The Ring Finger

There were a lot of things I enjoyed about this movie. The cover, the synopsis and the concept were really the high points. The lead actress was quite good as well (not bad to look at too). I mean the cinematography was good I guess, but nothing to out the ordinary. I mean you can't rely on gritty filters and a softened colour palate to carry a movie. The concept for this movie really intrigued me and I had begged my friends to rent it a couple times by the cover(instead of "Poisidon" and "When a Stranger Calls"). Just it seemed to me that it was trying too hard to be something and wasn't focusing enough on characters actual motivations and any connection with the real world. "Who is this girl?" is what I'm sure would have been the question if I had convinced anyone I know to watch it with me.

Don't bother. Heard its hard to find so should be a problem for most people.

This little gem was Olga Kurylenko's (Quantum of Solace, Hit-man, Paris, je t'aime) first film. That is the only thing that attracted me to it. She has a beauty that just draws you in no matter what she stars in.

She has to do a lot of acting in this film, as it is short on dialog. She injures herself in an industrial accident and ends up in a situation with a strange man in a strange job, and sharing a room with a sailor who works nights. The only interaction with the sailor is through what he leaves in the room, but the relationship with her boss takes on an erotic turn.

Despite the absolutely awesome display of femininity by Kurylenko in the musical and visual feast, there just wasn't enough story to carry this all the way.

"L'annulaire" ("The Ring Finger") is one o f the strangest films I've ever seen and now that I've seen it, I really have no idea what it was all about or whether I even liked it. I certainly loved parts of the picture.

Olga Kurylenko stars as Iris, a woman who loses the tip of her ring finger at the beginning of the story. She then obtains a job working for a VERY strange man who 'conserves' things...though exactly why and what he does with them is very vague. In fact, vagueness is the strong theme throughout the tale. Often people are in scenes but you have no idea who they are and why they're there. Knowing no one's motivations or back stories make for a very odd viewing experience. Plus, often folks do things....and you have no idea why. Iris begins a bizarre sexual relationship with her boss, the conservator....but you have no idea why nor does Iris for that matter. What comes of all this? I have no idea....see the film and decide for yourself.

Overall, one of the strangest films I've ever seen and one that is beautifully filmed and directed...though maddeningly vague. I still don't know what I thought of this film, though I do think you should be aware that there is a lot of nudity in the picture...though it didn't seem very provocative nor perverse...just explicit.

By the way, throughout the film, Iris perspires a lot and the office where she works has no air conditioning. Her boss tells her to arrange to have air conditioning installed but it never occurs. When she calls, she asks for a 'Mr. Rota'...that is Spanish for 'broken' and I wonder if this choice of names was intentional.

SO..... WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE???

Haunting musical score, disturbingly unsettling erotic scenes, perturbing voyeuristic encounters, Olga Kurylenko as eye candy, preserve-and-cherish-those-best-moments-of-your-life metaphors, artistic and interesting visuals...

Put all these diverse elements into a cinematic blender and what do you get? A Film-Making 101 textbook example of the total being LESS than the sum of its parts! I've been asking myself the "What the H*LL is this?" question incessantly for hours since spending 90 minutes as a "voyeur" of this experiment. And...As yet, there just doesn't seem to be an answer!

The director, Diane Bertrand, seems to be assiduously and blatantly giving us the title (sans "Ring") for the duration! The film revolves around a mysterious "clinic" where people go to have important life-relics "preserved"...In theory, at least. In practice, these supposedly priceless articles are soon forgotten about. It's difficult to empathize with any of the characters in the film because they're all so creepy, to one extent or another. Even Kurylenko's character is more off-putting than not.

The supposedly "erotic" scenes are reminiscent of watching someone getting violated by their orthodontist during a root canal procedure. A rather self-indulgent piece of film-making, it's not hard to imagine dozens of Director Bertrand's friends gathered at her home for a private screening shouting "C'est Magnifique!" and "Incroyable!" afterward! As if this weren't enough, many segments are painfully languidly paced.

"FINGER" might have faired a little better after a second viewing, but I'm not motivated in the least to see it again.

3***........ ENJOY! / DISFUTELA!??!?...(If You Can Manage!)

Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome!

This film did not turn up on my radar back in 2005. That's not surprising, I think, given the complexity and opaqueness of the story which together renders such a movie as box-office poison. It is, however, a cleverly contrived fable about unresolved needs and dreams – and all with a distinct nod to David Lynch, arguably the master of complex mystery and film-making – and all dressed up with appropriate symbolism and metaphor.

Every city has lonely people and Iris (Olga Kurylenko) is one such young woman working as a drudge on an assembly line in a bottling factory at a major sea port. Her face is set, sullen and almost sad as she helps the bottles along clattering rollers. She doesn't see a broken bottle and cuts her ring finger badly, gushing copious blood around. The wound is dressed at a medical office where, overcome by stress and pain, she lapses into sleep, almost in a fetal position.

With a quick jump-cut, we next see Iris renting a room at a seaport dive for sailors – a direct symbol for one of her needs – and then obtaining a job as an "office manager" at an obscure laboratory where she assists with the screening of people who wish to preserve things of value. The pale-faced laboratory owner (Marc Barbe) is authoritative, austere, and abrupt at first, and always dressed the same: black trousers and shoes, white shirt and long white laboratory coat that billows out as he strides around each day, seeing to the work within the 100 plus rooms in the old college he bought to house all the preserved "specimens" he keeps for clients.

As time passes, he becomes more interested in Iris, more attentive and finally more possessive – providing a clue as to why prior female office managers had apparently left hurriedly. Iris, however, allows herself to succumb to his wishes and desires – and thereby satisfies another of her secret needs; and which also result in the brief, highly erotic love making that simply confirms the depth of her deprived emotional needs. Incidentally, as part of their "contract" he insists that she wears a pair of high-heeled red shoes – always.

At the same time, Iris also evinces interest in the young sailor at the hotel with whom she shares a room but – he being on shift work – without ever seeing him, only savoring the lingering smell on his bed and clothes. It appears that the sailor is equally interested when we see him doing the same with her clothes when alone in the room.

Curiosity, though, drives Iris even further with her need to see the laboratory in which specimens are prepared. She asks her employer if she can see him work, but he refuses. But she persists as she gains more favor with him and eventually manages to convince him she is worthy.

Few viewers, I think, will be satisfied with the closing scenes and may remain mystified. They do, however, provide closure for the entire story and Iris's experience.

The film is distinctive with just enough dialog, long takes, seemingly erratic cuts, a riveting sound track that's difficult to hear properly, and mostly nameless characters, including an enigmatic shoe-shine expert of fifty years. It all adds to the mystery but some viewers will be dissatisfied, even repelled.

From that overall perspective, and like David Lynch, the director (Diane Bertrand) has left viewers to interpret the story according to their own beliefs and experiences. Like Lynch's movies, there are long, dark corridors, extreme close-ups, unexplained scenes (for example, Iris swinging on the end of a large crane cable's hook), unexplained time shifts, unexplained appearances of others who seem to add nothing to the story, and, of course, an enigmatic ending. Bertrand doesn't achieve the same type of suspense, though; that, however, may be deliberate because the subject matter here doesn't have the same darkly evil connotations so evident in most of what Lynch has done.

Still, if you like Lynch, I highly recommend this film; and the director, as an interesting and promising companion, perhaps. Give this a seven.

August 2011.