L'Amant, The Lover 1992, dir JJ Annaud based on novel by Marguerite Duras ***half

 "L'Amant" The Lover 1992, dir JJ Annaud based on the novel by Marguerite Duras ***half

I have seen it once a long time ago, but wanted to see it again to see if I remember certain details.

I remember immediately one regrettable detail of the film. The actress was slightly too old for the character who was supposed to be 15.5 year old, in the movie, Jane March is fresh pretty and young, but she wasnt quite young enough to generate the tension of a multiple transgressions of a white minor - strong willful inexperienced one, poor, shameful, stuck in turmoils of her family w no way out - she took to entertaining a sexual physical love w a moneyed weak experienced Asian man of 33.  He is weak because he is facing a superb pretty white girl, in love with a treasure that no money could procure easily.  The terrific dynamics in a struggle of social complexity involving colonialism and race is the main heart of the story.  Here the girl is a bit too static.  But Jane March has done well already.  It is not an easy character to play especially when we all knew the original model - Duras herself, in all her fame and glory and beauty, the star has to come up to this level is quite a challenge.  The Tony Leung character is not melancholic, he looks also a bit static, especially the dialogue in Chinese - but most viewers who don't speak Chinese would not notice this aspect - he also did well but not poetically melancholic and rich, which this story depends on.  (If we had John Lone, the melancholy would be natural, but he would have been too handsome - the girl would have no complex about falling in love with a man this gd looking. )

So we are now onto the setting, v beautiful, nostalgic, and we could almost smell the heat and food through the colors light, sun, water, retro luxury car.  I love the setting.

One question, what happened to the girl at the boarding school with the beautiful body?  Did I miss something?  What became of her?

I have read the book several times back in 86 - i suppose she is the foil nature in full bloom against the intellectual skinny sensual Jane march.  A fleshy beauty goes around nude, healthy w no complex, in full splendor observed by the complicated narrator. The narrator is just a voice, we are with her internal turmoil at all times.

The movie has a lot of love making scenes, these look realistic, whether its real or not is not important but the camera wants us to believe that we are looking at real acts.  There is no intention of the habitual cinematic use of "symbols/suggestion of love making" but rather the scenes are shown to the limits of whats possible before it gets moved to next category of film rating.  This is the real thing, the camera says.  The camera wants to show raw physical sex but within limits so that it could be viewed for a general public.  But if you had gone this far, the kissing etc is too tame.  Sex here is shown as the maximum of what the lover could do - the narrator says so herself, he only has this to do in his life as he was v rich - and what the girl could do, she engages herself beyond the stuffiness of the rest of her life.  Both characters are at the maximum of their beings, coinciding.  Is it necessary to show sex in the real? 

Anyway at the year of 86, the book was a sensation.  So many women could relate to the sexual passion and love of Duras writing.  The book was shocking because it is as if the writer has put herself in total nakedness and women could understand what its like to be double triple bind and still have the luxury of being loved.  Then a movie is made, the heat has subsided, we still want to see how a movie treat the novel visually.  The book is so well know, so we watch and see how the story is being told.  Not such a daring film amongst the mainstream general public movies.  (Other more explicit daring movies showing sex which were not pornography were banned for many years, ie the Mistress, made in 1976 w Gerard Depardieu and Bulle Ogier, which when we look at it today - bdsm - is not secret visuals/news)

Compared to the original text, the movie did not carry over the intense erotic tension nor the profound devotion of hopeless passionate first love - for both the man and the woman/girl.

The movie relies on voice over to tell the interior feelings of the girl, however, it still some how did not bring over the "heart murmur" thats particular to the writings of Duras.  The novel beats the movie by many miles, but, writing is not movie making.  Each reader re creates in their minds fresh pictures thats unique to their own experience and emotions.  Many people think Dura's writing  is very boring ,  and a boring film maker, puts you to sleep some say.  But my impression is that Duras writes in the present moment, when you read her texts its always in the present, a breathing moment, and also in her films - not necessary that interesting to watch, not an entertaining genre, no amusement, no distraction as any good competant main stream movie could do - her films are also working in the present.  Her films are in the present, its not story telling, it is bringing you to a live moment to be participant.  You end up watching carefully as if you are one of the people in the film.   

The voice over in the movie, Jeanne Moreau reading , is telling the viewers, from the girl to us directly.  Maybe since you already have the voice over, how could we use the images to complete the rhythm - breathless/ passionate/ willful/ opportunistic all this... thats experienced by the girl?  

In the end, both the novel and the movie is spoken visualised via the eyes of the girl isnt it?

Movie goers are there for entertainment, not all are there to enjoy the movie at some other intricate participatory level.

If we could make a movie that has a multiple level broad appeal that would be the ultimate achievement of a mainstream film.  The story has to have that kind of life to begin with.

I like the Annaud movie because its very measured.  It does what it can within reality already, w Jeanne Moreau doing the voice over - w Jane March pretty fresh Euroasian face and Tony Leung, apparently someone told me it took 10 years to find the right actor.  But thats not been confirmed by any source.

===