|
|
Rating:  - Read the novel then watch the film.
It is unfortunate this film is no longer in print. Set in 1968 Prague, and based on Milan Kundera's best-known novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1984), this faithful film adaptation (by Jean-Claude Carrière and Philip Kaufman) tells the captivating story of a womanizing brain surgeon, Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis), who loses his employment because he is critical of Czech Communism (he compared the Soviets to Oedipus Rex). He has had more than 200 lovers in his lifetime, and is determined to live his life unfettered by things like commitment. "Kundera's Quartet" of characters also includes Tomas's photographer wife, Tereza (Juliette Binoche), his painter mistress, Sabina (Lena Olin), and her academic lover, Franz (Derek de Lint). The title of the film refers to Kundera's idea that because we only live once, our lives are insignificant, and our decisions do not matter. Because our decisions do not matter, existence seems to lose its substance or weight, making our being unbearable. Tomas represents this philosophy in the film. He feels that nothing matters, that his life has the lightness of mortality. Conversely, enigmatic Tereza carries with her the weight of the world and is heavily impacted by life. She does not judge Tomas for his infidelities, because she knows that although he sleeps with many women, he loves only her. She is fond of animals, particularly her dog, Karenin, and a pig named Mefisto. Her relationship with Tomas is the center of the film. After meeting her by chance, Tomas gradually begins to understand through his love for Tereza that, because we only live once, everything matters. The inscription on his grave reads, "He wanted the Kingdom of God on Earth." Sabina lives her life in opposition to "kitsch" in any form, whether it is domesticity, unoriginality, mediocrity, or untruth. Her lover, Franz is a Geneva professor who seeks lightness of being through books and academia, which Sabina also considers kitsch. The Unbearable Lightness of Being is a profoundly-moving film, and among my top ten favorite novels of the last 25 years. Day-Lewis, Binoche, and Olin all bring Oscar-worthy performances to the nearly three-hour-long film.
G. Merritt
Rating:  - Now That "Take Off Your Clothes" Isn't So Shocking Anymore, It Seems A More Solid Film
First a word about this version of the film:
I didn't find that the extras in this two-disc offering added up to much more than a marketing ploy, but everyone will have a different opinion there. Fans will rave about this release, detractors will still say it does no justice to a superior novel, and most, like me, will fall somewhere in between. What did amaze me was how much better this movie looked on DVD than on the old VHS full-screen copy I have. In widescreen there's much more to see, and the scenery is a big part of this film, particularly during the tense moments between Tereza and the Soviet soldiers when life and death hung in the balance over possession of a camera.
As for the actual movie:
For those who don't know, this is the motion picture version of Czech writer Milan Kundera's novel about a libertine doctor, his wife, mistress, and their lives in Prague before, during, and after the Soviet crackdown of 1968. This is film that has its fair share of sex and nudity but it is one that never quite becomes as erotic as it is supposed to be or wishes it was. The Unbearable Lightness of Being is noteworthy because of fine performances by Daniel Day Lewis, Lena Olin, and Juliette Binoche, but to me and others who came of age after the Cold War, it seems a period piece rather than the revelation it probably was a generation back. It's no masterpiece, but it is a good film.
Rating:  - Lacking
The movie was fine to watch but it was so different from the book. I told my father all about the book so he decided to rent the movie from the library and watch it with me. Big mistake. In the film the sex scenes came off as standard sex scenes. In the book there is a strong focus on the involved parties thoughts and motivations. Void of philosophy and psychology.
Rating: - Is This A Movie?
I didn't too sure about this. It was on special movie channel so I gave it a listen. All that happened were people in not many clothes (was the movie at the Beach??) looking sad most times. Also there was a hat. While I watched all I kept thinking was about other things like drinking water that were more exciting. I notice near the ending that the man in the movie was the angry man from the gangrene movie - I almost lost him because he was so different! In the other movie he was mean; here he was just bored or looked like he was looking at something very far aways. He didn't talk much but was a doctor so I guess he is smart. There is a car crash in the snow near the end, but I don't think that was a learning part. The movie is like watching the home films from vacations when you are at boring cousin house, or shows on the public channels. Drink water for more fun - or watch with pillows!!! One sleepy star this time! (wait: there are pretty girls in here, so be careful watching!)
Rating: - Difficult Task, but Still a Great Movie
I've always felt it is a mistake to compare a film adaptation to its literary counterpart. The Unbearable Lightness of Being, as a novel, is hugely significant and wonderful. As a film, it is not necessarily true to the book and that is solely because as a film it is not capable of being true to the book. I would compare making a movie out of Milan Kundera's novel to making a video game out of the Godfather or Pulp Fiction. If that was done we run into issues like forgetting to include the priorities of game play, or simply cashing in on the success of the film. With the Unbearable Lightness of Being, there are inevitably going to be lovers of the book waiting to attack the film, and that has happened. Of course it prioritizes itself efficiently as a cinematic experience, while at the same time it makes for about as good an adaptation of the novel as you can possibly get. It wasn't a filmable story to begin with and even Kundera came forward and said that, but he also consulted the writers of the screenplay. So comparisons between the film and novel are in my opinion pointless but also inescapable. I've already made them myself.
I'm not going to summarize the whole film for you as that would probably be too long-winded and could potentially spoil the story. I'll introduce the characters, place them in a setting and then say go...and then you can add this to your shopping cart, proceed to check out, and then a few days later press play. The film takes place in Prague in 1968 just after Alexander Dubcek lead the Prague Spring advancement. Soon after that the characters suffer through further reform following the eventual invasion of the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact. The film opens with two characters who are lighthearted and carefree lovers. Tomas is a surgeon and womanizer who lives life as though sex and love are two very different things. Sabina is an artist who, in the eyes of Tomas, embodies sex. Tomas soon meets the more heavyhearted Thereza, a waitress and aspiring photographer, who embodies innocence. They are opposites but soon Thereza will also embody love in the eyes of Tomas.
The characters in The Unbearable Lightness of Being evolve wonderfully in a significant and chaotic backdrop, but they never steer from their passions. It is layered as not only a romance, but also as a story about rebellion, and as an erotic dance; but ultimately it is an existential story. A few of these points are strengths only realized if the book is read first. Not that I'd definitely recommend doing that if you haven't already, as the book does stand higher in it's own medium than the film does and you may be setting yourself up for disappointment. Some of the deeper messages are unquestionably somewhat muted in the film.
Again though, judged solely as a cinematic narrative, Director Phillip Kauffman makes The Unbearable Lightness of Being a beautiful movie and delves deeply enough into these characters and their world that he manages to capture some of Kundera's vision, while adding his own motion picture flare. I'm conflicted as to whether this movie should be celebrated as a triumph in terms of Kundera's novel, but I'm not conflicted in the least as to whether or not this is a great movie all by itself.
|
|