Customer Reviews

Amateur [VHS]

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was channel-surfing when I landed on IFC showing a "comedy-drama" called Amateur. It was nearly an hour in, and there was this scene of these two geeky accountant types arguing about the merits of various cell-phones while using the wires from a floorlamp to electrocute a Christopher Lloyd look-alike. High-concept, but decidedly "B", I thought. But as the movie progressed, I began to notice the deliberation that led to the quirky stagger of the film. The style itself was saying things that the action couldn't begin to convey. This was high art! And it was funny in an intentionally-unintentional way.
The plot, about an ex-nun who now writes bad pornography, a porn queen with a grudge, and an ex-pornongrapher with amnesia, each searching for their identity, is interesting, but it doesn't begin to tell of the impressive stylishness of this movie. Amateur sucks you in like Beckett mixed with "letters to Penthouse", and leaves you satisfied on both accounts. If this sounds good to you, you should check it out. It shows on IFC quite frequently. Oh also, this movie turned me into a freak for Elina Lowensohn.

Like all Hal Hartley films (I've seen Flirt and Henry Fool, but neither are as good as Amateur), this is a decidedly odd and mannered movie. The first time I saw it, the far-fetched plot and stilted characterizations are a bit unnerving. This is an ambitious project--Hartley explores the fall of man (an event which literally precedes the film) and original sin in the context of an off-kilter Manhattan thriller. There are some hilariously delivered deadpan one-liners (Martin Donovan: "You're a nyphmomanic and you've never had sex? How could that be?" Isabelle Huppert: "I'm choosy.") But the heart of the movie revolves around the title, and how, try as we might, we cannot escape who we are--Hartley seems to suggest that humanity's flaws are indelible, and despite the guises we might adopt, we are only novices. Amateur ranks low on entertainment value (see Air Force One instead), but a great thinking person's film: brainy, sly, somber, and at times (especially the ending), heartbreaking. Hartley's beguiling screenplay unravels its original insights upon repeated viewings, and it makes the effort worthwhile.

A chance encounter in a coffee shop between two people, both of whom are seeking their own identities (one literally, one figuratively), leads to a relationship seemingly beneficial to both, but for different reasons, in "Amateur," written and directed by Hal Hartley. A man (Martin Donovan) wakes up one morning lying on his back in a quiet, out-of-the-way street in New York City; all he knows is that he's bleeding from the back of his head and is suffering from total amnesia. He has no identification on him; he has no idea who he is or how he came to be on that street. Dazed, he stumbles into a small coffee shop and sits down at the counter. He tries to order something, but the only money he has is Dutch, and he has no idea why. A young woman, also sitting at the counter and working on a lap-top computer, observes his plight and notices the blood on the back of his neck.

Her name is Isabelle (Isabelle Huppert); asking for some water, she cleans his injury and buys him something to eat. Isabelle, it turns out, is a former nun, having only recently left the convent after fifteen years. Rather lost herself, she is attempting to make a living by writing pornographic stories for a magazine. A self-professed nymphomaniac (though she is still a virgin), she also feels that she has a specific purpose in life, a destiny she has yet to fulfill, though she has yet to figure out what it is. But she believes that meeting this man is a sign; perhaps he's a part of whatever it is she has to do. So she decides to help him, which just may lead her to the answers she is seeking about her own life, as well.

As with all of Hartley's films, this one has a somewhat mesmerizing effect, which he exacts with a unique style of presenting his story that has to do with the look and feel of the film, the deliberate pace he establishes, and most especially the manner in which his actors deliver their lines. His performers speak with a rather stoic, matter-of-fact, understated rhythm that is engrossing in itself, very similar to the kind of cadence David Mamet employs in his films. But Hartley's method is even more pronounced, so that when one of his characters does have an emotional outburst, the underplaying that surrounds it significantly underscores the impact of it all.

Few directors have such a unique style that so vividly identifies their work; Mamet is one, Ingmar Bergman another (the three of them being part of a very select group). And though this particular film is not, perhaps, one of Hartley's best, it is still pure Hartley, with aspects that are certainly engaging and memorable, beginning with his main character, Isabelle. Talk about an off-the-wall character! And yet, within the context of the story, she comes across as quite real and believable, which says something about Huppert's ability as an actress, as well as Hartley's expertise as a director.

Huppert gives a very credible performance here, convincingly conveying that sense of confusion Isabelle obviously harbors deep within about her own life and where she's headed. She makes you realize that beyond anything else that's happening, this is essentially a person searching for a place to fit in, which is why she makes such a connection with this stranger, this man who really has no idea of who he is or where he belongs. And Huppert certainly makes Isabelle someone with whom it is easy to empathize.

Donovan, a veteran of many of Hartley's films, is very effective here also, with a very pensive, understated performance that clearly indicates an honest sense of this man's bewilderment, as does the very real caution with which he approaches his situation as he attempts to reorient himself and get on with his life. And Hartley develops the relationship between Isabelle and this man in real time-- there's no instant love affair here, as happens so often in cinematic renderings of similar situations-- which gives a ring of authenticity to the story, bizarre as it may get.

The supporting cast includes Elina Lowensohn (Sofia), Damian Young (Edward), Chuck Montgomery (Jan), Dave Simonds (Kurt) and Pamela Stewart (Officer Melville). No one can capture a sense of disenfranchisement any better than Hartley, as the characters in "Amateur" so aptly illustrate; these are people perpetually on the outside looking in, and yet there's something about them with which you will be able to relate, as well as sympathize . And that's part of Hartley's magic; making you realize, that in the end we're not so different from one another, after all.

this is one of the best movies you'll find! hal hartley is one of america's most underrated filmmakers, right up there with p.t. anderson. for the uninitiated, hals' films stretch desire to its' very breaking point...see this and you'll be scouring your local video stores for everything that you can by the guy.

if only hollywood had more people like him making movies instead of all of the junk that tries to see how many different ways one can blow things up!

Restraint wrings our emotion. Jumping up and down can express joy, but a perfect ballet segment will convey ecstasy so complete the dance pratically creates it. Subtlety often can explode emotions larger than realism.

Hal Hartley understands this. The characters in his film do not talk like real people. Their speech is subdued, flat, and usually bluntly honest. Their small words carry mountains of meaning.

Most mystery films focus on the identity of the bad guy. This film instead chooses to explore the bad guy's identity. The film opens with him laying unconscious on a cobblestone street. He awakes but has no idea who he is. With this premise, the audience always knows who the bad guy is. He is in almost every frame of the feature. The rest of the film sets about discovering who the bad guy is.

I'm avoiding the film's plot. Telling too much about this film steals many of its pleasures, although I have enjoyed it each of the ten times I have seen it. Most scenes are arranged as artfully as a painting, the actors understand and enlarge Hartley's vision, and the music, ranging from Liz Phair to Pavement, is excellent.

This film may well be the best the ninties have to offer. Hartley's own Simple Men is one of the only other real contenders.

This is my favorite Hal Hartley film, several of the scenes do not fail to bring a tear to my eye or give me a feeling of frisson and I saw it for the first time in 1995. I think that should say it all.

Purist Hartley fans seem to believe that Trust is the quintessential Hartley, and while I agree that the film is great, Amateur has a much more complicated plot and explores more complicated issues.

The film is all about ontology. What is the nature of being? Can one change? What is memory? Is there an essential nature to existence or is existence mutable depending on experience?

Don't think, however, this is some weird indie/foreign flick heavy on the meaning. Hartley manages to pose all of the above questions within a film that is quirky and funny and deadpan and sad and wonderful all at the same time.

Yes, I know this man.

Here's the trademark Hartley quirkiness that fuses bullets with uncertainty, a fried-brain accountant and two sexy women, semi-stagey dialogue and neatly dressed corporate hit men. Here's Parker Posey in a small role, Michael Imperioli (of The Sopranos) in a smaller one, and Martin Donovan as the amnesiac lead male who gets involved with Isabelle Huppert's character, an ex-nun who's turned to writing porno fiction--unfortunately, bad enough to make her publisher reject her work.

And here's Elina Lowensohn as well as a porno actress who wants out of her tawdry (though well-paying) life, whose sad eyes and possible death wish clash with her overly sensuous demeanor. How can all these disparate elements, you ask, ever possibly blend into a whole?

An excellent question. In Hartley's film, they do and they don't. Nobody really knows anything for sure; everyone here is an amateur at life, trying to figure out what to do next--or not knowing how to do anything next. Thomas (Martin Donovan's character) can't remember his name or what he did in the past. Isabelle (Huppert's character) knows intuitively she's linked to Sofia (Elina Lowensohn's role) but she doesn't know how. The accountant, Edward (Damian Young) seems self-assured until he has his brains fried and then he's completely unpredictable.

There's shooting and torture and a little love making. There's uncertainty or puzzlement around every corner. We never really know a whole lot, Hartley's saying, and because of that, you could, in fact, meet a porno-loving ex-nun. You could be an accountant whose neat orderly life is scrambled into violent outbursts and uncontrollable behavior. You could wind up becoming a man who doesn't remember his name and makes some effort to find out what it is, but not enough to discover it.

So is this a coherent film? Hartley is interested more in character than coherence. Structure is not as important as how people actually impact each other, how they impinge on each other's lives. It is, he says, this random colliding of personalities that determines what will happen; people are so complex and so full of possibilities that things just...happen as a result of them being brought together.

Once the viewer accepts this perspective, everything falls into place. Or randomly shifts into place--falling here, rising there, making a jagged turn when you least expect it.

This is less satisfying than Hartley's masterpiece Henry Fool, but it is nevertheless a very intriguing film and definitely worth seeing.

I was first turned on to Hal Hartley's films after viewing Amateur in a film class in college. Afterwards I watched all of his other films, which I enjoyed as well. Unfortunately, none of them are as good as Amateur. It is Hartley's most insightful and thought-provoking film. It made me laugh in a way that most films don't. I kept thinking about the film several days after my initial viewing, which definitely signifies the mark of a great film. Amateur has everything a movie needs. It has a smart screenplay, comedy, tragedy, and is beautifully shot. If you haven't seen it, rent it. You won't be disappointed!

I cannot think of a better director/screenwriter & actor combination than Hartley & Donovan (respectively). As with his other films, Hartley showcases an offbeat, yet deadpan, approach to dialogue and physical expression. Combine this with the odd story and tangental sideshows, and what you'll end up with is one delightfully strange film. Hartley also shows a gift for finding talented - yet largely unknown - actors (at least to the general American audience at large). Martin Donovan (the amnesiac) has collaborated with Hartley in the past (most successfully, I feel, in *Trust*), and theirs is a team that works well. Donovan's presence, combined with an expression that requires little movement to shift from irritation to affection to confusion, makes him perfect for the largely deadpan stylings of Hartley's writing and direction. Isabelle Huppert, the esteemed French actress, makes her American screen debut in this film. A superb performer, she contributes to the near-minimalist character tonalities by displaying the largest range of emotions without breaking the carefully set mood of the film. Elina Lowensohn and the rest of the cast also give strong performances. Another notable shift in this film from previous Hartley productions is the improvement in music. While a wonderfully comedic film, *Amateur* is definitely not a film for the masses. The humor and storyline are both odd enough to leave most anyone thinking, "Huh?" for at least part of the film, but such questions and queries are generally answered five minutes later. Certainly one that rates second and third viewings, *Amateur* is delightful movie.

Typically, Hartley's films are not for everyone (some might argue they're not for anyone). Still, if you've got the patience, you familiarize yourself with the style of writing, pacing and acting, you'll be rewarded. Or you could just be like me and instantly devour everything Hartley writes, shoots and films with an insatiable appetite. Whatever works for you.

This film, albeit about a ex-nun-cum-pornographer, may possess the most mainstream "feel" of any Hartley film I can think of. A first rate cast has been assembled and, without giving away anything, the story has a genuine feel of propelling itself forward in "pseudo-Hollywood" style. But it ain't Hollywood.

Living screen legend Isabelle Huppert stars as Isabelle, the fallen nun writing porno stories to pay for her humble existence while waiting reluctantly (and half awake) for some sort of sign of divine inspiration. Along for the ride is a young Euro porn star, a man suffering from amnesia who wakes up all bloodied up in an alley, a young corporate pirate on the run from the Russian mob for some missing computer discs, a young punk hip chickster played by Parker Posey with everything coming to life and death proportions in a convent in the country. You have to see for yourself.

If this sounds up your alley, you will be rewarded with a surprisingly moving film that will have you scratching your head throughout. Beautifully acted, shot with Hal at the helm.

Not quite on the level of Hartley's "Henry Fool" - but few films are.

p.