Review: Paris (2009)

by Evan A. Salazar

The worst thing that can be said about Paris is that it's uneven. Not uneven in all regards, but uneven where it counts. You see, Paris is a film of vignettes, all loosely tied together. In movies with no central story or main character, each story we're presented has to be strong, and it has to stay strong throughout the film. We, as an audience, have to be invested in each current story but also we must anticipate the progression of the other stories, thus keeping us interested in the movie throughout. Stories can't falter and become boring for a scene, and certainly the story itself can't be boring to begin with. It's only it's story telling that Paris trips on itself - not horribly, mind you - and we're left with moments thinking, "couldn't this time be used with another character?"

There are a plethora of stories throughout Paris (some even as fleeting as a scene, or at least it appeared to me),  but in it's core are three main stories: There is Pierre and his sister Elise, who moves into his apartment after it is discovered he is sick and needs a heart transplant; Roland, an esteemed and respected Paris historian and university professor, falls in love with a beautiful student of his played by Melanie Laurent (I only point her out because, goddamn, she is so beautiful); and then there is the story of the four market workers, two of which who are in love with the same woman, although one had her and let her get away and the other only just now discovering his love for her. Theses main stories are also populated with other smaller stories, all of which sometimes very loosely and other times very concretely intertwine with each other. Some of the connections are pleasant. Some made me roll my eyes.

The problem I found is that a majority of the stories just laid dormant. They certainly progressed, enough for a story to be there, but the why and how and philosophy behind the stories are not as loud as they should be. At times, the stories present very interesting ideas and musings, like when Pierre ponders about death and it's finality, but it quickly moves along, never letting the ideas develop or breathe. Some stories just seem pointless besides forcing emotions on you in complete knee jerk sort of way, such as the brief and completely underdeveloped story of Benoit, a man from Cameroom who goes to Paris because his brother sent him a postcard, and there's a model there who likes him... or something? That's the problem with these secondary stories: they all seem very artificial and rushed, a second-thought of screenwriter and director Cedric Klapisch. He wants to make a huge sweeping portrait of the city he loves (but repeatedly lambastes in the film, for some reason) using so many characters, when the main stories were good enough to begin with and didn't need the added eye-wink of, "See! It's all connected!"

The main three stories are quite entertaining for most of their run, even if all that keeps you interested are the performances. Juliette Binoche is lovely as Elise, a very confident and charismatic mother of three. She's a great actress to watch, especially when speaking in her native language where she just floats and charms like no other. Fabrice Luchini is hilarious and heartbreaking as Roland, a man so anxiety ridden and rigid that on his visit to a psychoanalyst he does the job for him by over-analyzing himself out loud before the psychoanalyst can get more than a few words in. His story is particularly interesting, and in my opinion the standout one of the film. At moments it's funny and lighthearted, sad and somber, and then full of joy, and lastly, thoughtful.

The dullest are the four men at the market. I didn't find myself caring until the end of their story (but only because of the story it directly connects with), but I obviously won't give away anything too spoiler-y. But during this story's scenes, I wondered if Klapisch felt that this story was compelling at all. Obviously he must have, but in comparison to the other ones, this one just came off as far too soap opera-y and boring. I just didn't really care.

The film, outside of its story telling shortcomings, is quite nice. The photography is magnificent: the buildings are towering and romantic and the cinematography sweeps around and about them in a dazzling fashion. It's shot with grace and fluidity, and certainly gets you wrapped up in the city the movie takes it's name from. The closing sequence is an excellent example of a coalescing of the cinematography and the script at it's best: it's beautiful and celebratory and heartbreaking and filled with life. If the movie was up to par with the ending, I would have enjoyed myself thoroughly.

Paris, at the end of the day, is pleasant and inoffensive if not a bit misguided and tough to get going in the right direction. I wasn't compelled 100% of the way through, but what did grab me grabbed me with much interest. If it were a bit tighter and less meandering, I believe this movie could have been exceptional. But I suppose it will have to do as is.