>I have to agree with Dennis here that at least Red was a
>masterpiece---because I've only seen Red and not the other two. It was
>an amazingly subtle, nuanced and complex movie. One thing I liked was
>that you could not actually explain it, since it had no plot, or
>rather had a very thin plot. It might have appeared mediocre because
>it took a long time to figure out what was going on in it and how to
>enjoy its turns. It exists almost completely in the visual realm which
>is oddly rare in movies.
Red of the French Tricolor signifies fraternity, but the movie _Red_ represents the absence of fraternity among atomized human beings (for instance, emblematized by personalized weather reports sold by the girlfriend of the law student) & longings for a possibility of fraternity. It's a mystical tale of _fateful chance encounters_.
That's what I object to -- _fateful chance encounters_.
On the theme of chance & necessity, I recommend Robert Bresson's _L'Argent_ (1983) instead. An _incomparably_ greater film, visually & politically!
>And of course, Yoshie, why do you
>think Red was mediocre? Mediocre as a movie or mediocre as a project
>to revitalize euro-cinema as a commercially successful art?
Mediocre as a movie, a trite take on a tired sentiment, unredeemed by lush visuals (for which the photographer & the set decorator, not the director, should be credited). It would have been quite interesting if a post-socialist Polish director had made a sharper political statement on the integration & expansion of the European market (in which the French Tricolor -- Liberty, Equality, & Fraternity -- fades out & the American Red, White, & Blue fades in). That would have been a fitting artistic farewell to "national cinemas" & greeting to "European cinema." Alas, it was not to be....
Yoshie