Duras' impressionistic meditation on French colonial ennui, depression and homesickness in the midst of opulence, petty gossip, and the threat of disease and death is remarkably astute. It is so well-realized, in fact, that the film itself is weighted with a sense of listlessness that is likely to extend to its audience. I can well imagine how unbearable it would be to watch for somebody with no particular interest in the European experience of colonialism. But, considering the subject matter, I don't think Duras could have honestly made a more engaging film. It really is a drag--so much so that at a certain point it becomes humorous. The absurdity of it all. For all the lush interiors, picturesque fading manors, languorous slow dances and sparkling finery, Duras deserves credit for her relatively unromantic (if indulgent and solipsistic) depiction of colonial life.
If you ever suffer from insomnia, I recommend this movie. The director's intent was to portray boredom with life, and overwhelmingly succeeded. Unfortunately, this makes it torturous to watch, but hey, you can't have everything.
I watched this years ago but disliked it so much that I was compelled to come here and write this comment. The fact that I'm still thinking about it is not an endorsement. I detest this film.
Take those first 15 minutes of Hiroshima Mon Amour, with the disembodied voices speaking in a poetic dialog, stretch it to two hours, and you've got India Song. Like, I get that Marguerite Duras is purposefully created a languid portrait of colonial indolence and apathy, with pretty people posing and dancing, as if in breathing paintings, inside large opulent houses on stolen land while terrible squalor is happening out of doors (though isn't the colonial critique hampered by these people being diplomats?). Just... did it have to be so boring? In particular, it feels like a crime against nature to have such an impeccable actress as Delphine Seyrig and give her so little to play. "Timeless" voices chatter on about what's happening, as if we're ghosts at some unseen cocktail party, and it takes 40 minutes for an actual onscreen actor to speak (and only in voice-over anyway), and a good hour before we hear Seyrig's voice. This is like being TOLD a film, and therefore feels like anti-cinema. I appreciate the experiment and that content fits the theme, but found it all very tedious and pretentious beyond measure.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 8 of 8
the3rdman
Duras' impressionistic meditation on French colonial ennui, depression and homesickness in the midst of opulence, petty gossip, and the threat of disease and death is remarkably astute. It is so well-realized, in fact, that the film itself is weighted with a sense of listlessness that is likely to extend to its audience. I can well imagine how unbearable it would be to watch for somebody with no particular interest in the European experience of colonialism. But, considering the subject matter, I don't think Duras could have honestly made a more engaging film. It really is a drag--so much so that at a certain point it becomes humorous. The absurdity of it all. For all the lush interiors, picturesque fading manors, languorous slow dances and sparkling finery, Duras deserves credit for her relatively unromantic (if indulgent and solipsistic) depiction of colonial life.Public Enemy
That lady sure does like to sit and not move for extended periods of time.Ray Anselmo
If you ever suffer from insomnia, I recommend this movie. The director's intent was to portray boredom with life, and overwhelmingly succeeded. Unfortunately, this makes it torturous to watch, but hey, you can't have everything.monty
I'd rather watch paint dry.ucuruju
I watched this years ago but disliked it so much that I was compelled to come here and write this comment. The fact that I'm still thinking about it is not an endorsement. I detest this film.Siskoid
Take those first 15 minutes of Hiroshima Mon Amour, with the disembodied voices speaking in a poetic dialog, stretch it to two hours, and you've got India Song. Like, I get that Marguerite Duras is purposefully created a languid portrait of colonial indolence and apathy, with pretty people posing and dancing, as if in breathing paintings, inside large opulent houses on stolen land while terrible squalor is happening out of doors (though isn't the colonial critique hampered by these people being diplomats?). Just... did it have to be so boring? In particular, it feels like a crime against nature to have such an impeccable actress as Delphine Seyrig and give her so little to play. "Timeless" voices chatter on about what's happening, as if we're ghosts at some unseen cocktail party, and it takes 40 minutes for an actual onscreen actor to speak (and only in voice-over anyway), and a good hour before we hear Seyrig's voice. This is like being TOLD a film, and therefore feels like anti-cinema. I appreciate the experiment and that content fits the theme, but found it all very tedious and pretentious beyond measure.jlfitz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41g1MlO3nisin 11 parts.
Thorkell
http://www.youtube.com/user/8punctuated8?feature=watch