, I'm not entirely certain that I can say the cast are acting. They're just sort of vaguely present. And I don't mean this as disparagement by any means; in the very least, I've seen Delphine Seyrig elsewhere and adore her. There are no nuances to pick up on in the portrayals, however: there is dialogue, and that's it. In fairness, during one slice of dialogue we get raised voices (heard, not seen), yet this is not a point in the movie's favor since the instances are grating on the ears for how they conflict with the soundtrack otherwise.
Someone, or possibly even multiple people, understand what Marguerite Duras was doing with 'Baxter, Vera Baxter,' and they appreciate this 1977 title. Indeed, I read other reviews and think, "Wow, they got a lot out of this, that sounds like something fantastic I'd like to watch." However, practically speaking, I can't entirely be sure that other reviewers were watching the same movie that I just did. I know that in the past I've had dreams that left me with a very different impression of this or that, some kernel of unknown knowledge that then wormed its way into my waking assumptions - assumptions which were, in turn, definitively not borne out by the actual experience. I have to wonder if this isn't how some have come to extract profound substance from Duras' picture. I've watched plenty of soft, low-key, arthouse, subtle, underhanded films and loved them. I get nothing at all from this, nothing except nice visual aesthetics and one inescapable (enjoyable) song. I'm glad for those who get more from it. For my part, I can't imagine recommending 'Baxter, Vera Baxter,' and I wish I had spent these ninety minutes on something else.
To be honest, beyond those above aspects, things get murky. It's especially true in the entire first third of the feature, but continues to be a striking facet thereafter, that this often wants us to believe two (or more) separate and opposite statements are simultaneously true of the same thing. Or is there some major puzzle piece that I'm just not seeing? It sure seems to me as though the film is extraordinarily bad at identifying its characters - who they are, and what their relationships are to each other. This is especially true since Vera is spoken of in the third person even by people that she talks to, making me second-guess that the character identified as "Vera" actually is Vera. During the course of a conversation the dialogue may give two or more different impressions of who a supporting character is, or who they are in relation to Vera. Inanimate objects, and locations, receive the same treatment, being spoken of in conflicting ways even within the same conversation, and sometimes not being particularly identified at all. I spent an unreasonable amount of time watching unsure of the answer to basic questions of "who," "what," "where," or even "when" within each "scene."
I detect some story ideas in this. They range from "fair" to "great." I have a hard time believing that those ideas have been organized into a meaningful collection, let alone a singular plot, beyond what a one-line description might portend. "Might" is a key word, mind you, and the possibility of discerning "themes" is right out. Between that lack, the stated enigma that is the writing at large, and the very subdued tone, I'm not entirely certain that I can say the cast are acting. They're just sort of vaguely present. And I don't mean this as disparagement by any means; in the very least, I've seen Delphine Seyrig elsewhere and adore her. There are no nuances to pick up on in the portrayals, however: there is dialogue, and that's it. In fairness, during one slice of dialogue we get raised voices (heard, not seen), yet this is not a point in the movie's favor since the instances are grating on the ears for how they conflict with the soundtrack otherwise.
Someone, or possibly even multiple people, understand what Marguerite Duras was doing with 'Baxter, Vera Baxter,' and they appreciate this 1977 title. Indeed, I read other reviews and think, "Wow, they got a lot out of this, that sounds like something fantastic I'd like to watch." However, practically speaking, I can't entirely be sure that other reviewers were watching the same movie that I just did. I know that in the past I've had dreams that left me with a very different impression of this or that, some kernel of unknown knowledge that then wormed its way into my waking assumptions - assumptions which were, in turn, definitively not borne out by the actual experience. I have to wonder if this isn't how some have come to extract profound substance from Duras' picture. I've watched plenty of soft, low-key, arthouse, subtle, underhanded films and loved them. I get nothing at all from this, nothing except nice visual aesthetics and one inescapable (enjoyable) song. I'm glad for those who get more from it. For my part, I can't imagine recommending 'Baxter, Vera Baxter,' and I wish I had spent these ninety minutes on something else.