how the affair begins!?
-
Bklyn4ever — 17 years ago(July 02, 2008 08:59 AM)
Thank you but I can't take full credit. There is a similar saying associated with religious faith and the concept of "miracles" (i.e. if you have faith, no explanation is necessary . . . ). So I adapted it for romantic love, since that is a kind of religion too (for women only, if Nietzsche is to be believed).
I remembered the phrase from the old TV program 'Unsolved Mysteries,' but it also appears at the beginning of 'Song of Bernadette,' which is about the Virgin of Lourdes. And it struck me that Stephen's devotion to Anna at the end has something of that "Virgin Mary obsession" for which Catholicism is noted. Not that this is a bad thing at all. -
Ahlephia — 17 years ago(July 16, 2008 05:06 AM)
People, people, people - who cares how it starts. I was just happy to see Jeremy Irons butt naked!
If you ever believe in love at first sight then you'll understand the affair. If not, then it's not my problem.
Everything I do, I do for myself. Everything you do, you do for me. -
almaa31 — 17 years ago(July 19, 2008 10:54 AM)
I agree with the previous comment. Unless you experienced it (I did), it's hard to explain. It's like an instant connection, no words needed, you just know it and the other person knows it too, you both know it. There's something tragic about this.
-
septimus77 — 17 years ago(July 20, 2008 11:28 PM)
Something tragic about this yes, that's well-put.
I felt that the acting in these early scenes (well, throughout the movie, actually) was superb. The subtle eye movements said it all. Anything more would have been crass. Because it ultimately wasn't about just the sexual attraction. There was some kind of deep connecting that only they understood.
Also, the sex scenes were well-acted, IMO, precisely because both of them responded so strangely, so uniquely maybe, as if neither of them had ever experienced anything like this before. I thought that the director was possibly trying to estrange us from them even while drawing us closer to them.
I thought it a rather amazing movie. -
WarpedRecord — 17 years ago(September 17, 2008 10:11 PM)
I agree that the acting was superb. Initially I was wondering how and why they first hooked up, but once I saw eyes (as well as at the rest of their bodies), I didn't need the back-story. The acting in this film was nothing short of breathtaking.
-
amatoanima — 17 years ago(October 30, 2008 02:17 AM)
Septimus, I liked the way you put it best.
I think they were both already Damaged (no pun intended) and looking for something out of the ordinary.
Irons' character seemed, bored and slightly unsatisfied with his hum drum life. While Binoche's character was a free spirit still coming to terms with tragedies of her past.
I think if you read the book, it all makes much more sense. -
marbleann — 15 years ago(January 06, 2011 07:01 AM)
Whoever thinks this is love at first sight has never been in love at first sight. This is Lust at first sight. Love had nothing to do with those two. And not for one second did I think it was a romance going on. I also believe she set this up from the beginning. Love is not obsession. If folks think that they have a very messed up view of love. The woman was a nut case and he was too. Oh I forgot. Did you hear her talking about her childhood? I think she might have harbored some resentment against a steady family life and that is why she targeted the father. Notice she only started this after she met the whole family in a family situation. I think she was crazy. And he was just a old coot chasing after his sons girlfriend who obviously has some serious mental problems
-
thewickermanuk — 11 years ago(September 16, 2014 07:25 PM)
I would beg to disagree. If it were lust at first sight then the character Stephen (unnamed in the book) would never have continued at the cost of ruining his family and reputation. Also, the scene where he sits alone in his room with a blow-up picture of Anna is hardly lust and the whole mechanics of love affirm its being obsessive and crazy.
-
rex_ilusivii — 14 years ago(October 28, 2011 02:58 PM)
I just confused about how their affair begins.
they've just see each other in a gathering, and Anna introduces herself to Stephen (and no more talk);
once again they see each other in Stephen's house (when Martin took her to show her to his family) and again not a special conversation;
and then she calls him to have sex?!
OP, I think you are absolutely right and you have a review by at least one renowned critic to back you up. This is what James Berardinelli wrote on the topic:
The relationship between their characters seems unlikely Anna doesn't come across as the kind of woman to drive a man to obsession and the supposedly "erotic" sex scenes aren't that steamy. One of the problems with the pairing of Anna and Stephen is that their introduction to each other is mishandled. The long, lingering look that they exchange doesn't ignite sparks. There's no heat in it. And because that moment doesn't work, the rapid development of the affair feels contrived.
He put into words exactly how I felt as I watched this movie.
no i am db -
PoppyTransfusion — 14 years ago(January 04, 2012 07:58 AM)
There's a masochistic quality to Anna and I took the way they 'met' to be an unconscious knowing/recognition of something within the other as the attraction. The quality of the sex was cold and unloving because neither really sees the other as anything other than an erotic object.
my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish -
Yahuar — 11 years ago(August 17, 2014 05:23 AM)
I also felt the same. The way she introduced herself is totally absurd. An affair so intense with those consequences demands a more coherent initial connection.
Something is missing. It seems a very serious failure of script, which leaves the drama without a solid foundation.