Talk about not aging well - Hiroshima mon amour (1960) Discussion

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Philpfc22 18 years ago

I have to agree with the thread starter here. I was told how great this film was and although not a bad film it has dated considerably unfortunately. Especially in some of the emotional scenes. And the Japanese mans laugh is so terrible. Plus i just didnt get it to be honest. Although im not going to give up on it and will re watch it again

reply

[–] cameronlovesjesus 18 years ago

I agree with the comment about the laugh, it is just terrible, it makes the whole movie lose its fourth wall when they laugh.

reply

[–] dissolute_dog 14 years ago

It is true that the way the two main characters kiss and laugh is a bit over-the-top and theatrical, but in all fairness, that was a common way for actors to act in those days.

Of course, there were always movies and actors who came off more natural and believable (Ingrid Bergman comes to mind), but many many other movies and actors were as we see in "Hiroshima mon amour." For example, Eiji Okada's acting in this movie reminded me of Alain Delon somewhat (especially during the bedroom conversations), and his laugh is a lot like Burt Lancaster's. Hell, Clive Owen still laughs that way in his movies, and it's the 2000s.

The story itself, however, is very much timeless and universal in my opinion. And despite the dated style of acting, the acting still had its brilliant moments that are also very much timeless and universal. Some of the expressions of affection for each other, some of the expressions of pain and loss, etc. are very much still real and relevant today.

reply

[–] clearbluesky-2 18 years ago

I absolutely disagree with this opinion.
It's just the other way around, HMA is a timeless classic that may have been made yesterday and goes far beyond the technical and movie language novelties of the 'nouvelle vague'.
Compare it with 'les 400 coups' and the other early Truffaut movies, those are the ones that really aged bad. Nowadays they seem like average TV stuff, because all the sensation made at the time was only in the way the movie was shot.
HMA on the other hand is pure art, it's human thought at its top level, it's an eternal reflection on the highest themes about the goals and meanings of human life. Such deep content will never get out of date.

reply

[–] angelgirl720 18 years ago

I agree with the above comment 100%.
Plus, it is through the absence of emotion that the emotion is brought forth. I think the movie is timeless in its ideas of internalized destruction and contradiction. If you read Duras' story, it reads exactly like the film and is so strong and passionate in its absence of colourful emotion.

reply

[–] cinephile_12 18 years ago

Not age well? Are you serious? This film transcends time. Sure, it's centered around events that were pertinant in the pre-60's era, but the film's tactics were ahead of its time. Incomprehensibly. Even for the Nouvelle Vague. Even for our time. This film's artistry was made for the distant future. This film is void of any cinematic allusions. It has also not been imitated as such. There is not another film like this. Even remotely (Simply weaving in and out of the time narrative doesn't count as this type of emulation). The premise is timeless. The dialogue is remarkably unique. The cinematography is still one of a kind. And as Jacques Rivette once said, "At the end of the last reel you can easily move back to the first...," so even the characters defy time. Their life spans are seemingly circular. Generally, older films that were innovative, offbeat, at the time of their release become dated because their styles are so over-used that it seems the norm. But how can any film like Hiroshima Mon Amour be the norm, this day and age? It wasn't even the norm in the Nouvelle Vague: the height of film's reinvention (thought it wasn't officially part of the New Wave, it was made just before all that was started, but whatever). The only films I could see comparable to Hiroshima Mon Amour are L'Eclisse and Tokyo Story. But they still do not have the same flare. Absolutely. Dated? Please.

p h u c k a b e e s !

reply

[–] THESTARCHILD_90 18 years ago

This film totally trancends time, and just like one of the previous posters, it could have been made yesterday. Frome the opening shot and to the final shot, I'm taken into an undeniably deep, beautiful, tragic and honest world.

reply

[–] freshy 18 years ago

What are you talking about? I completely disagree. I've just watched this film for the first time and I didn't find anything dated nor cheap. Not one emotion rang untrue or trite as you said. I was enthralled by the story almost immediately. From the very start it came obvious that it wasn't going to be your conventional 'hollywoodesque' storytelling. It sounded very 'literary' to me and in my book, there's nothing wrong with that, especially considering Duras wrote it.
I'm not a film scholar of any kind and don't know much about the 'nouvelle vague' or the history of fancy cinematic techniques like how innovative the use of flashbacks was, but from my humble experience I can tell that this movie is special, I found it moving and beautiful.

reply

[–] Fkesoccer 17 years ago

I think the movie is unique nowadays because of its themes: time and, more specifically, memory.. not many films have dealt with these themes, and Hiroshima mon amour handles them nicely.

But in general, I wasn't that impressed by the film--maybe forty years ago it was revolutionary, but reading the Criterion commentary, I thought Eric Rohmer at least was exaggerating heavily with his praise for Hiroshima mon amour... it isn't THAT good.

To be honest, the film is just too slow despite its beautiful cinematography, and I considered it more melodrama than emotional tour-de-force... the acting isn't that great, and there's too little character development for such great outbursts of emotion--I just didn't buy the laughs or the tears or most of the super-dramatic moments in general.

Plus, a script with "in Hiroshima" or "in Nevers" added to the end of every other sentence doesn't help... the writing in general, I thought was mediocre despite some thematic insights. It was also nice to see Hiroshima so soon after the war, especially since I visited there recently.

And as for this film standing the test of time better than "Les 400 Coups," I say simply and truthfully, "ha!"

reply

[–] cinephile_12 17 years ago

I loved this film for its exquisite cinematography and poetic dialogue; the themes are next on the list. I thought the acting was wonderful (not all the time, but when it needed to be), the character development was focused just where the story wanted to be, and the emotions WERE very melodramatic - but I liked it. I think Rohmer was right in a sense: though this film is not popular to-day, like, say, "Casablanca", there is and was no other film that can be rightly compared to "Hiroshima Mon Amour". The film is revolutionary for me (in a completely subjective sense) because it is simply incomparable. L'Eclisse is the other film, that comes to mind, that takes its time enough to explore cinematography to its absolute limits of beauty; but overall still a very different film. They may be slow sometimes (or most of the time)... what price beauty?

"The 400 Blows" is completely dated. Still good, but far from revolutionary standards nowadays. Not my favourite Truffaut film... "Jules and Jim" is his best... not dated.

p h u c k a b e e s !

reply

[–] terranova22 10 years ago

I just saw a restored version of this film at the local Laemmle theatre, and thought it was very compelling; didn't really seem slow to me. If you go in with the idea that the film is "art" and is done in a poetic way, then you may not have the same level of expectation for the acting being "natural." Given the "different" type of script at hand, i think the actors did a fine job with it. I'm not sure exactly in what way you mean that "the acting isn't that great" . . .

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] voodoochile009 14 years ago

I've noticed a number of people here criticizing the acting. I agree with this, but it does not at all ruin the movie for me. French New Wave films were revolutionary in that they were intended to be entirely the directors piece of art. Furthermore, the films are designed to first and foremost make an artistic statement. The issue, however, was that most of these guys - Truffaut, Godard, Resnais - didn't have any funding for their films. They couldn't afford good actors, and so they had to make due with the people who walked through their door. Truffaut got lucky with some of his casting; he managed to catch a couple gems. But on the whole, these directors had very little acting ability to work with. Thus, I don't find it entirely fair to judge Hiroshima on acting. And aside from the acting, I think this film has aged beautifully.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

Where Last Year At Marienbad is effortlessly poetic, Hiroshima comes across as almost grotesquely pretentious because of the awkwardly literary dialogue (and monologues) as well as the overwrought sentimentalism in which the whole thing is shrouded. And yeah acting´s also sub-par in its stiltedness which does appear intentional to an extent... but hardly though to SUCH an extent. Cinematography may be great and the story structure imaginative & innovative and all yet there´s no overcoming the mentioned fundamental flaws. 6/10.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] maz89 14 years ago

Hiroshima comes across as almost grotesquely pretentious because of the awkwardly literary dialogue (and monologues) as well as the overwrought sentimentalism in which the whole thing is shrouded.

The dialogue is anything but awkward. It moves with a poetic grace that captures the melancholic mood of the film. The conversation between the lovers at the beginning of the film was beautifully crafted.

As for the sentimentalism, I didn't find it overwrought at all. On the contrary, I think the film contrasted the woman's gloominess over losing her lover (or rather, gloominess because of her desperate desire for preserving his memory) with the man's calm, almost stoic (at least in terms of what he has lost) behavior couldn't have been more better done.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

"The dialogue is anything but awkward".

C´mon it was often downright embarrassing; I always thought Duras was a poor writer and her script here only cements this impression. Good thing that Resnais managed to get Robbe-Grillet on board for Marienbad - which then turned out one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever crafted imo. It´s abstract, graceful and subtle - everything Hiroshima ain´t.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] maz89 14 years ago

C´mon it was often downright embarrassing; I always thought Duras was a poor writer and her script here only cements this impression.

Eh, I guess I couldn't hold a more opposite stance on the matter. Granted, I'm not well-versed with Duras' work, but one thing I can surely attest to is that Hiroshima is not some poorly written farce. As I've said before, I think it sets the melancholic tone for the film rather aptly without coming off as contrived or trite. I don't know why you call it embarrassing. I think, the melodrama is there to kind of show what mental state this woman, who refuses to forget and heal, is in. Without the somewhat exaggerated emotions or depressed moods put forth by the dialogue, I don't think the drama could nearly be as effective in portraying the difficulty of living life that way.

Hey, at least we agree that Marienbad is genius.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] queens2010 13 years ago

None of the films mentioned here, HMA, Marienbad, 400 Blows, have aged badly. People just need to drop their crippling philistine outlook on life before examining films as works of art. I'll say no more. Maybe the paintings of Renoir have aged badly, because they were obviously painted in the 19th century, and the music of Mozart has aged badly, because it sounds so 18th century.

reply

[–] terranova22 10 years ago

Like and Bump!

>>None of the films mentioned here, HMA, Marienbad, 400 Blows, have aged badly. People just need to drop their crippling philistine outlook on life before examining films as works of art. I'll say no more. Maybe the paintings of Renoir have aged badly, because they were obviously painted in the 19th century, and the music of Mozart has aged badly, because it sounds so 18th century.

reply

[–] Xcalat3 13 years ago

I do agree that it has not aged well (Specially the dialogue and acting seem very staged) but overall I loved the cinematography and style.