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.

One short film script repeated three times in three different cities in the United States, Europe and Japan. The dialogue is identical in each; the plot plays out the violent and alienating repercussions of chronic flirtation and self-destructive covetousness. The subtle differences in each scenario are due (theoretically) to the changes in setting, sexual orientation and cultural backdrop.

If you're a Hal Hartley fan you'll probably enjoy this film to some extent; if you're not then you may be easily put off by the repetition of what could be seen as stiff artsy banter. The dialogue is clever, sharp, witty - characteristically quirky Hal Hartley writing. But the first scenario, set in New York and involving Martin Donovan, Parker Posey and that other favorite Hal Hartley actor from Simple Men (Bill something), is easily the best of the three and the high point of the film.

There's some really nice editing in this film, for those who have an interest in technical considerations.

The idea of transporting a story and telling it in three continents is an intriguing one. What we have in Flirt is a weak New York story which verges on the ridiculous when transported to Berlin and Tokyo, particularly when it comes to handgun ownership.

The similarities are unsubtle and contrived, and you feel the actors, who do well in this, are fighting a very stilted script.

Maybe if Hal Hartley had spent more time exploring the differences in how the story would play in different cultures and less time making ‘high quality titillation' (his own description) then it might have made it a better viewing experience.

Flirt being the fifth Hal Hartley-film I've seen it's also the one I appreciated the least.

You get to follow the same story in different places of the world (NY, Berlin, Tokyo) with different people.

Although the run time wasn't even one and a half hour it felt longer. It must depend on that Berlin and Tokyo didn't really pass my quality control. And that might depend on that the previous Hartley-films I've seen have really been great and that Flirt's NY-episode also was great. It would have worked better as a short film. All by itself. But then seeing almost exactly the same "short story" again only with a twist didn't appeal to me much I discovered later on.

If you like Hartley maybe you should see Flirt all because his trustful actors (Martin Donovan, Elina Löwensohn, Bill Sage, Michael Imperioli), his pretty unique way of making film and of course because of Ned Rifle's music.

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.