159 reviews
It's 1968 Prague. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a womanizing doctor. His often-lover Sabina (Lena Olin) is a liberated sophisticated woman. At a country spa, Tomas is taken with local girl Tereza (Juliette Binoche). He sets free the mousy Tereza and they have a passionate affair along with Sabina. Tomas and Tereza get married but jealousy overwhelms her. Then the Prague Spring erupts.
There has been many threesomes in cinematic history. The acting power in these three is one of best. Daniel is able to make the charismatic cad likable. Lena is sexual dynamite. Juliette is pure magic in this one. It is a great threesome against the backdrop of compelling political turmoil.
There has been many threesomes in cinematic history. The acting power in these three is one of best. Daniel is able to make the charismatic cad likable. Lena is sexual dynamite. Juliette is pure magic in this one. It is a great threesome against the backdrop of compelling political turmoil.
- SnoopyStyle
- Nov 10, 2015
- Permalink
Although the screenplay is based on the great and world-famous book by Milan Kundera, it was written by others (Jean-Claude Carrière and the director Philip Kaufman) and thus lost its original touch and approach - as was pointed out by Kundera himself who withdrew from the outcome. On the other hand, fragile feelings, ponderings and internal doubts are very difficult to express on the screen - without losing the pace and uniformity of the plot. It is also pity that Prague was not / could not been used, as it is a beautiful city and gives more realism than the French places used. Depicion of the socialist/communist oppression is, however, rather perfunctory, seeming not so serious as it really was in the 1970ies within the Warsaw block when hopes of intellectuals for the so-called human-faced socialism vanished as liberal steps were diminished or repealed.
The cast is, of course, brilliant, in particular the bohemian ménage à trois members: Daniel Day-Lewis as Tomas, Juliette Binoche as Tereza and Lena Olin as Sabina - all later multiple Academy Award winners and/or nominees, and from different European countries (the movie itself is still the US one). They and some other fine European actors have provided the movie a real European atmosphere, without a Hollywood studio feeling as sometimes perceived in "older" movies.
Nevertheless, The Unbearable Lightness of Being is still a movie high above average, enhancing historical facts as well. But it is hard to say whether is is recommendable to read the book before or after...
The cast is, of course, brilliant, in particular the bohemian ménage à trois members: Daniel Day-Lewis as Tomas, Juliette Binoche as Tereza and Lena Olin as Sabina - all later multiple Academy Award winners and/or nominees, and from different European countries (the movie itself is still the US one). They and some other fine European actors have provided the movie a real European atmosphere, without a Hollywood studio feeling as sometimes perceived in "older" movies.
Nevertheless, The Unbearable Lightness of Being is still a movie high above average, enhancing historical facts as well. But it is hard to say whether is is recommendable to read the book before or after...
In 1988 praised as an erotic movie. In 2018 we can only see Tomas as a sex addict a la "Shame" (2011, Steve McQueen).
Noteworthy just the same is the fact that in the late '60s there were youth protests irrespective of the political system (North America: flower power and Woodstock. Western Europe: Student protests in Paris. Eastern Europe: spring of Prague.).
With respect to coping with a dictatorship the films shows three fundamentally different strategies. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) is trying to fight back, Sabina (Lena Olin) flights while Tereza (Juliette Binoche) adapts.
The film was made just before the velvet revolutions of 1989. More than twenty five years later I was reading the book "Dancing bears" (2014, Witbold Szablowski). This book describes that not everybody knows how to cope with the freedom that was conquered. Some people feel more comfortable when they are told what to do and how to behave. Somehow I had to think about Tereza when reading this book.
Noteworthy just the same is the fact that in the late '60s there were youth protests irrespective of the political system (North America: flower power and Woodstock. Western Europe: Student protests in Paris. Eastern Europe: spring of Prague.).
With respect to coping with a dictatorship the films shows three fundamentally different strategies. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) is trying to fight back, Sabina (Lena Olin) flights while Tereza (Juliette Binoche) adapts.
The film was made just before the velvet revolutions of 1989. More than twenty five years later I was reading the book "Dancing bears" (2014, Witbold Szablowski). This book describes that not everybody knows how to cope with the freedom that was conquered. Some people feel more comfortable when they are told what to do and how to behave. Somehow I had to think about Tereza when reading this book.
- frankde-jong
- Aug 24, 2019
- Permalink
I would have to disagree with the previous reviewer. First of all, the movie should have a "euro" feel to it because it's about Europeans, in Europe, and their European mentality. No car chases here, hot shot. That being said, I only have great praise for this film. It's a tremendous attempt to put to screen the subtle understanding Milan Kundera has of the human condition, and it surprisingly succeeds. For those more interested, I recommend you pick up some of his novels (start with a short story if you are pressed for time) and you, too, will realize why he is one of the best storytellers alive today.
The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)
I liked this book a lot, and I like director Philip Kaufman's approach to movies. The best of this movie is terrific, as well: the wild culture of personal and cultural freedom at the start, the chilling invasion of Soviet tanks in the center, and the last half hour of idealized romance and happiness in the country.
That kind of gives away the movie, it would seem. But in a way, the movie is about how all these things happen. This is where it gets to be about taste and patience. It's a long movie, and much of the events are not really a development of plot, but a steady continuation of a variety of relationships (mainly between the lead man and the two main women). There is a plot behind all this, especially around their leaving Czechoslovakia and then finding a return to bliss in the Czech countryside, but this doesn't drive the movie overall.
For me, it wasn't enough to see these people enjoying sex and discovering conflicts between the three legs of the love triangle. Scenes were often leisurely in a way that implies we were glad to just be there and watch things happen within a pocket of frozen time, rather than through time. By that I mean, it wasn't where you were going with the emotional aspects, but it was where you were, the now of the interactions. The might actually be where the book was so successful--it created moods and scenes where you were, actually, glad to just be absorbed. For me, that wasn't always the case in the film version.
Part of the problem might just be Daniel Day Lewis, who is a bit too self-satisfied, not as a character (that is certain) but as an actor. He lacks the magnetism that might sustain the unlikely and ongoing love the two women have for him, even as they know about each other. On the other hand, it's a huge, epic tale about true freedom, and a very real pursuit of happiness. And when the energy gets going, and the mood is fully expanded, there is magic. Especially, again, at the end, including the famous fade to white in the last frames, it is about a kind of heaven on earth. Who can object to that?
I liked this book a lot, and I like director Philip Kaufman's approach to movies. The best of this movie is terrific, as well: the wild culture of personal and cultural freedom at the start, the chilling invasion of Soviet tanks in the center, and the last half hour of idealized romance and happiness in the country.
That kind of gives away the movie, it would seem. But in a way, the movie is about how all these things happen. This is where it gets to be about taste and patience. It's a long movie, and much of the events are not really a development of plot, but a steady continuation of a variety of relationships (mainly between the lead man and the two main women). There is a plot behind all this, especially around their leaving Czechoslovakia and then finding a return to bliss in the Czech countryside, but this doesn't drive the movie overall.
For me, it wasn't enough to see these people enjoying sex and discovering conflicts between the three legs of the love triangle. Scenes were often leisurely in a way that implies we were glad to just be there and watch things happen within a pocket of frozen time, rather than through time. By that I mean, it wasn't where you were going with the emotional aspects, but it was where you were, the now of the interactions. The might actually be where the book was so successful--it created moods and scenes where you were, actually, glad to just be absorbed. For me, that wasn't always the case in the film version.
Part of the problem might just be Daniel Day Lewis, who is a bit too self-satisfied, not as a character (that is certain) but as an actor. He lacks the magnetism that might sustain the unlikely and ongoing love the two women have for him, even as they know about each other. On the other hand, it's a huge, epic tale about true freedom, and a very real pursuit of happiness. And when the energy gets going, and the mood is fully expanded, there is magic. Especially, again, at the end, including the famous fade to white in the last frames, it is about a kind of heaven on earth. Who can object to that?
- secondtake
- Oct 19, 2010
- Permalink
Using the Prague Spring of 1968 as a backdrop, The Unbearable Lightness of Being weaves a story of three very real artists and their journey through love, sex and revolution. The film begins by introducing us to Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) a very charming womanizer and very intelligent, political doctor. Through all of his one night stands and emotionless sexual encounters, he only has one real lover; Sabina (Lena Olin) is a seductive, carefree artist. When Tomas gets a call to perform an operation in a spa town, he meets the woman of his dreams; Tereza (Juliette Binoche) the shy waitress who dreams of leaving her dull, unchallenging life and heading to a place with intellectuals. When Tomas heads back to Prague, she shows up at his door and they quickly move in together.
This move changes his life completely. He no longer has numerous flings and one night stands, but instead only makes time for Tereza at home and Sabina on the side. When Tomas begs Sabina to provide Tereza with a job, the three embark on a journey of sexual tension, intellectual discussion and artistic wonder. However this love triangle is cut short as Soviet tanks come roaring through Czechoslovakia endangering the freedom of all three characters, who then decide to flee to Switzerland. By this time Tomas and Tereza have been long married, and Sabina meets a new man in the form of Franz (Derek de Lint) a married man who eventually leaves his wife and family for her. The danger of commitment drives Sabina away and she moves to the United States, disappearing for the entire third act of the film.
It's this act that is the most interesting, as it truly examines Tomas and Tereza's tumultuous relationship. Tereza realizes that she is too dependant on him, while he could leave her at any time so she moves back to the now Soviet-controlled Prague and Tomas' love for her drives him to return there. Of course Tomas' political values, including an article he wrote criticizing the Soviet Union and 'implying' that they should all pluck their eyes out doesn't shine too well with the Soviets and they ask him to sign a letter to repudiate his article. Tomas is too proud and declines this offer, which leads to him losing his license and he has to settle to becoming a lowly window washer. But he can't hide his womanizing desires, and his infidelity drives Tereza to the same crime. Eventually her shame and the potential of her awkward lover being a Soviet who will blackmail the couple leads to the two of them moving to a rural village and living their life their together.
The most beautiful and romantic elements of the film are portrayed once they move to the village. Without the temptation of infidelity and the power of political intrigue, their life becomes euphoric and simple. Tomas works in the field all day, while Tereza cooks and cleans and they are never too far away from one another. During a trip to a relatively local bar, Tomas is presented with the opportunity of an affair but quickly brings his gaze back to Tereza showing that he is finally complete with her. This blissful relationship provides overwhelming satisfaction and closure to the chaotic life they had led up to this point.
Highlighting this impeccable picture are three sensational performances, a masterfully adapted screenplay full of beautiful and intriguing dialogue and quite possible the finest cinematography of the '80s. Day-Lewis perfectly encompasses the charm of Tomas with a subtle charisma that keeps my eyes glued to him every time he appears on screen. The young Juliette Binoche is adorable, shy and emotionally powerful but also plays it off very subtly. Lena Olin is overwhelmingly seductive and crafts a sense of freedom unlike any I've ever seen. These characters are all very human which means they have their fair share of flaws and the performances capture every essence of them so perfectly.
This move changes his life completely. He no longer has numerous flings and one night stands, but instead only makes time for Tereza at home and Sabina on the side. When Tomas begs Sabina to provide Tereza with a job, the three embark on a journey of sexual tension, intellectual discussion and artistic wonder. However this love triangle is cut short as Soviet tanks come roaring through Czechoslovakia endangering the freedom of all three characters, who then decide to flee to Switzerland. By this time Tomas and Tereza have been long married, and Sabina meets a new man in the form of Franz (Derek de Lint) a married man who eventually leaves his wife and family for her. The danger of commitment drives Sabina away and she moves to the United States, disappearing for the entire third act of the film.
It's this act that is the most interesting, as it truly examines Tomas and Tereza's tumultuous relationship. Tereza realizes that she is too dependant on him, while he could leave her at any time so she moves back to the now Soviet-controlled Prague and Tomas' love for her drives him to return there. Of course Tomas' political values, including an article he wrote criticizing the Soviet Union and 'implying' that they should all pluck their eyes out doesn't shine too well with the Soviets and they ask him to sign a letter to repudiate his article. Tomas is too proud and declines this offer, which leads to him losing his license and he has to settle to becoming a lowly window washer. But he can't hide his womanizing desires, and his infidelity drives Tereza to the same crime. Eventually her shame and the potential of her awkward lover being a Soviet who will blackmail the couple leads to the two of them moving to a rural village and living their life their together.
The most beautiful and romantic elements of the film are portrayed once they move to the village. Without the temptation of infidelity and the power of political intrigue, their life becomes euphoric and simple. Tomas works in the field all day, while Tereza cooks and cleans and they are never too far away from one another. During a trip to a relatively local bar, Tomas is presented with the opportunity of an affair but quickly brings his gaze back to Tereza showing that he is finally complete with her. This blissful relationship provides overwhelming satisfaction and closure to the chaotic life they had led up to this point.
Highlighting this impeccable picture are three sensational performances, a masterfully adapted screenplay full of beautiful and intriguing dialogue and quite possible the finest cinematography of the '80s. Day-Lewis perfectly encompasses the charm of Tomas with a subtle charisma that keeps my eyes glued to him every time he appears on screen. The young Juliette Binoche is adorable, shy and emotionally powerful but also plays it off very subtly. Lena Olin is overwhelmingly seductive and crafts a sense of freedom unlike any I've ever seen. These characters are all very human which means they have their fair share of flaws and the performances capture every essence of them so perfectly.
The best thing about the novel was that the events were more meaningful because along with each event came a piece of the author's philosophy which made not only the plot seem whole but the author's main philosophical argument materialize more and more as we read on.
The movie was only a documentation of the plot and because it was a movie I guess it could only "lightly" touch upon the author's philosophy. Maybe a narrator in the background could have filled us in? I watched the movie not because I enjoyed the plot but because I enjoyed reading the author's ideas about life. They weren't as evident in the movie, but I gave a 6 because the acting and cinematography were good.
The movie was only a documentation of the plot and because it was a movie I guess it could only "lightly" touch upon the author's philosophy. Maybe a narrator in the background could have filled us in? I watched the movie not because I enjoyed the plot but because I enjoyed reading the author's ideas about life. They weren't as evident in the movie, but I gave a 6 because the acting and cinematography were good.
- ghazzawi90
- Jul 6, 2013
- Permalink
I've not read the book this is based on, so have no way to comment on how this movie translates it. But the film itself has stayed in my mind like few others. Yes, it's very long, but the characters are so memorable that the length didn't bother me at all - I loved the time spent in their company. In particular, Juliette Binoche and Lena Olin are each astonishing in their own way. Olin is ferociously sensual and mesmerizing, while Binoche is superlatively sympathetic and sensitive. Two of the best female performances I can remember. By the end of the film I was totally wrapped up in these people's lives. This film is deeply erotic but in an intelligent and adult way that puts most other film's treatment of sex to shame. I thought it was beautifully handled by all concerned, and if I ever want to cry, I only need watch the scenes with the dog and the final scenes, both pulled off superbly.
- FANatic-10
- Apr 14, 1999
- Permalink
The first half of the movie is a love story of a young woman who is played by a playboy doctor. Juliette Binoche's sensitive acting was also the best in this movie. A young woman married to the doctor but she was tired of his womanizing. One of his mistresses is a free-spirited woman, and she get along with them. In this movie, social issues such as war and peace were also a theme. The second half of the movie was smiling as they were peacefully enjoyed their country life. The former doctor's mistress received a letter regarding the news of their death. This is a fascinating movie with very free relationships.
- MK_Movie_Reviews
- Nov 27, 2021
- Permalink
- triangulate
- Jul 3, 2005
- Permalink
By the time the end arrives, with its depiction of domestic harmony finally attained and tragically stolen, the movie seems little more than soppy; but even at its best, it's a disappointingly straightforward tale of narcissism and rootlessness put through an artery-hardening political and moral obstacle course. The movie is well choreographed, never more striking than in its images of the Russian occupation, but its aspiration to "classic" art-movie eroticism threatens to reduce everything else to mere gymnastics. Day Lewis is not quite real in his role - an androgynous, closed off icon of self-regard; the so-called "lightness" of his being seems less a psychological state and more a symptom of the movie's too-easy conceptions - as it goes on, the cards seem to be shuffled almost randomly, which serves neither the sex nor the politics well.
- francheval
- Feb 16, 2006
- Permalink
"The Unbearable Lightness of Being" tells an old story about a womanizer (Day-Lewis) who has an agreeable relationship with a woman (Olin) who is equally unable to commit beyond casual sex when a woman who equates sex (Binoche) with commitment enters his life, wants to love him and he her, but he is conflicted. The film asks the question can they find happiness together? On the upside, this flick has an excellent cosmopolitan cast, is shot on location, and offers all the usual trimmings. On the downside, the characters are too flat, too laconic, and too enigmatic to create great depth and the film is just plain too long and stuffed with too much inconsequential filler. I watched this film in 1988 and found it quite forgettable which accounts for watching it a second time. Fodder for critics and buffs, the person seeking sheer entertainment should beware. (B)
Imagine you're at the theater attending a live performance, a truly living performance in which both axioms and mythological truths are entered into and shared by actors and audience alike. Now suppose that the backdrop for all the action is dark, oppressive, and heavy, while all that transpires before it is light, glib, and ineffectual. Now consider that, through the course of the play, all that is bouncy and trivial becomes overwhelmed and absorbed by the gravity of the background, like light being sucked into the gravity of a black hole, so that what was once meaningless and unimportant and even silly becomes increasingly momentous and important and valuable as the play progresses. If you can see this outline in your mind's eye, you have a good idea about The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera's novel by the same name brought to life as a movie. The film, like the novel, declares one thing: `only necessity is heavy, and only what is heavy has value.' I so love this idea, this earth shattering insight: it effortlessly capsizes our Postmodern zeitgeist in one innocuous little phrase. And the film expresses it beautifully.
Set in the Prague Spring of 1968, when the Soviets put down Dubcek's `Socialism with a Human Face,' the weight of these events draws the lives of a Czech doctor, his wife, and his lovers, into its orbit. And instead of crushing them, as one might assume, it becomes the fire that purifies gold. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis), for example, had previously written a treatise on Oedipus, a witty exercise in sophistry aimed at the Communist regime as a provocative analogy, nothing more. But as the essay becomes an object of obsession to the Communists, we see Kundera's definition of vertigo come into play. It is not the fear of falling, but the soul's defense against the desire to fall. Tomas wanted to fall. Why? Watch the movie, and find out for yourself.
Set in the Prague Spring of 1968, when the Soviets put down Dubcek's `Socialism with a Human Face,' the weight of these events draws the lives of a Czech doctor, his wife, and his lovers, into its orbit. And instead of crushing them, as one might assume, it becomes the fire that purifies gold. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis), for example, had previously written a treatise on Oedipus, a witty exercise in sophistry aimed at the Communist regime as a provocative analogy, nothing more. But as the essay becomes an object of obsession to the Communists, we see Kundera's definition of vertigo come into play. It is not the fear of falling, but the soul's defense against the desire to fall. Tomas wanted to fall. Why? Watch the movie, and find out for yourself.
This Philip Kaufman adaptation of the famous Milan Kundera novel is.. so-so. The best bits have to do with the quasi-documentary portrayal of Eastern-Block era Czechoslovakia. The rest is little more than a melodrama, guised in art-house artistic-credibility visuals. Two questions though, first, why does Juliette Binoche put up with Daniel Day-Lewis, who is essentially a male prostitute, when she's not into the libertine lifestyle? And secondly, why does Daniel Day-Lewis sabotage his life so much just so that he doesn't renounce his anti-communist past? What a moron! This film doesn't make much sense, but then again, such is the unbearable lightness of being.
One of the most romantic films ever made, it shows the problems of people whose intimacies and personal conflicts are being interrupted by history on the move. I think this film surpasses the novel, which is utterly cynical (although understandably). Even in the last moments of the novel, Teresa is concerned that Tomas is cheating on her. The film also does well by dropping much of Franz's character - he was kind of uninteresting compared to Teresa, Tomas, and Sabina. It also drops such deadweight characters as Teresa's mother, Tomas' son, and Franz's wife. Also, a ton of different coworkers are combined into a few, so that their characters have time to develop. By concentrating on the three central characters, this film blossoms past what the novel ever achieved (although the novel is arguably more historically important). Philip Kaufman and Jean-Claude Carriere also add a couple of beautiful scenes that weren't in the novel, including Tomas' and Teresa's wedding, which is one of the most beautiful scenes in filmdom.
One of the greatest and most beautiful films I have ever seen!
It is a movie that is returned and returned, and does not tire of it.
I loved every character, especially Thomas and Teresa. Intrigued by the eyes and looks of Thomas and the way he looks to people
- Michaelhosha3
- Jun 21, 2020
- Permalink
After watching this during a surreal snow storm outside, I can honestly say I have thought more about this review than any other. Not that my brain has been damaged by the amount of booze consumed during last night's Superbowl, oh no. Nor is it due to a particular fondness for Juliette Binoche. You see, in terms of cinematic value, this is a breath-taking exercise in film-making. Every shot feel lovingly crafted, every line of dialogue is poetry and the editing is some of the best I have seen. It's just that, in terms of entertainment, I personally found it uninvolving at times and a bit dull. Call me what you will but on some levels, it just didn't work.
Adapted from the acclaimed novel by Milan Kundera, "The Unbearable Lightness Of Being" takes us back to Prague in the days before Soviet occupation. Care-free surgeon Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) spends his days sleeping around, usually with his bohemian artist lover Sabina (Lena Olin) and occasionally doing some work when he's not chatting up the nurses. After being sent to a nearby town to treat a patient, he meets the beautiful Tereza (Binoche) and against his will, Tomas falls for her after she follows him back to Prague. Gradually, Tereza and Tomas are accepted by Sabina and the three strike an unusual friendship - a friendship forever altered by the dramatic invasion of the Soviet forces and their subsequent emigration to Switzerland.
I'm still not sure exactly where I stand on this film. Feeling reminiscent of "Lust, Caution" (which isn't a bad yardstick, as things go), there is not a single frame of this picture that looks anything less than beautiful despite the occasionally bleak subject matter. Olin and Binoche are brilliant but strangely, Daniel Day-Lewis lets the side down. He comes across as a selfish, manipulative dandy and I found it difficult to emphasise with him. I also felt he looked like Ben Stiller going through college and once that thought was there, it stuck! The supporting cast, largely unknown to most English-speaking audiences, were all faultless and deserve as much credit as the director for creating a sublime, smouldering masterpiece. The story also had its moments where it was genuinely upsetting but for the most part, it lacked any sort of narrative. It seemed to wander at will, from country to country, with little to link it like a bad James Bond movie. It also isn't as controversial as it would like you to believe - the sex, while moderately graphic, isn't a patch on what we see in mainstream movies today. This is no "Monster's Ball".
Maybe I'm missing something. At times, I felt like the movie was talking to me on a different intellectual plain that I couldn't understand and the fact that a lot of dialogue seems to be whispered didn't help - I needed the DVD's subtitles, that's for sure. It doesn't confuse you like "Donnie Darko" did but instead tests every sinew of attention as there's every chance that a small but vital line is missed or overlooked. So I'm afraid that "The Unbearable Lightness Of Being" didn't float my boat as I was hoping it would but it is a glorious, beautiful film which looks and sounds the business (despite its age) but doesn't offer much in the way of entertainment. Personally, I think that "Secretary" is a better kooky and controversial romance than this is or even Binoche's other legendary skin-flick "Damage". This is more high-brow, thoughtful and European than that though and if you like a challenge then this could be the film for you.
Adapted from the acclaimed novel by Milan Kundera, "The Unbearable Lightness Of Being" takes us back to Prague in the days before Soviet occupation. Care-free surgeon Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) spends his days sleeping around, usually with his bohemian artist lover Sabina (Lena Olin) and occasionally doing some work when he's not chatting up the nurses. After being sent to a nearby town to treat a patient, he meets the beautiful Tereza (Binoche) and against his will, Tomas falls for her after she follows him back to Prague. Gradually, Tereza and Tomas are accepted by Sabina and the three strike an unusual friendship - a friendship forever altered by the dramatic invasion of the Soviet forces and their subsequent emigration to Switzerland.
I'm still not sure exactly where I stand on this film. Feeling reminiscent of "Lust, Caution" (which isn't a bad yardstick, as things go), there is not a single frame of this picture that looks anything less than beautiful despite the occasionally bleak subject matter. Olin and Binoche are brilliant but strangely, Daniel Day-Lewis lets the side down. He comes across as a selfish, manipulative dandy and I found it difficult to emphasise with him. I also felt he looked like Ben Stiller going through college and once that thought was there, it stuck! The supporting cast, largely unknown to most English-speaking audiences, were all faultless and deserve as much credit as the director for creating a sublime, smouldering masterpiece. The story also had its moments where it was genuinely upsetting but for the most part, it lacked any sort of narrative. It seemed to wander at will, from country to country, with little to link it like a bad James Bond movie. It also isn't as controversial as it would like you to believe - the sex, while moderately graphic, isn't a patch on what we see in mainstream movies today. This is no "Monster's Ball".
Maybe I'm missing something. At times, I felt like the movie was talking to me on a different intellectual plain that I couldn't understand and the fact that a lot of dialogue seems to be whispered didn't help - I needed the DVD's subtitles, that's for sure. It doesn't confuse you like "Donnie Darko" did but instead tests every sinew of attention as there's every chance that a small but vital line is missed or overlooked. So I'm afraid that "The Unbearable Lightness Of Being" didn't float my boat as I was hoping it would but it is a glorious, beautiful film which looks and sounds the business (despite its age) but doesn't offer much in the way of entertainment. Personally, I think that "Secretary" is a better kooky and controversial romance than this is or even Binoche's other legendary skin-flick "Damage". This is more high-brow, thoughtful and European than that though and if you like a challenge then this could be the film for you.
- Benjamin_Cox
- Feb 1, 2009
- Permalink
An adaptation of the novel of the same name by Milan Kundera, 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' is A Masterpiece of a film. Its difficult, saddening, challenging, but ultimately, affecting. The Top-Notch Performances only add more to the narrative.
'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' Synopsis: In 1968, a Czech doctor with an active sex life meets a woman who wants monogamy, and then the Soviet invasion further disrupts their lives.
Writer Jean-Claude Carrière portrays the effect on Czechoslovak artistic and intellectual life during the 1968 Prague Spring of socialist liberalization preceding invasion by Soviet led Warsaw Pact and subsequent coup that ushered in hard-line communism. Its an extremely disturbing story, that has layers of some great sexual power, beneath all the sadness. The characters are complex, but expressive. And their journey bristles with anger in those rousing 171-minutes, while this story unfolds.
Philip Kaufman's Direction is excellently done. He deserves credit for churning out a film that turns out to be much more than just a dramatic exploration of its characters. Cinematography is proper. Editing is decent. Art & Costume Design are flawless.
Performance-Wise: Daniel Day-Lewis, Juliette Binoche & Lena Olin deliver superior performances. Day-Lewis is in very good form, measuring his performance perfectly between sexual temptation & of being a victim of his surroundings. Olin is a marvel, stealing some of the film's best scenes with her seductiveness. Binoche is quietly devastating in her portrayal, matching up to Day-Lewis & Olin at all times.
On the whole, 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' is A Must Watch.
'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' Synopsis: In 1968, a Czech doctor with an active sex life meets a woman who wants monogamy, and then the Soviet invasion further disrupts their lives.
Writer Jean-Claude Carrière portrays the effect on Czechoslovak artistic and intellectual life during the 1968 Prague Spring of socialist liberalization preceding invasion by Soviet led Warsaw Pact and subsequent coup that ushered in hard-line communism. Its an extremely disturbing story, that has layers of some great sexual power, beneath all the sadness. The characters are complex, but expressive. And their journey bristles with anger in those rousing 171-minutes, while this story unfolds.
Philip Kaufman's Direction is excellently done. He deserves credit for churning out a film that turns out to be much more than just a dramatic exploration of its characters. Cinematography is proper. Editing is decent. Art & Costume Design are flawless.
Performance-Wise: Daniel Day-Lewis, Juliette Binoche & Lena Olin deliver superior performances. Day-Lewis is in very good form, measuring his performance perfectly between sexual temptation & of being a victim of his surroundings. Olin is a marvel, stealing some of the film's best scenes with her seductiveness. Binoche is quietly devastating in her portrayal, matching up to Day-Lewis & Olin at all times.
On the whole, 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' is A Must Watch.
- writers_reign
- Oct 29, 2014
- Permalink
Well acted and well directed. An uninhibited examination of lust vs. love, and the comfort of monogamy vs. the prison of possessiveness without over-dramatization or false emotion. Kaufman's depiction is faithful to Kundera's work, even if some depth is lost, as is inevitable in any film adaptation of a novel.
Milan Kundera's philosophical novel 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' was always going to be difficult to film, a story of lives lived, ordinarily, against a backdrop of politics and eroticism. Philip Kaufamn's attempt is long, has a wonderful score, chooses to have its cast speak English in eastern European accents, showcases Juliet Binoche's beauty, and I think succeeds in avoiding the heaviness, the moral weight, that the story's characters find fundamentally absent from the business of simply being alive from one moment to the next. What it doesn't quite capture is the novel's intellectual playfulness, the authorial wisdom within which the original story was set, which in the book substitutes for the enforced narrative drive of most novels. Whereas some films are best enjoyed by those who haven't seen the source material, this one might work best for those who have: otherwise, some audiences could miss the point. Nonetheless, the ending is strangely affecting and true to the original story; and Daniel Day Lewis surprisingly good as a middle class Czech philanderer.
- paul2001sw-1
- Aug 16, 2013
- Permalink