Conversation(s) avec une femme

this film is overly obsessed with the "innovation" of using split-screen throughout. the story seems to be more or less an afterthought. currently the IMDb user rating is 7.0 ... i'm guessing the director has a lot of friends who support him, which is... nice. two excellent actors have to do a fair amount of scenery-munching to get a little life into this affair. the split-screen is not as annoying as it might have been, and actually doesn't irritate the viewer very often at all, but a more capable director would have done exponentially more with it. all in all, this would have worked far better as a short not more than 30 minutes in length. the obvious retort will be that there is no market for such films, and therefore it's very tough to attract investment, but unfortunately all too often boring, high-concept films by more or less promising young directors trying to make a mark are the inevitable result of this very rationale. this film was shot on HD and edited on a mac using final cut. had they used less famous actors, i can't imagine the 30-minute version would have required too big an investment (locations were absolutely nondescript, and there were only a couple of extras... probably the same friends who 'voted up' the rating...). it would unquestionably have made a much better calling card for the director, who from the DVD features seems like a fairly nice guy...

The film stats as a casual meeting of a man (Aaron Eckhart) and a woman (Helen Bonham Carter) on the wedding banquet in a New York City Hotel. They seem to know each other and used to be close once. Now she is married to a doctor, the cardiologist, and lives in London. He has a steady girlfriend, a "23 on August 12" Broadway Show Dancer. They seem to like each other and flirt innocently while drinking champagne, smoking (she is) and dancing. But gradually, apparently forgotten or hidden very deep inside feelings come back to life so intensely that they might (or not) change a man's and a woman's lives again. This is my kind of film, with only two main characters, with the subtle interaction between them, when we have to rely more on their body languages, their eyes, their facial expressions than to the words that they say to each other. "Conversations with Other Women" is a riveting, bittersweet, honest, and realistic movie about making choices, losses, and regrets. Two people used to be the one world which had split years ago leaving them not just on the different continents but on the different halves of the screen. The film brings to mind Before Sunrise of course but its atmosphere is more sober and melancholic. It is not about possibility of future together, it is all about past. Both actors are excellent. The split screen technique works perfectly for the whole duration of the film. It is a very well made and creative indie picture which I enjoyed watching.

In this sex film I was expecting to glimpse again Helena B-Carter's spectacularly hirsute nether region, which she showed us during the bed scene as Lucy Honeychurch in A Room with a View. Large, black and bulging, it had a powerful and unforgettable screen presence far greater than that of its distinguished owner, who is descended from a long line of top bankers and Tory party bosses. Here is another untrained actress (like Liz Taylor), dwarfish in stature, who appears on the screen before us purely through advantages of social status, wealth and hairiness. Because Ms Bonham-Carter was playing an adulterous wife who conducts a one-night sex-romp with her divorced husband, one might have expected to glimpse a little of her anatomy, but alas! we are now in the Age of Morality, in which any kind of violence and mayhem is permissible, but birthday suits are verboten. Real actors, and a real director, would have conducted much of this silly little film in the *, just as it would have taken place in life. The whole film consists of dialogue between the pair, but NEVER while having sexual intercourse together. Talking during sex on screen is now as forbidden as showing any actress anywhere near a bed used to be in the 1950s. It is regrettable that in a film wholly concerned with sexual promiscuity, no sex is shown, nor any crucial part of the human anatomy, but that is trivial compared to the extraordinary methodology employed here. The entire picture --- yes, the whole duration --- is filmed with two cameras and presented in split-screen format. After viewing it, we felt like rushing to the optometrist for medical treatment. If you enjoy seeing films about sex that include no sex and no nudity, and are willing to risk an attack of schizophrenia induced by double-filming, do rush to see this one. Otherwise, avoid like HIV.

Aaron Eckhardt and Helena Bonham-Carter provide the right chemistry as people who meet at the wedding of his sister and begin a night of passion. True is that they had met years before. As the evening goes on, we find out about their previous relationship and marriages. The problem here is that the film is way too talkative. The conversations are endless and drawn out. The hotel room scene seems like it shall never end. Filming the scene is double-scene sequence is a good idea and would have worked even better if the surroundings had changed more. Even when the two part at the end of the film, we don't know for sure if the relationship has ended for good. This could certainly be a "Same Time Next Year" event and the sequel would probably be even better than this.

There are several things that are vital and basic to the importance of a successful film. First is the screenplay. Then acting. Then sets. The further down the list we go, the less important the items are to the success of the movie. But if you screw up too many of the latter items, the earlier ones begin to falter because of them, and this is why CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER WOMEN failed as an entertainment venue. The screenplay was well done, focusing on two people with no names ("Man" played by Aaron Eckhart and "Woman" by Helena Bonham Carter). They "meet" at a wedding in Los Angeles and sexual sparks begin flying. Man makes several flirting attempts and Woman knocks him down. But Man persists and eventually succeeds in getting to Woman's hotel room. Here we begin to suspect and learn much about this pair. They are not strangers and have a destructive relationship from years before. In the end, Woman must fly back to London in the morning while Man returns to his much younger girlfriend. The acting of Eckhart and Carter is admirable and their line deliveries are pithy, funny, and often heart-wrenching. Where we come into problems is on almost every other level of the film. First we have to mention the title of the film, Conversations With Other Women. Titles are important to viewers. They help tie the story being told with what's been advertised. But this title has absolutely nothing to do with the story, as there is only one woman and they do much more than simply converse. Once we enter the hotel room, the sets become very dark and almost grainy. The sex scene is practically non-existent and very forced. And finally we have to look at the entire film being done in split screen. The big question is why? Doing art for the sake of art is ridiculous and many viewers may come away feeling as if director Hans Canosa used this medium simply to create "something different." That's bad. Very bad. This may not have been Canosa's intention, but it certainly comes off feeling that way. It added a major distraction to the enjoyment of the film rather than giving it any sense of originality.

This is a beautifully performed movie. In its second week in Paris at the spanking new Bibliotheque movie complex near the Gare D'Austerlitz, a few of us sat through it. The problem is that if you are not warned in advance about the technique it will take you quite a lot of time to determine whether you are watching an error or something new. Meantime, your mind works like a slot machine searching matching lineups symbols to figure out what is going on, who are these wonderfully attractive young people? Then you figure it out gradually, and by then your interest is quite well enough piqued that you will sit it out. Then you begin to enjoy it for what it is: A needle's stitch attempt to get on the screen the solitary joy of the novelists' technique of easily, gradually joining disparate stories all in one easy moment but spread across ninety minutes or so on screen and not on pages and paragraphs. In a novel, you can put the book down, think about it, go back to it. No such luxury here. And there could have been more stories here, and in fact you are left with the feeling that tons of stories have not been told at all or even touched upon. Or may even follow in a continuing stream of consciousness after you leave the film. In other words, this is a delicate examination of the choices we have to make in life just to get through it. Existence, in other words.

This is an attempt to tell two stories on a split-screen. It's like something you'd see in film school, where the director is enamored of his own creativity and technical prowess; the actors and actresses are practicing for the TV roles they hope to land one day; and the writer is somebody's girlfriend. The split-screen storytelling is a contrivance that might have worked if it had been used in key parts. Even if you can adjust to it, you realize early on that the two-screen conceit is being held just for the sake of it - through parts where it if anything simply clouds the story. But it's the acting that truly puts this in the gutter. Lines, looks, motions, mannerisms all come out of the nothing - and certainly have no relationship to the flow of their conversation. There's no chemistry whatsoever between Carter & Eckhart. I didn't see anything to make this even remotely worth watching, even on late-night TV when you have nothing else to do.

Hans Canosa makes a strong debut with Gabrielle Zevin's intelligent screenplay (read two character dialogue) CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER WOMEN and while some viewers may be distressed about his choice of use of the split screen presentation, Canosa's decision to be the editor of the film makes a strong argument for his artistic decision. We are able to not only see ell sides of the characters physically, but we are also allowed to step into the 'private space' created by each of the characters, a space that grows in meaning as the film proceeds. For this viewer it enhances the story. It would be difficult to imagine two finer actors than Helen Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart to pull off this story. Bonham Carter has flown in form London as a last minute replacement bridesmaid for an old friend and is bored by the wedding until she encounters Aaron Eckhart whom we soon learn is the bride's brother. But coincidences don't stop there: soon the couple decide to have a night together and as they begin to share their current uncomfortable lives they recall that they were young lovers (well played by Erik Eidem and Nora Zehetner in flashbacks) and more than likely were married as first marriages.....but to say more would ruin the repartee that these two brilliant actors enjoy playing against each other. Canosa manages to create a solid interplay between his actors and then capitalizes on the gifts of each by placing them in simultaneous and revealing views that more that provides his rationale for using the split screens as his technique. Bonham Carter is more beautiful than ever and proves she is one of our finest actresses on film, seen far too seldom these days. CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER WOMEN is a sly look at relationships that slowly creeps up on you as you learn the secrets of each character. It is a fine piece of film-making! Grady Harp

I approached this movie with high expectations but was soon disappointed. The split screen turns out to be simply distracting, especially when passers-by cross in front of the main characters to no clear purpose. This cinematic technique begins to feel like the director's indulgence - and never mind the audience. Worse still, the characters are so poorly matched - a rather aristocratic looking (in a stereotypical 'English' way) female with a guy who looks as though he just came from standing in with the Monkees. Wooden acting, dreary dialogue and a complete lack of spark between the actors. A lot of unkind adjectives could be attached to this movie - and have been - but in simple terms it is just colossally boring.

This entire movie is split screen- with two 4:3 aspect ratio squares that occasionally meld into each other. At first, it is extremely disorienting and a bit annoying- get used to missing something because there's just too much to take in during the first sitting. After a while your eyes adjust to this new form of movie watching and it can become quite entertaining- but you really have to stay sharp and pay attention or watch it a few times. THis is a chemistry and dialog movie- there's some decent chemistry between the leads but I wouldn't exactly call it scorching hot. This movie is 93% dialog with a small slice of set changes and a very small shaving of sex. This could wind up being really bloody boring if you watch it when you are not in the mood for the vibe of this flick. This is fluffy date movie crap with a more mature tone to it but at the end of the day it's still a bunch of cotton candy for girls. THE PLOT: A woman who has a past with the brother of the bride at a wedding becomes a last minute bridesmaid. THe rest can be chalked up to alcohol, what happens to women's sexuality directly after a wedding and reliving old times for old times sake and not much else, much to the disappointment of our male lead who winds up begging a lot- which can be a bit lame. THis is one of the more mature wedding films you are going to see and all in all I think it is very watchable but a bit off on the chemistry side of things- the director didn't really delve into the fact that a woman who really has a "thing" for a guy she "shouldn't" sleep with actually becomes MORE turned on by the concept of potentially having sex with him-the whole alpha male bad-boy thing- it's been working for centuries now. I think the woman was written incorrectly- she would have been wilder IMHO.