Before Sunrise
Seen: 2002-03-15
Overall: ****
Writing: ****
Acting: ****
Cinematography: ***
Music: ** 1/2
Art: *** 1/2
Direction: *** 1/2
Originality: ****
Enjoyment: *** 1/2
Conditions: ***
Venue: Bitscape's Castle Lair
Medium: DVD
More Info
When I first saw this movie years ago, I loved and
enjoyed every moment and every word of it, beginning
to end. Tonight, I found the first half hour mostly banal
and boring, due in part, I think, to the fact that I already
knew the ending. But then, something funny happened. It
drew me in, and by the time that ending came, I was breaking
into tears. I think I am a
Richard
Linklater fan.
What else can I say? How can I explain? The premise
of the story is so incredibly simple, that trying to
summarize it does not do justice to its depth and
power. Two people meet on a train and spend the night
wandering around the city of Vienna. That's the
movie. Nothing to see here. No laser blasters,
conspiratorial plots, bitter betrayals, or shocking
revelations during the final act which call into
question everything seen up until that point. Really.
It's so random, so human, and so honest. The film
itself could easly be an episode of the "great tv
show" idea described by Ethan Hawke's character
at the beginning.
Life is transitory. There is nothing that stays constant,
except the inevitability of change. But what if, for just
a brief fleeting moment, two people could step outside
the mundane reality of the world, and exist
in a shared bubble, free of the constraints,
assumptions, and obligations that plague life, not by
elimiting these limits (which is impossible as long as
life continues), but by becoming so acutely and intensely
aware of them that the possibility of transcendence occurs
anew in each passing moment? If so, could such a state
ever be sustainable?
Alas, the very nature of sustainablity, by definition, implies
stagnation -- conformance to a predetermined path of
consciousness. Once this path is set, the spontaneity
of the moment is lost, and with it, the very purpose
for which the bond was created. Therein lies the
heartbreaking realization that this movie reaches.
I know the last two paragraphs made no sense, because
not even I can understand what they are talking about,
even though I wrote them just a moment ago. This
further reinforces the thesis I can no longer
comprehend, because to comprehend it, one must understand
that nothing is comprehensible.
Oh, why can't I just write a normal movielog entry review,
like a normal person? lol. This whole bit, which started
out well enough, is beginning to drown in utter narcissism,
which is unfortunate, because it truly was a great movie.
Better experienced than explained. Watch it, and enjoy
it. That's all.
When I first saw this movie years ago, I loved and enjoyed every moment and every word of it, beginning to end. Tonight, I found the first half hour mostly banal and boring, due in part, I think, to the fact that I already knew the ending. But then, something funny happened. It drew me in, and by the time that ending came, I was breaking into tears. I think I am a Richard Linklater fan.
What else can I say? How can I explain? The premise of the story is so incredibly simple, that trying to summarize it does not do justice to its depth and power. Two people meet on a train and spend the night wandering around the city of Vienna. That's the movie. Nothing to see here. No laser blasters, conspiratorial plots, bitter betrayals, or shocking revelations during the final act which call into question everything seen up until that point. Really.
It's so random, so human, and so honest. The film itself could easly be an episode of the "great tv show" idea described by Ethan Hawke's character at the beginning.
Life is transitory. There is nothing that stays constant, except the inevitability of change. But what if, for just a brief fleeting moment, two people could step outside the mundane reality of the world, and exist in a shared bubble, free of the constraints, assumptions, and obligations that plague life, not by elimiting these limits (which is impossible as long as life continues), but by becoming so acutely and intensely aware of them that the possibility of transcendence occurs anew in each passing moment? If so, could such a state ever be sustainable?
Alas, the very nature of sustainablity, by definition, implies stagnation -- conformance to a predetermined path of consciousness. Once this path is set, the spontaneity of the moment is lost, and with it, the very purpose for which the bond was created. Therein lies the heartbreaking realization that this movie reaches.
I know the last two paragraphs made no sense, because not even I can understand what they are talking about, even though I wrote them just a moment ago. This further reinforces the thesis I can no longer comprehend, because to comprehend it, one must understand that nothing is comprehensible.
Oh, why can't I just write a normal movielog entry review, like a normal person? lol. This whole bit, which started out well enough, is beginning to drown in utter narcissism, which is unfortunate, because it truly was a great movie. Better experienced than explained. Watch it, and enjoy it. That's all.