"Reprise" *** 1\2 (out of ****)
During the first 30 minutes or so of Joachim Trier's "Reprise", the film is told with an almost devilish amount of energy. It moves at a frenetic speed. The film is vibrant and alive. The characters nearly jump off the screen. The viewer wishes they could sit down and talk to these people themselves. Perhaps you see yourself in them. You remember back to the days when the world seemed open to new possibilities. You were actually going to make a difference. The world would know your name.
These dreamers are Phillip (Anders Danielsen) and Erik (Espen Klouman). They are would be aspiring novelists. One day the both of them decide to send out one of their manuscripts to a potential publisher. To give an example of the cinematic devices director Trier uses, I'll explain the scene in detail.
The two twenty something year olds stand by a mail slot, about the drop each of their manuscripts off. When they do the camera goes inside the mailbox, zooms in on their envelopes and tells us the future as the boys see it, changing things at their whim. A narrator tells us both of their manuscripts will be accepted, they will each travel abroad, leaving Norway. They will have great love affairs, some which may lead to their downfall, they will meet other writers, their work will cause a revolution in Africa and will even be banned by the Vatican. As the narrator tells us this, we see the images on screen rapidly.
Needless to say none this happens. But, that is I think the point of the film. In our youth we dream big then we get a mean slap from reality across our face and realize how foolish we were to expect good things out of life. The viewer knows things won't work of for these boys. Not only because we have our own life experiences but because, honestly, what kind of movie would that be if everything was perfect? Would you really want to watch that movie?
The boys are best friends though different in many ways. Phillip is the first one to get his manuscript published. He meets a girl, Kari (Viktoria Winge) with whom he falls madly in love with. They travel to Paris where they share their first intimate moment. Phillip loves Kari so intensely who goes insane. He gives up writing and is put in a hospital.
Erik is the more pretentious of the two. He tells Phillip they must break up with their girlfriends. They must devote themselves to their art. Women will only interfere. How many times have we seen this situation? The ballet dancer, the classical musician or the reclusive writer who put their art before life. Erik has been seeing Lillian for three years and has made a vow, once his first novel is published he will end his relationship. When he finally does get something published he heads towards Lillian's place to break the news to her.
The scene is very telling. In their first scene together we never see Lillian's face. We only see her from her back. This represents Erik's mindset. To him Lillian is faceless, she has no identity. She is nothing to him.
Another telling scene is when Phillip leaves his hand print on a glass window. His print quickly disappears. Is this foreshadowing what is to come? Phillip's "mark" on the world will be short lived?
"Reprise" has generally received good reviews. Going on the website http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ I see the film scored an 86%. Out of 70 reviews, 60 were positive. One of the ten critics who did not like this film was my old buddy Roger Ebert. To Ebert everything done in this film was done before in Truffaut's "Jules & Jim" and done much better. To cause a really big debate, I'm going to admit I never liked that Truffaut film. And secondly, where the heck does Ebert comes off comparing the two? I will admit it has been years since I saw that Truffaut film but as I remember it is was a love triangle. Two men vying for the affection of a woman. Other then a carefree attitude of youth, what else do these films have in common? I don't find the comparison fair.
But "Reprise" does have some faults. After the incredible inventiveness of the first half hour the film does slow down. I watched the film twice and came away feeling the same both times. I also came to strongly dislike the Phillip character. He whines and complains too much. He is not likable. After he leaves the hospital he meets Kari again, even though his doctors advise him not too. He seems unable to function in society and, in what I guess is his attempt to feel "normal" again, wants to get back with Kari. We wants to take another trip back to Paris with her exactly one year after they first went and do all the same things they did before on the exact same day. This doesn't come off as romantic or sentimental to me. I understand what is going on but I find it pathetic. The sequence doesn't seem believable. The film isn't manipulating our emotions properly. Why is he so obsessed with this girl? Are his feelings even real or is he using her for security, to go back in time? I also felt the film went on a bit too long. About 15 or 20 minutes too long.
Still though one must admit "Reprise" is the work of a talented young man. He tells his story with confidence. And as I have said it does contain some brilliant moments. I don't think this is a mainstream film though. Art house fans will enjoy it as will probably amateur filmmakers and film snobs, which sadly are usually one in the same. But if you have any sense of cinematic adventure in you, you might find "Reprise" worth watching.
p.s. I wonder about the film's title. "Reprise" is a musical term. It means a repetition in a phrase or verse. What does this have to do in relation to a story about writers?
Posts
