BEFORE SUNSET: A Review

[Chris Knipp]

Suave sequel: birth of a new genre

by Chris Knipp

Before Sunset is a movie that may look superficial, romantic, weepy, and crowd-pleasing but on the contrary is original, smart, analytical, and challenging. It stands by itself but it’s richer seen in relation to Before Sunrise, made nine years earlier, of which it’s the subtler sequel. The characters and the actors are older, more experienced and more sophisticated. It’s got a documentary element, reminiscent of Michael Apted’s wonderful 7 Up, 14 Up, series, in which Apted revisits the same cross section of English people every seven years: it’s about two people who’ve grown older and have different lives. Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke, who also starred in Before Sunrise, don’t have to pretend to be nine years older in this (fictional) sequel; they are. They’re only thirty-three now, but Hawke has the ravaged gauntness his breakup with Uma Thurman seems to have imposed on him; he's soulful, tempered, no longer the bright-eyed boy. Delpy is more mature, less angelic, more businesslike, but still beautiful.

Before Sunset is a leaner film than Before Sunrise. It’s real-time, and without frills. Venues or backgrounds are simpler. Jesse and Céline largely just walk and talk. But it's all in reference to that earlier experience. The pair have a history. They live in the present, but their dialogue also implies a Proustian pursuit of "Lost Time."

In these nine years Hawke and Delpy have become more accomplished actors; they're less self-conscious, but more self-aware. The talk flows more effortlessly. The continuity of the scenes is a seamless tour de force almost as if this were all a single take like Sokorov's Russian Ark.

The premise is this: the couple's previous meeting on a train and their all-night idyl in Vienna nine years before chronicled in Before Sunrise is a given. They were to meet again six months later, but they did not, and not having exchanged coordinates they couldn't contact each other. Now Jesse has appeared on the radar screen by publishing a bestselling novel in the US -- and it's about that earlier meeting (it's a text version of Before Sunrise!) -- and now he's doing a reading and a signing of the book in Paris. (Hawke’s real life identity fits here, since he’s published several books.) Suddenly as he’s coming to the end of his talk, Céline appears outside the window of the bookstore (which is one every American in Paris knows: Shakespeare & Company). He’s supposed to go to the airport in a couple of hours, but his bags are packed and a car's ready, and he and Céline agree to go and talk. She leads him to a café called Le Pure. (This is real time, but not real space: the places where they go are far apart.) Then they take a boat ride on the Seine; finally they get in the car and wind up at Céline’s apartment which turns out to be in a lovely enclave where her neighbors are together outside having a party. . .

A movie in real time consisting mostly of conversation is impossible to summarize: it would take twenty pages. But it does emerge that both still think about each other a lot; that meeting nine years before remains a moment of crucial limportance in both their lives: the flame still burns bright. Jesse did go back to Vienna six months later in the station to meet Céline as they’d promised, but her grandmother was buried on that day and she couldn’t be there. Later he says that perhaps his dream of romantic love was shattered forever by her failure to appear. They rue the fact that they didn’t exchange addresses or phone numbers.

There isn’t flirting or a developing attraction, a growing physical intimacy, as in Before Sunrise, because that's already happened: Jesse and Céline spend most of the film talking about that earlier meeting and how it has haunted them and dominated their lives. Gradually it comes out (particularly during the car ride that leads to where Céline lives) that her current relationship is limited and his marriage is largely sexless, redeemed only by his adoration of his four-year-old son.

She pretends not to remember that they made love that night in Vienna nine years before. Perhaps what this means is that in a sense their sudden passion never really was consummated, because their affinity was far too great for one night's sex to satisfy.

There's little touching or kissing but there doesn’t have to be. It’s obvious that this is a climactic reunion for both of them and the attraction is as strong as ever, probably stronger – except that there are obstacles. They’re not young and free any more. They have lives, commitments, involvements. . .

What will happen? As the film ends, its obvious Jessie is quite happily going to miss his plane. But while Linklater & Company keep us guessing, the partial answer that comes is quite charming.

Before Sunset is a superb sequel. It’s touching but surprisingly unsentimental. And it’s as graceful a piece of filmmaking as you could ever see, with the gracefulness of art that conceals artifice. Richard Linklater is one of the most interesting younger American directors. His work is authentic and personal, but has real range, from the slacker movies through the romantic encounters of Delpy and Hawke and the tight theatrical drama Tape to the inspired philosophical musings and fresh animation of Waking Life. Hawke has been involved in four of Linklater’s movies; he and Linklater are soulmates and brothers. Delpy is an essential collaborator in the Sunset/Sunrise sequence because she too is a writer and created her own dialogue.

The chemistry between Hawke and Delpy is too obvious to mention. . It's obvious also the audience would like another sequel, and so would the actors. It's only a question of when. The inventive Richard Linklater has given birth to a new genre: the real time sequel. In Waking Life, we briefly see the couple talking in bed. Perhaps that’s a preview of part three.



Other Chris Knipp movie reviews at:
http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewforum.php?f=1

[oscar jubis]

I remember walking out of the theatre after Before Sunrise and thinking that Richard Linklater would become the American Rohmer. The movies that followed (Suburbia, the neglected The Newton Boys, Waking Life, School of Rock) evidenced more flexible skills and a refusal to be pigeonholed. With Before Sunset, Linklater has not only returned to Rohmer territory but has also warmly embraced Rohmer's methods, particularly his use of long takes with mostly improvised dialogue. Linklater, Hawke and Delpy have achieved that grace of "art that conceals artifice" (Knipp).
I'd like to point out the economy with which the couple's encounter in '95 has been evoked, via a series of quick, perfectly-timed flashbacks early on. I imagine that those who didn't watch Sunrise appreciate it tremendously. I was glad that, having quoted from Sunrise, the artists concentrated on the present event and the past only as currently remembered.

Walking out of the theatre after Before Sunset, I feel optimistic about the current state of moviemaking in the USA. Linklater's film and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are as wonderful as any other two films released in the same year in any nation. And it's summer! The "quality" movies usually come out in fall or winter. There are many young American directors and writers doing excellent work in both fiction and non-fiction. Too many to mention but my faves include David G. Green, Todd Haynes, Sofia Coppola, Charlie Kaufman, Wes Anderson, Todd Solondz and others. (I have yet to watch the highly praised debut Maria Full of Grace from another young American). Then there's a ton of skilled, older directors like Jarmusch, Lynch, Scorsese, Charles Burnett and Spike who have hit jackpot and will likely do that again. Do I need to talk about the creative resurgence of the documentary?

The American Cinema hasn't been this healthy and strong since the mid 70s.

[Chris Knipp]

The Sunrise/Sunset series does indeed suggest comparison with Eric Rohmer. The European setting and the presence of Julie Delpy are obvious nods in a Rohmeresque direction. Linklater's pair has the same kind of intelligence wedded with lightness in considering romantic matters that you find in Rohmer, along with a distinctive personal element of American naiveté and intensity. It would surely be essential to find an intellectual grasp if we’re going to compare Linklater with the French, and you can see some in the literary allusions to James Joyce and Bloomsday in Before Sunrise, which a number of people have mentioned (see http://www.cinescene.com/shari/bsunset.htm) There’s solid intellectual matter handled with tact also in the sustained philosophical dialogue in Waking Life.

“Mostly improvised dialogue” is something of a misnomer here for Before Sunset though, because the principals have explained that every line was completely written out initially, then cut and pasted onsite. Hawke explained this in an interview with Rebecca Murray http://romanticmovies.about.com/od/beforesunset/a/sunseteh062804.htm:
You and Julie didn’t improvise anything?

We would work on the script, writing it, and then we would go to these locations. We had these things like, "Okay, how long does it take us to walk from the bookstore to the cafe?" We'd have to figure out like, "Okay, we can't use that street. We are going to have to go around over here, so we need an 8 1/2 minute scene." We would have to go, "Ok, we’ve got to cut those lines," or “All right, well, let’s pick that thing that we thought was going to be in the café and bring it in here, so that we can get from there to there to there, at the same time not just have any of it be filler.” We basically kind of wrote it as one scene and cut it apart to fit these locations. For example, we knew we needed to get from that stairway down to the sand. The first couple times we were rehearsing it, I would just goof around and ride down the thing and Rick said, “Hey, let’s do that.”
Murray also interviewed Delpy and had this exchange:


What were your writing contributions?

I’d say I wrote most of my dialogue, some of Ethan’s dialogue, and Rick [Linklater] wrote some of my and Ethan’s dialogue - and vice versa. We wrote the structure and story together. We came up with the concept together. We did bring a lot of writing to the script.
Notably also there was this exchange:
The takes are very long. Did you know every word or improvise?
We didn’t improvise a word. Everything was written and mapped out. Every gesture, every break in the dialogue, every moments where we look at each other – everything was written and rehearsed.
I guess you had to be there, but it's obviously far from pure improvisation.

Thanks for referring to the flashbacks, which I’d like to go back and study more carefully because I don't think I paid enough attention to them. It’s important to note that the new movie builds on the earlier one without being at all dependent on it; I just meant to stress that the second film is richer if you’ve seen the first, but both work independently.

I wouldn’t disagree with you, those are some creditable American directors you mention, and we’ve had some great stuff this summer. Besides Spotless Mind and Before Sunset let’s not forget Fahrenheit 9/11 and Kill Bill 2, several other documentaries, especiallyl The Corporation; and I just came from a home group showing of Outfoxed: documentaries are contributing to the politicization of the pre-November American public.

I’d be the last to say American cinema is unhealthy, Four or five notable films in four months is not exactly overwhelming -- there could be more fresh and provocative things out -- but as you said, it's summertime! Apropos of which, it's not like the blockbusters (Day After Tomoorrow, I, Robot, etc., aren't still doing their mind-numbing work: we’ll see what comes during Prime Time months as the year closes.

Somebody come and tell me I, Robot was good watching. I sat for twenty minutes and everything had Bad Movie written all over it so I left.

I'm going to see Maria Full of Grace tomorrow and I'll be curious to know your reaction as a Spanish-speaking person.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
There’s solid intellectual matter handled with tact also in the sustained philosophical dialogue in Waking Life.

I was happy to watch Celine and Jesse in bed during their segment. That's the only clue I needed to justify my romantic tendencies. Their conversation was philosophical yet grounded in everyday experience. In a few short minutes they manage to ellucidate several existential arguments such as singular vs. multiple consciousness, the interchangeability of appearance and reality, the differences between dream vs. waking consciousness, and other concepts from Taoist philosophy and Tibetan Budhism. Remarkable in that it's all effortlessly colloquial.

“Mostly improvised dialogue” is something of a misnomer here for Before Sunset though, because the principals have explained that every line was completely written out initially, then cut and pasted onsite.

It is something of a misnomer. This "pasting onsite" implies a degree of improvisation though.

It’s important to note that the new movie builds on the earlier one without being at all dependent on it; I just meant to stress that the second film is richer if you’ve seen the first, but both work independently.

Absolutely. Would you also agree that Sunset is "richer" than Sunrise, perhaps simply because there's this past to draw from and comment on? (what an inelegant sentence)

I just came from a home group showing of Outfoxed: documentaries are contributing to the politicization of the pre-November American public.

I bought the dvd for 10 bucks including shipping. There's such demand they cannot ship until August 7th. I'd like to exchange opinions after I watch it Chris.

I’d be the last to say American cinema is unhealthy, Four or five notable films in four months is not exactly overwhelming -- there could be more fresh and provocative things out -- but as you said, it's summertime!

Personally, I haven't loved two American movies this much since 1995 (Crumb and Safe).

I'm going to see Maria Full of Grace tomorrow and I'll be curious to know your reaction as a Spanish-speaking person.

I wonder how much of the dialogue is Spanish. I'm glad they cast a Colombian as Maria for the sake of verisimilitude as accents and inflection vary widely from one country to another. A distraction watching Spanish language movies at the theatre is automatically reading the English subs. I have to make a conscious effort not to read them. I'll watch it in about a week, along with a very rare theatrical showing of a film I love called Sans Soleil.

[Chris Knipp]

It looks improvised, because it's all dialogue and the dialogue moves freely, wandering around like real talk. But you can't say it's "mostly improvised dialogue." That would undercut the effort all three put into the writing and imply something like John Casavetes' Faces or Husbands -- which involve quite a different way of working. But yes, circumstances certainly permitted a degree of improvisation. Somewhere between Cassavetes and Kubrick, I'd say, with actors wrting a lot of the script, which isn't unique but isn't done every day either.
Would you also agree that Sunset is "richer" than Sunrise, perhaps simply because there's this past to draw from and comment on?
Of course, you bet. That's what I meant when I said
". . .it’s richer seen in relation to Before Sunrise.... it's all in reference to that earlier experience. The pair have a history. They live in the present, but their dialogue also implies a Proustian pursuit of "Lost Time."
2. I thought most of Maria Full of Grace was in Spanish till she gets to the US. My Columbian film buff penpal in Bogota' saw it some time ago and didn't mention any disparity of accents. We can soon move to the new forum for this.

3. Sans Soleil--that's Chris Marker, isn't it? I watched it once; it seemed too scattered to me. Or maybe I was too scattered myself at the time, I'm not sure which.

[HorseradishTree]

Whoa, you liked The Newton Boys? I thought that it had been completely forgotten! Actually, my uncle was in that movie...

Films like Waking Life and Sunrise are my favorite of Linklater's films. They manage to actually provoke me to watch the film again in the same day, which is an enormous rarity for me. Sunset's definitely something I need to see quick, but, sadly, I'm just a poor 16-year-old whose Madstone Theater just closed down. If anyone wants to donate to a less-fortunate buff...

By the way, has anyone seen Linklater's lesser-known Tape? I hope I'm not the only one.

[arsaib4]

Not to change the topic of the thread but I felt obligated to respond since I also think very highly of Linklater's 'Tape.' You (Horseradish tree) are right in mentioning the fact that not too many have seen this vastly under-valued film.

[Chris Knipp]

I've seen and enjoyed Tape, but overlooked The Newton Boys, which I want to see now. I loved Waking Life. In Leth and von Trier's The Five Obstructions, you get to see more work by Bob Sabiston and I'd like to see more of that too.

[arsaib4]

The dvd release date of Before Sunset is available now, it's November 9th.

http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=4690&n=1&burl=

A 2 dvd-set of both Before Sunset and it's predacessor Before Sunrise will also be available the same day.

[Chris Knipp]

That's nice, though I already have Before Sunrise on tape. I'm glad to see Jonathan Rosenbaum highly approves of both, says nice things in one of his books about the first and published a rave about the second (which takes all Linklater's other films into consideration) in the Chicago Reader recently
http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2004/0704/070204_1.html

Here he writes:
I can't say which film is better. Both seem to fulfill an ambition Jean-Luc Godard expressed in the 60s -- to achieve "the definitive by chance." That is, each in its own way attains a kind of perfection while coming across as impromptu and offhand. This is surely a sign of the greatest mastery, an accomplishment that's plainly to the credit of Hawke and Delpy as much as Linklater and Kim Krizan, Linklater's script collaborator on both films.

I like that in describing the style of Before Sunset he mentions Eric Rohmer, whom it's hard not to think about: "And where Linklater's cinematic models in Before Sunrise were Hollywood love stories such as Vincente Minnelli's The Clock (1945), they're now more French New Wave, Eric Rohmer in particular." To me Before Sunset seems just the sort of movie Eric Rohmer would make if he were forty years younger and an American.

[arsaib4]

Your link didn't work for me but I think bringing in Rohmer while discussing both 'sunrise and 'sunset' is fair. I may not see the 'energy' of Linklater's dialogue in Rohmer but I do see the similarities in thematic structure apparant in all four of his 'season tales' he made in the 90's. Now in his 80's Rohmer is actually trying out new things technically (The Lady and the Duke), may be he wants to become the young Linklater.

[pmw]

Try the link now; it had an extra period in it...
P

[Chris Knipp]

It's not for me to explain what Rosenbaum meant by his comparison. I can only say that it was one that had already occurred to me, especially in connection with Before Sunset. Since both Rohmer's films and these two by Linklater consist entirely of conversation,both have the complexity of a real time story.

You may or some may share the opinion of the Gene Hackman character in Night Moves who says he once saw an Eric Rohmer movie and as he recalled "it was like watching paint dry." But the material in Rohmer and in Before Sunrise and Before Sunset is essentially the same: two people, a man and a woman who are attracted to each other, are talking about life and about themselves and about love.

arsaib 4, you humorously, illustrate one of Jonathan Rosenbaum's themes: that Americans all think foreigners want to become like Americans. Hence Eric Rohmer after all these years wants to become like Richard Linklater. I don't know what you mean by energy, but many of the conversations in Rohmer have considerable energy and urgency, starting with My Night at Maud's.

[arsaib4]

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who has difficulty describing Rohmer becaue after I just read the piece on imdb by a fan, it kind of confirms that. My difficulty is also partly due to the fact that I haven't seen most of this films and i'll be surprised if anyone here has seen even 80% of his output. And i whole-heartedly agree with Tarantino when he said that "You have to see one of his movies, and if you kind of like that one, then you should see his other ones, but you need to see one to see if you like it." (i'm surprised there's no 'alright?' at the end).

What I saw in his quadrilogy (A Tale of Springtime, A Winter's Tale, A Summer's Tale, Autumn Tale) was a more focused Rohmer, better sketched out characters, less emphasis on dialogue and dramatic arc, may be these qualities were present in his earlier films but the ones i've seen seem rambling, not as personal. Just like Tarantino said, after watching the first of the 'tales' about 3 years ago, I sought out the rest and they didn't let me down, and this was around the same time I watched 'Before Sunrise' for the first time and now that I look back they do seem like the perfect companion pieces. I was referring to Linklater's whole filmography when i mentioned the 'energy,' especially Slacker and Tape, but you are right in saying that "the material in Rohmer and in Before Sunrise and Before Sunset is essentially the same: two people, a man and a woman who are attracted to each other, are talking about life and about themselves and about love." Well said!

I was hoping to talk about some specific scenes from these late films from Rohmer but at this time they seem to have come together as one in my mind. May be this is the desired effect Rohmer hoped for, that people will only remember the essence of these tales, i certainly do or may be i've just seen too many films in the last 5 years to remember anything specific. I do however highly recommend this quadrilogy to anyone who is trying to see more of Rohmer, all of them are available on vhs, atleast two are on dvd.

[Chris Knipp]

I am a fan too. I have pursued Rohmer in theaters and video stores, but I can't say my knowledge of his large output is exhaustive. Les Films du Losange is a production team that includes the following, as I just found online, and I've seen these or nearly all of them (website URL: http://www.filmsdulosange.fr/uk_catalogue.php?recherche=1):

AnniversaireEric Rohmer
Catherine de HeilbronnEric Rohmer
Conte d'AutomneEric Rohmer
Conte d'EtéEric Rohmer
Conte d'HiverEric Rohmer
Conte de PrintempsEric Rohmer
L'Ami de Mon AmieEric Rohmer
L'Amour l'Après-MidiEric Rohmer
L'Arbre, le Maire et la MédiathèqueEric Rohmer
La Boulangère de MonceauEric Rohmer
La Carrière de SuzanneEric Rohmer
La CollectionneuseEric Rohmer
La Femme de L'AviateurEric Rohmer
La Fermière de MontfauconEric Rohmer
La Marquise d'OEric Rohmer
Le Beau MariageEric Rohmer
Le Genou de ClaireEric Rohmer
Le Rayon VertEric Rohmer
Le Signe du LionEric Rohmer
Les Nuits de Pleine LuneEric Rohmer
Les Rendez-Vous de Paris (Le Rendez-Vous de Sept Heures, Les Bancs de Paris, Mère et Enfant 1907)Eric Rohmer Ma Nuit Chez MaudEric Rohmer
Paris Vu Par… (Gare du Nord, Place de L'Etoile, Montparnasse Levallois, Rue St Denis, La Muette, StClaude Chabrol, Jean Douchet, Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Daniel Pollet, Eric Rohmer, Jean Rouch
Pauline à la PlageEric Rohmer
Perceval Le GalloisEric Rohmer
Quatre Aventures de Reinette et MirabelleEric Rohmer

Another French website is more organized (I”ve skipped the short film list and gone right to the full length ones, “les longs métrages”; here is the URL: http://nezumi.dumousseau.free.fr/rohmer.htm#film):

** Les longs métrages ( Les films faisant partie des "cycles" portent des numéros )
· Le signe du lion (1959)
Six contes moraux
1. La boulangère de Monceau (1962)
2. La carrière de Suzanne (1963)
3. La Collectionneuse (1967)
4. Ma nuit chez Maud (1969)
5. Le Genou de Claire (1970), Prix Louis-Delluc 1970
6. L'Amour l'après-midi (1972)
· La marquise d'O... (1976)
· Perceval le gallois (1978)
Comédies et proverbes
1. La femme de l'aviateur (1981)
2. Le beau mariage (1982)
3. Pauline à la plage (1982)
4. Les nuits de la pleine lune (1984)
5. Le rayon vert (1986)
6. L'ami de mon amie (1987)
· Quatre aventures de Reinette et Mirabelle (1987)
Les Contes des quatre saisons
1. Conte de printemps (1990)
2. Conte d'hiver (1992)
· L'arbre, le maire et la médiathèque (1992)
· Les rendez-vous de Paris (1995)
3. Conte d'été (1996)
4. Conte d'automne (1998)
Films Récents: Les tragédies historiques
· L'anglaise et le duc (2001)
· Triple agent , sorti le 17 mars 2004


And then there is the IMDb list which, of course, is purely chronological in reverse order. At the risk of sounding rather vague, I'd say that most of these are available somewhere on video, although there are some gaps for which you have to rely on special showings, one of which I saw at the Pacific Film Archive.

I would especially recommond La Collectioneuse, My Night at Maud's, Claire's Knee, Perceval le Gallois, and The English Woman and the Duke, which would show you some of his key works and show a range of genres. Les Nuits de la Pleine Lune (1984) is interesting for being the only one I know of that shows people actually having sex. Otherwise it's discussed, but does not happen. The fun is in (almost) getting there -- or is it escaping? The retrospective at the Cinématheque Francaise (March 17-May 2, 2004) was entitled "L'art de la fugue," the art of running away. URL for the retrospective: http://www.cinemathequefrancaise.com/htm/chaillot/rohmer/prog2.htm

[arsaib4]

Thanks for the detailed info, I appreciate it.

[arsaib4]

Also, here's a list of films available through Wellspring Media.


Aviator's Wife, The
1987

Boyfriends and Girlfriends
1980

Chloe In The Afternoon
1972

Claire's Knee
1970

Full Moon In Paris
1984

Girl at the Monceau Bakery
1963

Good Marriage, A
1967

La Collectionneuse
1982

Marquise Of O, The
Germany
1976

My Night at Maud's
1969

Summer
1986

A Summer's Tale
1996

Suzanne's Career
1963

http://theatrical.wellspring.com/template.php

[Chris Knipp]

That's good. Girl at the Monceau Bakery, The Marquise Of O
and La Collectionneuse were titles I wasn't sure were available. There are quite a few others including more recent ones that you will find at any good video rental shop.

[oscar jubis]

My favorite titles are pretty much the same ones Chris mentioned (Maud, Perceval, Claire...) and 1987's Boyfriends and Girlfriends (L'ami de...). A lot of film buffs I know love Le Rayon Vert (Summer) but I found the protagonist insufferable, particularly since she's in every scene.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree the lady in Le rayon vert is a bit whiney. Of the intellectual/romantic Rohmer films I think probably My Night at Maud's made the strongest impression on me perhaps because I guess it was the first I saw and I have always identified with Jean-Louis Trintignant. Boyfriends and girlfriends--in French L'ami de mon amie, my girlfriend's boyfriend, is charming and has pretty young people in it, the boys as well as the girls. La nuit de la pleine lune (Full moon in Paris) besides its unusual (for Rohmer) onscreen lovemaking, has a touching performance by the too short-lived Patrice Ogier, and Fabrice Lucchini of Perceval le gallois is good in it. He projects a quick, intellectual quality together with flirtatiousness which is typically French, and you find him making use of that combination currently in Patrice Lecomte's Intimate Strangers (Confidences trop intimes).
Rosenbaum:

Many of Rohmer's recent features have been limited by their concentration on youth, which can make it difficult to tell some of them apart--a problem shared by some of the late films of Yasujiro Ozu (many of which are also named according to the seasons: Late Spring, The End of Summer, An Autumn Afternoon, etcWith Rohmer, it's hard to rule out any. Their consistency and similarity just means that if you're going to see any of them, you might as well see them all.

[Johann]

Perceval. What a work of art.

Rohmer is a director I highly admire.

[JustaFied]

To continue the discuss on Linklater and not necessarily the subject of this thread...I saw "Tape" recently, it just reminded me how much I love films adapted from stage plays. The intensity from the focus on dialogue is electrifying, there are no other distractions, it's about the characters, the conversations, the humanity, it's wonderful. One movie set in one motel room, I loved the forced intimacy of the film. That's why I'm looking forward to what Madden's going to do with "Proof", which is the most powerful stage play I've ever seen live.

That said, I haven't yet seen "Before Sunset", so my comments here are somewhat off topic.

[Howard Schumann]

NOTE: The following review describes my personal feelings about Before Sunset. I acknowledge that it is definitely a minority view and I am not trying to persuade anyone who loves the film to reconsider.

BEFORE SUNSET

Directed by Richard Linklater (2004)

"Oh wow! Notre Dame! Check it out!" - Jesse

In Richard Linklater's charming Before Sunset, the highly praised sequel to his 1995 film Before Sunrise, Jesse (Ethan Hawke), now married with a four-year old son, is in Paris on the last leg of a book tour. Celine (Julie Delpy), his partner from a short-lived romance nine years ago, shows up at a roundtable for his book signing and they pick up almost immediately where they left off. Jesse has eighty minutes before he has to leave to catch his plane and that is how long the movie lasts. They go for coffee and take a walk through Paris. They talk and talk, then talk some more. Without pausing to take a breath, as if fearful of a moment of silence, they engage in non-stop conversation about the world situation, the element of chance in their lives, the environment, relationships between men and women, and their memories of what actually occurred in Vienna.

Celine talks about how unfulfilling her life has been and there is a sad undertone of remorse and regret for the things that might have been. Jesse complains about his unrewarding marriage but does not take responsibility for his lack of satisfaction or consider the commitments he made to his wife and son. In a strange sequence in a restaurant, they both light up cigarettes and blow smoke in each other's faces, a scene that is incongruous in light of Celine's passion for the environment. Does Linklater want to send a message to young viewers that smoking is romantic? One would have thought that in the intervening years, Mr. Linklater's characters would have acquired a reasonable degree of emotional maturity but such is not the case and all the sexual banter and philosophical posturing feels sophomoric.

Comparisons have been made to another film that consisted mainly of conversation, My Dinner with André. That film was not only intellectually stimulating but emotionally satisfying, an experience that allowed us in the space of two hours to re-explore our own lives and rethink the way we see the universe. Before Sunset is not in the same league. Some are calling it "breathless", "sweet", "smart", and "one of the supreme movie romances of the post-'80s era", but to me it falls far short of those accolades. It is a well directed and well acted film with great picture-postcard shots of Paris (that carefully avoids the congestion and urban blight), some witty dialogue, and a very clever ending. What it lacks is an ability to communicate the unfathomable grace of love in a way that transcends banality.

GRADE: B

[Chris Knipp]

I'm sure your view is not so uncommon, though all truly independent opinions are "minority" ones. Some found the original rather frivolous, rooted as it and most of Linklater's work is in his (now) thirtysomething generation's attitudes and experiences. A strong point you make is the lack of pauses in the conversation -- I take it you're making the reasonable suggestion that they might have become more physical during screen time since they were before, and both are basically lonely. The constant talk is certainly a convention, though not too far from the realities of such situations. At the film's end, it looks very much like they're going to get very physical indeed and the conversation is going to end.

I differ from you in the My Dinner with Andre comparison. Though that piece has many ardent admirers, I personally found it terribly boring and self indulgent and I am not alone. It's utterly different since it's two (straight) men talking not about each other's relationship but (mainly Andre Gregory) talking about Seventies intellectual and spiritual explorations, without any romantic stimulus whatsoever, either between them or for us. This subject matter may personally interest you more, but the conversational format does not closely link it with Before Sunset.


In a strange sequence in a restaurant, they both light up cigarettes and blow smoke in each other's faces, a scene that is incongruous in light of Celine's passion for the environment. Does Linklater want to send a message to young viewers that smoking is romantic? This isn't as strange as you seem to think it is, especially in Europe. Risking one's health isn't the same as damaging the environment and in Paris everybody smokes, even the eco-activists. I don't think there's any message here. They just both smoke. I don't think either that the more lighthearted "sexual banter" and "philosophical posturing" are "sophomoric," but rather that the solemnity of their discussions nine years earlier was the really sophomoric tone. But I completely see the validity of your overall position even if -- largely because I think the movie works so beautifully as a movie within the limitations it sets -- I don't agree with you. But those limitations are undeniable.

To step back a bit in the thread, what is your stand on the films of Eric Rohmer? Surely they're a good deal more closely related to Before Sunset and Before Sunrise than My Dinner with Andre, don't you think, since they're all about men and women thinking about their attraction to each other and who they want to be with?

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp A strong point you make is the lack of pauses in the conversation -- I take it you're making the reasonable suggestion that they might have become more physical during screen time since they were before, and both are basically lonely. The constant talk is certainly a convention, though not too far from the realities of such situations. At the film's end, it looks very much like they're going to get very physical indeed and the conversation is going to end. I raise this point not to suggest more physicality, just more being with each other. Silences can be awkward or comfortable but sometimes they say more about the relationship than non-stop talk. I know people who are compulsive talkers and some use this as a device to avoid intimacy. All the talking destroys the chemistry. There are no facial expressions, furtive glances, and so forth. It seemed to me as if they were fearful of a few moments of silence.
I differ from you in the My Dinner with Andre comparison. Though that piece has many ardent admirers, I personally found it terribly boring and self indulgent and I am not alone. It's utterly different since it's two (straight) men talking not about each other's relationship but (mainly Andre Gregory) talking about Seventies intellectual and spiritual explorations, without any romantic stimulus whatsoever, either between them or for us. This subject matter may personally interest you more, but the conversational format does not closely link it with Before Sunset. I certainly wouldn't make that comparison. I simply pointed out that others had done so. No, I don't see the connection either. In My Dinner With Andre, the conversation was about the personal experiences of one as opposed to the considerations of the other. Both represented differing worldviews. As such, found it a mind- expanding experience. I can understand why someone like yourself who has a mechanistic view of the world would not find it inspiring.

Risking one's health isn't the same as damaging the environment and in Paris everybody smokes, even the eco-activists. I don't think there's any message here. They just both smoke.
Well, isn't that lovely? Everybody in Paris smokes. What a quaint custom! Unfortunately, the film's distribution is not limited to France and is viewed by young people all over the world. I simply asked what message this sends to them, intended by the director or not.
I don't think either that the more lighthearted "sexual banter" and "philosophical posturing" are "sophomoric," but rather that the solemnity of their discussions nine years earlier was the really sophomoric tone. But I completely see the validity of your overall position even if -- largely because I think the movie works so beautifully as a movie within the limitations it sets -- I don't agree with you. But those limitations are undeniable. Well, it seems to me that people in their thirties would have moved on from that. It was appropriate nine years earlier, but neither exhibited much greater maturity here. Yes I found some of the conversation silly and shallow. I won't say it is on the level of a high school cafeteria chat, more like an all night college dorm bull session.
To step back a bit in the thread, what is your stand on the films of Eric Rohmer? Surely they're a good deal more closely related to Before Sunset and Before Sunrise than My Dinner with Andre, don't you think, since they're all about men and women thinking about their attraction to each other and who they want to be with? I think the difference between Linklater and Rohmer was stated clearly by Jurgen Fauth of WorldFilm: "The loveliness of Rohmer's films lies in the acute observation, the light humor, and the mature way in which the characters' problems are handled. The people in these films look a little less glamorous than film stars, but they are much more real, and they're a lot smarter and more articulate, too. When you think about it, it's quite remarkable to watch people talk about love for ninety minutes and never have them utter anything trite, tired, or shop-worn".

[Chris Knipp]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann I know people who are compulsive talkers and some use this as a device to avoid intimacy.

Of course, that's what I meant by "The constant talk is certainly a convention, though not too far from the realities of such situations. " Apparently your problem is not a lack of realism, but that you want them to be better people; so that by watching them we will become better people too.


I certainly wouldn't make that comparison. I simply pointed out that others had done so. No, I don't see the connection either. In My Dinner With Andre, the conversation was about the personal experiences of one as opposed to the considerations of the other. Both represented differing worldviews. As such, found it a mind- expanding experience. I can understand why someone like yourself who has a mechanistic view of the world would not find it inspiring.
Whoever initiated the comparison, you made use of it, saying that both Sunset and Andre are conversations, and the Malle one is more interesting and improving. Is it necessary to say I have "a mechanistic view of the world"? You really don't know that much about my view of the world; you are stereotyping your interlocutor unnecessarily. Please go by what I say, not who you think i am and be kind enough not to "understand" me. Does my liking Before Sunset make me a lesser person, because it's not "mind expanding"? For that matter, who is to say what's mind expanding?


Well, isn't that lovely? Everybody in Paris smokes. What a quaint custom! Unfortunately, the film's distribution is not limited to France and is viewed by young people all over the world. I simply asked what message this sends to them, intended by the director or not. Again, your'e shifting course. Originally your point was that it was inappropriate for enviros to smoke. Now you want to extract realism and naturalness from the film to set a good example. A futile plan, since people don't just smoke because they do it in the movies, but more often because of their peers.
I think the difference between Linklater and Rohmer was stated clearly by Jurgen Fauth of WorldFilm: "The loveliness of Rohmer's films lies in the acute observation, the light humor, and the mature way in which the characters' problems are handled. The people in these films look a little less glamorous than film stars, but they are much more real, and they're a lot smarter and more articulate, too. When you think about it, it's quite remarkable to watch people talk about love for ninety minutes and never have them utter anything trite, tired, or shop-worn". How does this state the difference? It describes Linklater, as far as I can see. Can you show how Rohmer's characters' 'handling of problems' is more 'mature' than Linklaters' characters'? You assert but do not prove.

[Howard Schumann]

Of course, that's what I meant by "The constant talk is certainly a convention, though not too far from the realities of such situations. " Apparently your problem is not a lack of realism, but that you want them to be better people; so that by watching them we will become better people too. Not at all. I just found the wall-to-wall conversation rather annoying. I could have used a few moments of silence to take it all in.
Is it necessary to say I have "a mechanistic view of the world"? You really don't know that much about my view of the world; you are stereotyping your interlocutor unnecessarily. Please go by what I say, not who you think i am and be kind enough not to "understand" me. Does my liking Before Sunset make me a lesser person, because it's not "mind expanding"? For that matter, who is to say what's mind expanding? I wasn't saying that to insult you. I have only the highest regard for you personally, politically, and artistically even if we have different outlooks. You have stated many times that you are not a strong admirer of spirituality and do not view the world in those terms. It just made sense to me in light of that why you wouldn't rate My Dinner With Andre very highly. If I have been offensive, please accept my apologies.
Again, your'e shifting course. Originally your point was that it was inappropriate for enviros to smoke. Now you want to extract realism and naturalness from the film to set a good example. A futile plan, since people don't just smoke because they do it in the movies, but more often because of their peers. Smoking has no place in a movie that pretends to intelligence and sensitivity. It is very uncommon, even rare these days to see people smoking in films, a common occurrence in the past. Why is that? Because various health reports have shown smoking to be toxic and injurious to people's health. Linklater is saying - well these guys are doing it so it must be OK - screw the health statistics. It is fun and romantic.

Can you show how Rohmer's characters' 'handling of problems' is more 'mature' than Linklaters' characters'? You assert but do not prove. I have no interest in comparisons. It is not my forte or my interest and does not illuminate in any way my feelings about Before Sunset. Each director stands on their own merits.

[Chris Knipp]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann: One would have thought that in the intervening years, Mr. Linklater's characters would have acquired a reasonable degree of emotional maturity but such is not the case and all the sexual banter and philosophical posturing feels sophomoric.
You certainly did want them to be better people; that is clear. They aren't mature enough. They lack emotional maturity. Isn't it better to be mature, when you're in your thirties? And their conversation isn't "emotionally satisfying" as the conversation was for you in My Dinner with Andre. When I said "you want them to be better people; so that by watching them we will become better people too," it was because this was the implication of your expectation of the pair setting a good example by being mature and serious and more selfless and having such clean habits as not smoking, thereby not encouraging young people to light up.

You have stated many times that you are not a strong admirer of spirituality and do not view the world in those terms. It just made sense to me in light of that why you wouldn't rate My Dinner With Andre very highly. If I have been offensive, please accept my apologies. Your apologies are most gracious and I warmly accept them. I don't think my religious, spiritual, or philosophical views are relevant to this discussion -- not so far anyway -- but anything I've said to you has only expressed discomfort with som spiritual programs, not a general lack of admiration for spirituality.
Smoking has no place in a movie that pretends to intelligence and sensitivity. It is very uncommon, even rare these days to see people smoking in films, a common occurrence in the past. Why is that? Because various health reports have shown smoking to be toxic and injurious to people's health. Linklater is saying - well these guys are doing it so it must be OK - screw the health statistics. It is fun and romantic.
While I thoroughly sympathize with your disapproval of smoking especially among young people , I think this is extraneous to the film as a whole. To judge every film on whether people do or don't smoke in it would be absurd. Concern about smoking is spreading, but is still only widespread in the US. Your claim that it is rare to see smoking in films is I think mistaken, even about Hollywood films. Young people are seen smoking in American movies, for the obvious reason that a lot of young people smoke and the filmmakers are trying to create a realistic feel and atmosphere. You could never make the claim about films from other countries, where more people smoke than ever--in Asia especially, but also in all of Europe. I'm not certain that making movies where people don't smoke has any positive effect. It might be more effective to have people in a movie smoking and developing a dangerous cough! A movie without smoking simply doesn't bring up the issue. In Before Sunset I am confident Linklater is not making a statement about smoking any more than he is endorsing the kind of clothes Jessie and Celine are wearing. These are simply givens of their day-to-day existence at that moment in their lives which make their characters more natural and easier for the actors to assimilate as their own. Your position on this is a primary example of the fact that you want Before Sunset not so much to be truthful as to set a good example of how we ought to behave.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you show how Rohmer's characters' 'handling of problems' is more 'mature' than Linklaters' characters'? You assert but do not prove.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no interest in comparisons. It is not my forte or my interest and does not illuminate in any way my feelings about Before Sunset. Each director stands on their own merits. Well, if you don't want to answer, the discussion stops there. But you clearly compared conversation in Before Sunset with conversation in My Dinner with Andre and you have more recently compared Eric Rohmer's films with Linklater's --as arsaib4 and I did earlier in this thread, agreeing that we find strong affinities between the Rohmer experience and the experience of Linklater's two Sunset's. Why you mask your comparisons by using other people's statements instead of your own I have no idea. Surely comparison is an essential part of all analysis and all discussion where opinions and evaluations are being exchanged. Your quoting a favorable discription of Rohmer here:
I think the difference between Linklater and Rohmer was stated clearly by Jurgen Fauth of WorldFilm: "The loveliness of Rohmer's films lies in the acute observation, the light humor, and the mature way in which the characters' problems are handled. --using the key word for you in your rejection of Linklater, "mature," and directly alluding to "the difference between" the two directors--is certainly a comparison, but to my mind Fauth's words could just as well describe Linklater's film; he too has a light touch. You still haven't said how Rohmer's characters' 'handling of problems' is more 'mature' than Linklaters' characters'. (Indeed Jessie and Celine are confronting their whole lives in Before Sunset, where Rohmer's are very often just considering whom to spend a few weeks in the summer with.) And so my statement remains true, that you assert but do not prove on this point --which it would require no comparison to answer. What specifically that they say "feels sophomoric" to you, and why? What specifically that they say tells you that they"haven't acquired a reasonable degree of emotional maturity"? I'm only asking for specific examples, not a comparison, though the comparisons always come up, because we're speaking in the contexts of two lifetimes of watching films, and any reference to another movie in the context of a discussion of one is a comparison of sorts, whether or not the words "better" or "more mature" or "the difference between" which you have used, come up.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
Not at all. I just found the wall-to-wall conversation rather annoying. I could have used a few moments of silence to take it all in.

I might have a slightly different opinion on this but its acceptance does depend on your outlook for the film itself. I think their verboseness is due to the fact that there is too much to say in a very short time. Linklater has them against a running clock which only adds to the tension not just for the characters but for the viewer itself. I'm rather surprised that Before Sunrise hasn't been mentioned more often in the discussion. Also I'd like to hear your thoughts on that since the conversations are punctuated with long silences (there's a great scene in the record store where they take a quick glimpse of each other).

Smoking has no place in a movie that pretends to intelligence and sensitivity. It is very uncommon, even rare these days to see people smoking in films, a common occurrence in the past. Why is that? Because various health reports have shown smoking to be toxic and injurious to people's health. Linklater is saying - well these guys are doing it so it must be OK - screw the health statistics. It is fun and romantic.

I am surprised that you've come to this conclusion, for this film. Chris Knipp's answer is an obvious generalization but one that would apply if Delpy lighting one up was inconsequential. I believe Linklater in this scene, just like he does throughout Sunset, wants to show his characters as contradictory human beings, much like the rest of us, as they fight their own feelings about each other and life in general. Similar to the way they blow off the idea of reincarnation here compare to the first film; Hawke isn't happy with his wife, but doesn't want to hurt his kid; Delpy in a marvelous sequences shows her desperateness but still wants to get away; and thus here we have her, a Green Piece activist, taking a drag.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by arsaib4


I might have a slightly different opinion on this but its acceptance does depend on your outlook for the film itself. I think their verboseness is due to the fact that there is too much to say in a very short time.

I am surprised that you've come to this conclusion (re smoking), for this film. Chris Knipp's answer is an obvious generalization but one that would apply if Delpy lighting one up was inconsequential. I believe Linklater in this scene, just like he does throughout Sunset, wants to show his characters as contradictory human beings, much like the rest of us, as they fight their own feelings about each other and life in general. Similar to the way they blow off the idea of reincarnation here compare to the first film; Hawke isn't happy with his wife, but doesn't want to hurt his kid; Delpy in a marvelous sequences shows her desperateness but still wants to get away; and thus here we have her, a Green Piece activist, taking a drag. Your points here make a lot of sense. Thanks.

[Chris Knipp]

I have so often seen people smoke in recent movies and wondered if they really don't smoke in real life, and if doing it for a film got them hooked. Unfortunately when you're 14 or 20 you don't think you're ever going to die and don't experience any ill effects so smoking doesn't worry you. I've heard that River Phoenix was required to smoke in his second film, Stand by Me, and that started him. Of course he was full of terrible contradictions, but he was one American who was a vegan and passionate animal rights and environmental activist (he wouldn't wear leather) who smoked, apart from all the other things he took up of an addictive nature. What I'm leading up to is that Ethan Hawke smokes, plenty, in real life, and Julie Delpy is French, so the chances are she has no compunctions about smoking; and there's nothing unusual about people smoking in a cafe or a restaurant because it's not restricted. It's unlikely they would smoke just for effect. The idea that their doing so while talking about environmentalism shows their contradictions is also a good and natural one, but whether this is Linklater's "intention" we don't know unless he says so. Moreover I repeat I really don't think in Europe being an enviro and smoking would likely be seen as contradictory because, I have to keep repeating it because it doesn't seem to be getting through, in Europe like in most of the rest of the world, everywhere but the world of the American white middle class, smoking isn't frowned on and is almost universal. One of the reasons Johnny Depp has given for liking to live in France is their attitude toward smoking. If you're a chain smoker and live in Berkeley like a Japanese artist friend of mine it means being treated like a pariah, and it's bad enough to know you have a bad habit, you don't want to be looked at funny all the time. You thought it improbable that anyone here would have seen 80% of Rohmer's output, but I think I have, and I can't think of any long pauses in conversations in the ones about men and women's relationships. What they do is have structural breaks because the films are segmented into meetings and days. Linklater as has been pointed out in connection with Before Sunset likes to work in real time, and decided to do that by giving Jessie a plane to catch. Real time means the pressure of time and as you say, in this case the pressure to get everything said. A narrative chopped up into fragments has no sense of urgency as a whole. Of course Jessie decides to miss his plane and the conversation is coming to an end some time soon as the film ends. We get our long awaited break from conversation in the final moments with Celine's song and then the big break, the film's end, comes and the beauty of it is we imagine things are just about to begin.

[arsaib4]

You seem to be repeating what I said earlier and at the same time responding to more than what's necessary. I did take everything in consideration before responding to Howard. I don't know French by accident, I lived in Marseille for about 5 years and I am aware of the attitude that exists not just in France but throughout Europe towards smoking. Whether that's right or wrong is another discussion, I didn't judge that earlier thus that part of your response doesn't apply to me. Talk to your other fellow N. Americans. Also I didn't make any comments regarding what Rohmer does in my previous post but mentioned that Sunrise should've been brought up more often. Too bad not many people saw it (especially before watching Sunset) as it only adds to the viewing and the discussion afterwards.

Of course Linklater is the only one that can answer this specifically but I don't believe it was an accident; either way it worked for this audience member now living in America.

[Chris Knipp]

I plead guilty to letting my pen flow freely and not responding precisely to your points. But how was I to know that you had lived a long time in Marseille?

If many viewers of the new Linklater film haven't seen the earlier one, after all they are nine years apart. That the new one is richer for knowing the first is something I commented on in my original review that started this thread, in my second sentence. As for my "fellow N. Americans," they constitute the main readers on this site, so I need not address myself especially to them; everything we write is consumed by them. I will now bear in mind that you are a special case, a person with a European background. I addressed myself to you to show your last post was my starting point, but Howard has been the prime mover lately, and the Rohmer discussion is one that has played a key role on this thread--you participated too, so I thought you would welcome a comment on the use of pauses, a point that has come up lately, from Howard.

In my last post I said a lot about smoking. You may feel this was a pointless ramble, but I'd thought it important to develop this theme if we're to make any sense out of what to me seemed a completely incidental moment in Before Sunset. The whole reason for all this talk is that Howard Schumann made a big fuss about it. He fairly rejected the whole film because of it. I like your interpretation better, though I still think it's a bit fanciful. If Linklater is doing what you say with the smoking, he's a subtler ironist than I realized, but the irony is blunted by the French setting. What this may mean is that perhaps Howard is right and the Parisian background is just "postcard" pictures and, because the director is American, socially and intellectually we are not really in France. I think it's just as good a refutation of Howard's fuss to say the cigarettes don't mean much of anything, they're just part of the furniture of the scene. Howard is having recourse as he tends to do -- that is his approach to reviewing films, and it can be a valuable one -- to evaluating the film on idealistic and moral rather than social or aesthetic grounds. I'd say the film is about people very like the real people who play the characters, and hence it all gets rather muddled.