Yet there are few posts here. Included in the Criterion Collectors DVD, there is a thick book that includes excerpts from a Cahier du Cinema roundtable discussion of the film.
By far the most beautiful movie I have ever seen. I am still in awe. I have seen more movies than I can count, yet nothing could prepare me for this movie. I am utterly appalled at the fact this is not on the IMDb Top 250, but then a lot of New Wave movies are not as well.
I was also surprised that this movie was not discussed at IMDb. And for some reason it is not discussed anywhere else either. I don't understand why it is belittled the way it is. Sometimes I feel It's a conspiracy, but that's just ridiculous.
AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mofo in the room, accept no substitutes.
I believe the reason that Resnais is not as highly regarded is due to his being part of the New Wave. His films are not the jazzy, iconoclastic fun-fluff of Godard and Truffaut. Instead, they are darker, more deliberate, and more artistic. "Hiroshima Mon Amour" is the type of film that inspires filmmakers such as Wong Kar Wai. Without "Hiroshima Mon Amour," would we have the classic "In the Mood for Love?" Not so sure. Resnais deserves his own place in the canon, instead of the third name in a textbook's chapter on the French New Wave. And Criterion needs to get around to releasing "Last Year at Marienbad."
I am boggled by the movie too, and I feel the need to discuss it. The problem is, I don't know where to start. I guess one question I'm asking myself is what do the first few frames represent? First dust falls on their arms, so I'm guessing that's a simulation of what happened to the population of Hiroshima, but then, gold dust falls on their arms. What does that signify? Actually, come to think of it, this spawns new questions. Obvious ones, like what happens after the end of the film. In the few seconds preceding it, the characters state that they ARE their hometowns: "I am Anvers" "I am Hiroshima" The characters affirm that they are different, that they will never be able to separate themselves from their past. That they can't forget, no matter how hard they try. Well that's my interpretation. But does that mean, they are going to stay together? Their rejection of forget leans me towards the yes answer. They admit that they will not be able to forget each other, in that case, they must stay with each other to avoid the pain of regret.
So here's a beginning of discussion I guess. It would be helpful if anyone could follow up.
It represents the destruction of the war, and the later embrace of the two lovers. The intertwined limbs amidst the dust show their current embrace battling for memory over their war time past. She is talking about being in hiroshima and he is saying you were never there. She is talking about hiroshima but really she is remembering her own tragedy. But at the same time she is describing being in hiroshima and visiting the shrines and seeing the burned people in photographs. When he says "you were never there" he is reminded that the shrines and re-creations are nothing like the real event.
The visual portrayal and the dialogue work on several levels. Both characters are struggling with the memory of who they were, which has shaped their entire lives, versus their memory of each other. They could be happy if they could both forget, but you can't forget that much pain, no matter how you try. That, I think, is the essence of the movie.