Innocents: The Dreamers

"The Dreamers" is all about three young adult upscale hippy types who languish in a flat in Paris in the late 60's and talk about cinema, politics, sex, and other stuff while sharing some first experiences. Two are brother (Garrel) and sister (Green) identical twins (or so we're told) who have an almost metaphysical bond and the third is an interloper (Pitt) who falls in lust with the sister. There's little plot to this slice of young adult life flick which seems to be more of a Bertolucci pet project than a commercial product for the masses. Less than engaging and much less than compelling, "The Dreamers" immerses itself in the esoterics of the place and time to the exclusion of anyone who wasn't there then. Beautifully filmed and masterfully crafted with some young actors doing superb work under difficult circumstances with plenty of graphic nudity and sex, "The Dreamers" will play best with aficionados of French cinema, Bertolucci fans, etc. Those who are squeamish about sex/nudity should pass. All others, be prepared for a marginally interesting watch. (B)

The decor for The Dreamers, Bertolucci's sensual and narcotic film is represented by effervescent moments that took place in Paris in 1968. In the same manner in which the house inhabited by the three main protagonists represents a character, so do the Parisian streets, with their trepidation and demonstrations. Contrary to other films directed by this director - who has promised much and delivered even more throughout his career - The Dreamers opens in a fast-paced and provocative manner. The director establishes the cinematic convention precisely, eloquently, and elegantly. It becomes clear that the film deals with furious and beautiful young people who live through the films they devour. In the first five minutes, the heroine of the picture (played impeccably by Eva Green, a theatre actress reminiscent of Isabella Rossellini) announces that she was born in 1959. Logically, it is impossible, seeing that the year is 1968 and she seems to be at least 19 years old. Therefore, she explains further: 1959, Champs-Elysee, where she yelled "New York Herald Tribune!" Suddenly the film cuts to a scene from the classic Breathless (A bout de soufflé) by Godard, where Belmondo's feminine partner sells American newspapers on Champs-Elysee. Consequently, Bertolucci's feminine character believes that she has not been alive until seeing the afore-mentioned film, considered by many the beginning of the New Wave. The idea of interposing images and references to classic films is augmented in The Dreamers. It becomes a means of communication between the characters and in fact it ignites the entire "action" of the film.

As in The Last Tango in Paris or Stealing Beauty, sex and sensuality also represent means of expression on which the director relies heavily. Yet The Dreamers rejects the desperation of The Last Tango through a seductive irreverence that indeed characterizes the so-called "enfants terrible" of 1968 Paris. It should be noted that The Dreamers contains various sexual and nude scenes, but that these are by no means as shocking as the sex scenes in The Last Tango were, when that film was released in the 1960s. Since then, video and Internet pornography have occurred and shocking audiences through nudity has become something of a moot point. It is only the MPAA that hasn't grown up. It gave The Dreamers basically the same rating that The Last Tango got, 30 years ago.

Undoubtedly, the angles of the shots in The Dreamers are what impresses the most. As in other films by Bertolucci, practically every shot could be cut out and studied hours at an end for its elegance. The three main characters (all played beyond reproach) live their menage-a-trois through concrete gestures and attitudes, as well as through emotions that are suggested by the sublime cinematography.

The ending of the film, considered by some critics a weak point, is in fact quite accomplished. American viewers (including some critics) are used to American films, in which the build-up leading to the climax is essentially dynamic, suspenseful or tragic. But the European cinema is different. It often shows how feelings are condensed in a quiet but explosive mixture. This description fits The Dreamers like a glove.

Finally, a note for film buffs. In the initial scenes, at the demonstration in front of the Cinematheque, Bertolucci used news reel footage from the '60s with Jean-Pierre Leaud si Jean-Pierre Kalfon (known actors of the New Wave). They are seen giving speeches and throwing paper leaflets to the crowd. In 2003, when shooting the film, Bertolucci got Leaud and Kalfon, now aged, to "reenact" the images from the news reels. The end result is a mixture of new and old images, the former in color, the latter black and white. It is such tricks that Bertolucci uses throughout this nostalgic film that celebrates a certain period, during which the young generation had more meaningful things to fight than computer-simulated monsters.

Matthew is a young american student in france, his passion for movies leads him into Theo and Isabelle, two twins that shares his passion, they quickly build a deep friendship and Matthew gets invited to stay with them while their parents are gone. However once he gets settled with them he discovers sides of both that he had not expected. While they spend their time talking and playing, the riots of Paris 1968 goes on in the "real world".

This is a very brave film in the way it has been build, but it is also a complicated movie that will leave you both confused and thinking, it's beautiful and it can almost be described as cinematic poetry, however this poetry also makes it a difficult one to relate too.

After seeing this film i am confused in what i feel about it, the movie feels very divided, and some times it is an extraordinary brave and experimental film, other times it is confuing, and at some times boring too. It's really a hard movie to understand because of the poetic feeling it gives, it's like reading a poem where some of the lines doesn't make sense, but i guess that could be an advantage as it can be seen more than once. I feel the strength of the movie is the way it challenges and explores like no american or typical mainstream movie would do, the often use of nudity and raw sex scenes would never be seen elsewhere, and even though it may annoy many people, Bertolucci portrays the scenes very beautiful and they never seem like dirty scenes, the most impressive scene is the one where Matthew and Isabelle have sex, never have a full sex scene been portrayed in such a beautiful and realistic way on screen. And there are many examples of this.

What brings the movie is first of all the very slow storyline, it barely moves at all, the whole 2 hours are pretty much circulating around one thing, which is the way these 3 youngsters spend their sparetime, it's an mysterious movie that really brings up interesting situations a lot of times, but other times it simply gets too slow and gets a little boring. Another partly negative thing is the understanding of the movie, as I earlier mentioned the movie is like a poem, if you have problems with a few lines the whole deeper meaning may fall apart. I wouldn't say i did not understand the fully deeper meaning of the movie, but i think each individual will understand this movie differently, due to the complex way it has been made. But i honestly think Bertolucci wanted it to be like that, a movie that will leave you thinking about many things, but i think what it really is about is finding yourself in a world where there are 6 billion people looking like you on the outside.

The movie is very well directed, a solid directing and you can clearly see the trademarks of the director, one thing i noticed was the floating camera. The floating camera gives a feeling of being there, it is mostly used in the first part of the movie where Matthew learns more about his mysterious new friends, it gives us a feeling of curiousity towards these two new persons. Two persons whom we soon discover have more to them than showing on the outside.

The acting in the movie is solid. I usually don't expect much from new and coming actors and actresses that i have not heard about before, this was also the case for this movie. But the acting is really good, Michael Pitt and Louis Garrel really gives an above average performance, great to see that there are still new actors who can take over when the old ones will be gone. But the star of this movie is Eva Green, what a mysteriously and unique performance, and what a brilliant casting, she is unique, beautiful and most importantly interesting, erotic and challenging. Also i give props to all the three main characters for their brave and realistic portray of nudity and the complications of sex among unexperienced youngsters.

As i said earlier this movie is very complex, it's hard to understand, and i could probably talk about it forever, but i got to stop somewhere. I think the movie is definetely worth watching, it's very artistic and does indeed stand on its own feet, it takes chances you don't see many movies take, and it's all done very well. On the negative side i think the movie sometimes get too complex and slow, but overall i don't regret seeing it, and i think that i will be seeing it again due to the complex story, it will probably bring me new thoughts when i see it next time.

6/10

Beautiful Paris. Beautiful Eva Green. Beautiful Michael Pitt. Beautiful naked Eva Green and Michael Pitt. Sound promising? Unfortunately, the "reality" of The "Dreamers" is a letdown.

Against the backdrop of 1968 Parisian revolution, American student Matthew (Michael Pitt) meets French twins Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel). The 3 share a passion for film and intellectual discussion and soon Matthew is staying with the twins in their parents' apartment. Insulated from the "reality" of the streets the twins "dream" away the days drinking wine, discussing film and playing mind games with each other and with Matthew.

The film in inter-cut with scenes from classic films such as Freaks and Breathless just to name a few. These scenes were fun and worked well. The best scene in the film is when the main characters recreate a dash through the Louvre from A Band Apart.

Interesting but perplexing is the sexual politics at play between the three. The intimate relationship between the twins is supposed to be shocking but is merely curious. An attraction between the boys goes nowhere and when Matthew and Isabelle get down and dirty on the kitchen floor it isn't really sexy at all.

This is very obviously a European film and I mean that in the worst possible way. The characters are lifeless, naive and arrogant. Only Matthew seems to recognize the pretension. He is meant to be the voice of reason and even though he seems a bit dense he comes off all wise and worldly in comparison to the twins.

The last half hour or so of the film is the weakest part and doesn't seem to fit with the tone of what went on before.

I tried to like The Dreamers. I almost feel guilty for not liking it more. If it didn't try so hard to be saying something about youth, sex and revolution then it wouldn't have failed so miserably.

And, trust me, it was nothing like this! Sure, I would have dreamed to have met(and more!) someone like Isabelle when i was 20. This movie is pure garbage and anyone who thinks to the contrary ought to get a reality check. It has 3 beautiful young actors who have nothing better to do than have sex, sleep and drink very expensive wine. Nice. Those of us who were actually teenagers in the 60s do not have this experience at all. It is fantasy. Don't get me wrong: If the purpose of this artsy film was to titillate and show off the gorgeous, voluptuous bodies of these 3 young persons, then it succeeded in every measure. But all three of them (as portrayed in the movie) are self-obsessed, self-centred, rude, spoiled rotten kids. Parents were total idiots too. Thank goodness, the 60s were not dominated by these amoral teenagers; otherwise we may not have succeeded as a Western Society into the new millennium. Take this movie for what it is: nice camera-work, good Parisian scenery and 3 gorgeous nude teenagers screwing like rabbits. If you are reading more into it than that, then you are a true idiot. It is artsy pornography. Nothing more.