The Flipcritic

IT’S ALL ABOUT LOVE is proof that a movie’s value does not depend on a director’s abundant talent. The clarity of its title is indirectly proportional to that of its presentation. And despite a marvelous effort put by the film’s crew and cast, its direction leads to madness. It is an obscure, laboring, and pretentious movie. I hesitate to call it a total failure, but it is.

The movie revolves around John (Joaquin Phoenix) and Elena (Claire Danes), a married couple finalizing their divorce. She is a world-renowned figure skater apparently performing in a major U.S. city, and he flies in to get their divorce papers signed. Elena discovers something about the nature of her work that threatens her life, and pleads John to rescue her from it.

Their story seems to be set in the near alternate-future that looks very much like the present, in a world that exists in eternal cold and collapsing reality, where Ugandans are dying of record low temperatures or floating into the sky, and city dwellers lie dead about the metropolis, apparently of loneliness. Why are these things happening? The movie has no intention of explaining why. But unlike ELEKTRA where questions abound in the background, these mysteries are intentional and protracted. They are not created to simply drive the story forward. IT’S ALL ABOUT LOVE is primarily about its unknowns, and secondarily about its story. The problem with a movie like this is that it needs a worthwhile story, or worthwhile storytelling, to draw us into its mysteries. On this level, the movie is an infuriating exercise.

I have seen movies that have challenged me in similar ways. Films like VANILA SKY, EYES WIDE SHUT, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and MULLHOLLAND DRIVE come to mind. VANILLA SKY had a maddening build-up, but an immensely satisfying conclusion that validated every plot development that had come before it. EYES WIDE SHUT was a bewildering trip through one man’s experiences, both nightmarish and erotic. But it had a clear theme of eroticism based on fears and desires. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY seemed aimless, but had one clear poignant subject: man’s place in the universe. And MULLHOLLAND DRIVE had a story that showed the blurring line between young woman’s hopeful fantasy and sad reality.

IT’S ALL ABOUT LOVE does not have an ending which makes sense out of what precedes it. It has no obvious theme, despite what its title exclaims. Though it does have a subject, it is not poignant, nor is it presented in a poignant way. And it has no hypnotic or dreamlike qualities that draw us in to whatever that subject may be. Though outlandish, it treats itself gravely serious, without offering a clue why it is or should be.

Did I understand what is about? I did, but not until I had gotten home and read about the film on every website I could find about it. Another problem the movie presents is that those who admired it had trouble describing what they liked about it. In reading the comments of those who disliked it, one word came up repeatedly: incomprehensible. I finally realized what the movie was trying to say early this morning, on how we the world is running out of love and how it reflects in the materialism of the west and the poverty of third-world countries. Is this poignant? Stop the presses!

I would like to point out the movie’s beautiful cold winter landscapes (Anthony Dod Mantle of 28 DAYS LATER) and the thankless performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Claire Danes (who gives wonderful range). But to go see them would be torturous. Director Thomas Vinterberg obviously put a lot of effort in this film, but it is never inviting, always distant. I wish no one the punishment of going to see IT’S ALL ABOUT LOVE. It’s an allegory that exists only in its director’s mind.

Posted by FLIPCRITIC at January 31, 2005 03:51 PM