Flirt

I remembered this film from seeing it 20 years ago. It turns out it didn't age well. I don't know what attracted me to this film back then (as a teenager).

Dwight Ewell is the actor that stayed graved on my memory, and their acting performance is the best thing about this film, and in stark contrast to the other actors, most of them spurting out the lines of the text mechanically.

The concept of the film is not bad, and imagining the exact same dialogue in different context (hetero relation vs gay relation, different cultures) is food for thought, but the film fails to engage and keep it interesting.

Definitely an Art movie, sort of the anti-Rashômon: three different events described as if they were the same. Obviously such a film foregrounds the direction, and the dialog is recognizably Hartleyesque.

Hal Hartley weaves the same dialog through three only roughly similar stories given by their settings, the characters involved, and the cinematic treatments different meanings.

An art film about how films make art out of life. Or something.

Warning: if you lack intellectual curiosity (it's definitely not for the passive viewer) or are homophobic this will push your buttons; hence the 1-out-of-10 ratings above.

Although I'm a big fan of Hal Hartley's previous work (Trust, The Unbelievable Truth), I was a bit disappointed by Flirt. There are some clever elements to the film, including Hartley's always excellent dialog sequences. The repetition, providing different views on the same plot sequence, was well done. Overall, an above-average movie, particularly for Hartley followers.

It's three movie segments using the same story. One takes place in New York, another in Berlin, and the last one in Tokyo. In New York, Emily (Parker Posey) is leaving for Paris and her partner Bill is wondering if he should hook up with someone else. He gets shot in the face by the other woman's husband. The same story repeats in the other cities.

Hal Hartley is trying more stuff. It has his mannered speech and peculiar shooting style. The big idea here is repeating the same story three times. It's a big idea more than a film. I'm not sure what it achieves unless the movie makes them completely different like doing it in Japanese. Experimentation is important and I'm glad that he tried even if it doesn't achieve anything great.

I'm a big fan of Hartley, and I went into this film with no idea of what it was about. I felt disappointed pretty quickly. The trademark Harley weirdness felt forced, but more importantly the dialog was less interesting, so that it all felt very static. There were a few interesting moments sprinkled in here and there, but I only kept watching because I hoped that at some point it would all come together and click into gear.

And then, 20 minutes or so in, the story ends, we're in a different country and the same exact story with the same dialog that wasn't interesting the first time is done a second time. And then, when that plays out, a third time.

Why? I have no idea. What is this meant to show us? That people all over the world have boring little stories to tell? It doesn't really matter what Hartley's intent was, the final product is pure tedium, with just a little purely gratuitous nudity thrown in to spice things up.