The Lovers on the Bridge (1999)

Nobody loves you when you're down and out

I found this early work of Juliet Binoche to be both intriguing, very credible but a bit over the top. This is a reluctant love story to say the least but the selection of three odd bods as characters to highlight the problems of homelessness in modern urban societies is a very real device indeed.

Viewers may wish to watch this in conjunction with Subway, to gain a little different perspective. I think that the thematic element of art which ties all three together acts to expose the commonly held view of what constitutes art to the test. These disparate group of artists suffer much for their artbut because there is not the popular acclaim they are consigned to the dustbin of history.

What I find particularly interesting is the development of the character of the fireater who performs to free public acclaim but who drowns his personal problems in alcohol and downers. As the film progresses he slowly begins to change into a more "normal" type of a person who can express his emotions through interacting with a self-pitying selfish woman who is becoming blind.

There is more than a touch of the surreal throughout the movie and much pathos but within an urban context where there is little consideration for the down and outs such that drivers never even notice them as they drive over them on the street. Is this what modern life has become?

My main reservation is about the happy ending which just seems to be out of place given the storyline. Definitely more substantial than the usual entertainment films but one where the consumer is left wanting more. February 27, 2008

Tries too hard to be artistic

Late one night I happened to be flipping through channels with my boyfriend when we stopped at the Independant Film Channel to watch what we thought would be an amusing French movie (The Lovers on the Bridge). We were not intrigued by the dramatic plot the info box on the tv told us, we were rather drawn into the film by the ridiculous plot it had. "A blind artist falls in love with a homeless man on a bridge in France," sounds like a winner, so we left the channel on even though the movie was partly over. Right away we found ourselves watching the silhouettes of a crazed man and woman frolicking loudly upon a beach at night. Did I mention they were naked? Yes all you saw were their silhouettes, but very obviously we could see the man atleast was naked. After that feast for our eyes, we watched as the rest of the movie dragged on, each scene an obvious attempt to push the main characters further into their desperation/drunkeness/hopelessness/homelessness/artistic loneliness. Each new "twist" in the plot was ridiculously predicatable and made us say, "Are you serious? They actually spent money to make this into a movie?" Finally the "dark" movie ends in what is supposed to be a "happy" ending but really makes the movie seem even worse as it only shows the recklessness of both characters and doesn't resolve the tension between the characters. It's like the writer of the film had an idea to make a dark artistic story but didn't want a tragic ending as most films of the genre do so he decided to abrubtly end the story and carry both characters away happily in a boat to the middle of no where, out of the story and thankfully now, out of my mind. September 4, 2007

Essential French cinema: Carax's 'Les Amants du Pont-Neuf .'

This is a love story that will taunt you, challenging your notions of both love and homelessness. It is a love story you won't soon forget. With his films Boy Meets Girl (1984), Mauvais Sang (1986), The Lovers on the Bridge (1991), Pola X X (2000), and Process (2005), the French film director, Leos Carax (1960) established a cult following with his poetic film style and depictions of tortured love. Set around Pont Neuf bridge while closed to the public and under repair, and using the Paris streets, subways, and the River Seine as a film set, Lovers on the Bridge (Les Amants du Pont-Neuf) (1991), tells the story of two lost souls, Alex (Denis Lavant) and Michèle (Juliette Binoche) who sleep on the bridge. Both are homeless in the City of Lights. Michèle's only companion is a cat named Louisiana. Alex is fire-eating street performer, addicted to wine and sedatives. Michèle is an artist on the run from her past, also addicted to wine, and afflicted with a rare eye disorder that leads to blindness. Despite their hard existence, together they experience laughter, passion, and fireworks; Michèle even waterskis the Seine. As Michèle's vision deteriorates, she becomes increasingly dependent on Alex who, fearing Michèle will leave him, prevents her from receiving the new medical treatment she needs, demonstrating that the course of love never does run smooth. Will their love endure? Highly recommended.

G. Merritt August 19, 2007

jazzman

Oh, it's unforgettable all right. Without a doubt, the weirdest movie I
have ever seen. Repulsive and nauseating as well. I actually threw up
after enduring this pretentious piece of crap from (SHOCK!) France. One
disgusting, weird scene after another, after another. And the film is FULL
of lies. The French have come up with their share of cinematic turkeys
before, but this thing sets a whole new standard. How about homeless,
drunk idiots water skiing with fireworks in the background? How many times
have you EVER seen that in real life? One of the reviews on the
DVD jacket calls this "one of the decade's most thrilling films" (Vogue
Magazine). I don't think these film critics get out much, if this is their
idea of "thrilling". There is a scene of the 2 lead characters running
naked on a beach at night. If you look closely, there's more to it than
just that. I just shook my head in amazement. Weeeeeirrrrd. I thought
many times of just ejecting the DVD out of the player. Just too much to
stomach or even believe. A colossal piece of crap from France.



September 26, 2006

Crazed and self-destructive.

"Lovers On The Bridge" is notorious, but not very popular. It caused a big scandal in France, not because of its content, but because of the caprices of its director Leos Carax. Much of the film takes place on the Pont-Neuf bridge in Paris, and Carax demanded to be allowed to film right on the bridge. So, the bridge was closed off just for him, and even then he couldn't finish filming. After he was kicked out, he built a life-size model of the bridge and part of its surroundings, somewhere in the countryside, and tried to finish filming there. Even then he went over budget three times, thus causing three separate producers to go bankrupt.

The film was a complete failure, commercially. Critics thought it was too long and too self-important. The public just didn't bother to see it. As a result, Carax's career was basically over by 1992. Since then he's only made one film, "Pola X" in 1999. (There's word that he's making another one right now, though.)

What is "Lovers On The Bridge" about? It stars Carax's favourite actor Denis Lavant as Alex, a bum who lives on the Pont-Neuf. Sometimes he puts on a fire-eating act to entertain passersby on the street. The rest of the time, he gets drunk. He's also addicted to pills of some kind.

One day, a woman shows up on the bridge. She doesn't talk about her past, but Alex finds out that she comes from a rich family. She was abandoned by her rich boyfriend, and she has a problem with her eyesight which will eventually make her blind. Because of these problems, she decides to run away from home and go slumming on the Pont-Neuf.

Naturally, Alex falls madly in love with her. They cavort on the bridge together and steal money from rich tourists. Then of course they're separated. Alex does a whole bunch of desperate and stupid things and loses his will to live. Maybe you can guess whether or not they're reunited in the end.

Carax's underlying worldview in this film is exactly the same as in his two earlier films, "Boy Meets Girl" and "Bad Blood." He believes in a thing called love, you see. But his idea of love has a lot of narcissism in it. His lovers are hopelessly self-absorbed. They can never have any kind of normal life together, simply because they would be unable to support each other. They can get drunk together, but they can't feel so much compassion or empathy. Alex, in particular, is a psychopath. He tries to prevent the woman from curing her eye problem, because he doesn't want her to leave the bridge.

And Carax also believes that the sensory impact of a film is more important than the logic of its narrative. So, this film contains many vivid, visually brilliant scenes that don't make much sense if you think about them. For example, Carax thinks that guns are romantic, so he puts a gun into the film and uses it in a long dream sequence. The sequence doesn't have much bearing on the plot, and actually it makes his heroine look cold and vicious, but it's exciting to watch.

The greatest scene of this sort is the one where the lovers celebrate Bastille Day by screaming and doing cartwheels on the bridge, to a deafening medley of classical, rock and rap music. The content of the scene has no meaning. But the effect is ecstatic. And in a way, it really captures a youthful feeling of falling in love.

If Carax's worldview doesn't appeal to you, then you'll probably agree with the critics who savaged the film. They have a point. But still, "Lovers On The Bridge" is Carax's best film.

First of all, he has a much stronger script than before. His two earlier films are full of long, artificial monologues, which are recited into space by the characters. But here, the dialogue is much more terse. Alex doesn't say much at all, and this is very appropriate to his character.

Second, Carax paid attention to the setting of his story. The plot might not be very believable. Of course that's the point. Carax wants to overwhelm the emotions by any means necessary. But nonetheless, the opening of the film just shows a few scenes taken at a homeless shelter in Paris. They are unrelated to the plot, and the main characters don't appear in them. But they make a very strong impression. Carax shows the bad conditions in which his characters live, without making anything up. Somehow, this realistic introduction makes the rest of the film much more convincing.

Third, the romance is just a little bit more subtle than in Carax's earlier films. In "Bad Blood," for instance, it was hard to see why Julie Delpy loved Denis Lavant so much, since his character there was basically the same as here. But here, Carax implies that the heroine isn't quite in love with Alex. Or rather, she is, but only up to a point. She loves him while she's slumming on the bridge, but she doesn't want to take him with her when she leaves. She shows no concern for him when he suffers the most from her absence. She does remember him later, but she only wants to see him on her own terms. In other words, she's like him. That's not very nice, and in fact the main characters of this film are not nice people, but it's believable at least. It's also hard to see why she went down to the bridge in the first place, if she's like that, but that's not really the point. Carax needs the bridge because it allows him to make his grand spectacles.

I honestly don't know if I'd recommend this film. It's alternately unpleasant and thrilling. But it is Carax's best film. There's nothing else that's quite like that. September 1, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...