Tuesday, After Christmas (2010)

Excellent, a Must See

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Super boring. Maybe it's because I'm not Romanian. Nothing new or original and I actually fell asleep. Rewound the bits I missed. Shouldn't have bothered. Lots of reviews here talk about new wave cinema-who cares what kind of cinema it is? What's important is that it is engaging. This film did not engage me much at all. No complaints about the acting however; everyone in it was fine although a few scenes felt a tad stilted or irrelevant and the tedious scene where the child was playing the piano seemed to go on forever and really grated on my nerves. Ditto the final scene with the carol singers. The dialogue, while realistic and mainly believable, was not interesting and gave little or no insight into motive, relationship histories or character. It is one thing to present a slice of life to the audience, another to offer nothing different in doing so.

2 stars for realism, and 1 star for not being another depressing movie about some drug-addicted street orphans (you know the type) but that's about it. I'll break it down scene by scene without giving any plot spoilers, which is easy, since there is barely any plot. The storyline you see on the IMDb main page is the whole story.The film starts with the main character (Paul) and his mistress cuddling and talking in bed for about 10 minutes. Then he shops with his wife for Christmas gifts, trying shirts, looking for a snowboard, etc. There's a few scenes in cars, the most eventful of which Paul tries to dissuade his wife from going to the dental clinic.Then there's the dental clinic scene, a scene of over 20 minutes, in real time, with no cuts, from waiting room to second room to examination/surgery room. The doctor explains the situation (their child needs braces), how to use them, the future, etc. to both parents, with the child sometimes interrupting or needing explanation. The parents need time to decide, and there's no cuts, we just wait and see. The only interesting thing here is that the dentist is Paul's mistress, so the director decided that we need to see 20 or so minutes of this.We see Paul's domestic life, having dinner, his wife helping him shave the back of his head, random boring stuff. Then Paul goes to talk to his mistress, who's unhappy with the situation.At one hour four minutes into this 1:39 hour film, nothing has happened yet. We just know that Paul has a mistress, his wife doesn't know and their child needs braces.As the synopsis says, and if I may "spoil" it, he tells his wife and after asking him the who/what/when/where, she tells him that their marriage is over. There's one packing scene (where he packs his stuff to leave) and a family dinner where the married couple keeps up the pretense for the sake of their child.In short, a man has an affair with his daughter's dentist. He tells his wife, who then asks for a divorce. That's it.Many European film makers have taken the (reactionary) position that European cinema is the opposite of Hollywood cinema. So if Hollywood makes a movie that's all fast cuts, shaky cam, action, witty one-liners, big music and bigger events, then continental film makers want to make something with no cuts whatsoever, real time, long-take, no dialogue, all about facial expressions and silence. Both philosophies have reached the point of caricature and parody. I would not be surprised to see a European film where it's a black-and- white, no-dialogue, single-take 2 hour film of a man having an espresso and a pack of cigarettes in silence as he contemplates something that's only mentioned in the title of the film.

Paul a married, middle aged, banker has a midlife crisis and is in a months long affair with his daughter's dental assistant. He struggles with staying with his wife and wanting to be with his much younger mistress.It is obvious from the beginning there is no spark left in the marriage and both Paul and his wife Adriana are just going through the motions of family life. They discuss their daughter's need for braces, her piano lesson schedule, and what to pick up at the supermarket. While their daughter brings them happiness the marriage seems mundane and lifeless.Paul has illicit trysts with his lover in her apartment and lies to his wife about being on the road for business. His lover gives him the freedom he desires and does not put any pressures on him to leave his wife. He comes and goes at will and that suits him to a point. When he is not with her he is thinking of her and finds excuses to see her.The best scene of the whole movie is when Paul confesses to Adriana about his affair and who it is with. It is a very emotional and traumatic time for Adriana who I believe gives the best performance.

What I loved most about this movie is it's realism. The actors give a great performance and it's just the way it's supposed to be. Everything feels real, the arguing, the conversations, the situations. It all flows naturally and you can relate to the characters and think: "wow, I've been there," or "I've definitely seen that before." The tension, the fights between Paul and his wife are the real thing. Drama is not forced, it's not stupid, etc...I do not know if a non-Romanian viewer will feel the same but I thought this movie portrayed life exactly as it is, without gloss or forced sub-plots, and that is very rarely seen. It may be a cultural thing however. Probably American culture is very different , and that's why guns, pedophiles, crazy driving, genius scientists, blacks and drugs, stock exchange, apocalypse, bruce willis saving the world, Asian crime gangs, etc (things that have no place in Romanian society) never feel real to me.Anyway, I'm sure this movie will not feel real only to Romanians, but to many other peoples around the globe.Btw, there is a user review by mmguica (from the United States) in which he/she says: "The characters had incredibly little depth." I totally disagree. Let's take the main character. There is not much depth shown, that is true, but I(and I'm sure other Romanians) instantly understand the character, He is a middle class man working hard and trying to bring good money. There is not much to him because he is a normal Romanian. He is not excessive, he is not crazy, gay, unstable, dramatic. He is a normal, emotionally stable man that's trying to support a household. And there are millions like him.