Between Strangers (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Between Strangers is a Canadian movie which premiered at the Toronto International Film festival in 2002. 

 

Here is some basic information about it:

 

** Produced by Gabriella Martinelli

** Written and directed by Edoardo Ponti

** Musical score composed by Zbigniew Preisner

** Released on DVD in 2007

** Run time: 95 minutes

 

The cast includes the following:

 

** Sophia Loren as Olivia

** Deborah Kara Unger as Catherine

** Mira Sorvino as Natalia

** Pete Postlethwaite (1946-2011) as John – Olivia’s husband

** Malcolm McDowell as Alan – Catherine’s father

** Klaus Maria Brandauer as Alexander – Natalia’s father

** Gerard Depardieu as Max – a gardener

** Wendy Crewson as Amanda Trent – an artist, a sculptor

 

Edoardo Ponti (born 1973) - writer and director - is the son of Sophia Loren and Carlo Ponti (1912-2007). 

 

Between Strangers is his first feature film. It is also the first time he and his mother worked together on a movie.

 

The cast is multinational:

 

** Sophia Loren is from Italy, while Pete Postlethwaite and Malcolm McDowell are from the UK.

** Klaus Maria Brandauer is from Germany, while Gerard Depardieu is from France.

** Mira Sorvino is from the US, while Deborah Kara Unger and Wendy Crewson are from Canada.

 

I do not wish to spoil the viewing for anyone. This is why I am not going to say much about what happens in this movie, but I have to mention a few details in order to justify my rating.

 

I will explain how the story begins and present the general structure of the movie. This is all.

 

There are three story-lines here, one for each of the three women: Olivia, Catherine, and Natalia. The time and the place? We are in Toronto, Canada, in 2001.

 

** Olivia, who works in a supermarket, is married to John, a former athlete, a runner, who is now confined to a wheelchair. As a young girl, Olivia dreamed of becoming an artist, but her husband does not care much for art. He is more interested in poker games. When he sees some of her sketches, he is not impressed. He seems to think it is a waste of time.

 

** Catherine, who is a famous cellist, has left her husband and her daughter in order to be in Toronto, where her father is due to be released from prison. He has served 22 years for killing her mother. Catherine is waiting for him outside the prison when he is released. She carries a loaded gun, because she plans to revenge the death of her mother. It is not going to be a happy reunion.

 

** Natalia is a news photographer, who has just returned from an assignment in Angola. One of her photos is on the cover of Time magazine. Her father, a famous news photographer, is proud of her for this accomplishment. While happy to see that her father is proud of her, Natalia is wondering if she did the right thing when she was in Angola.

 

Here is more information about the three women:

 

(1) Olivia has a secret, which will be revealed

(2) Catherine makes some discoveries about her father, which are unexpected

(3) Natalia receives a gift, which she feels is undeserved

 

The three women Olivia, Catherine and Natalia do not know each other, but they have one thing in common: they are going through an emotional crisis. They are at a turning point - a pivotal moment - in their lives: they are struggling with two problems, both of which are connected with the past:

 

The first problem

A sense of loss (Olivia); a feeling that something is missing (Catherine); and a feeling that something went wrong (Natalia).

 

The second problem

A dominating and controlling father figure.

 

The three women must face the past – whatever it is, and whatever it was - and they must come to terms with it. 

 

If they can do this, they may be able to move forward with their lives, to change the future and to turn it into something that is better than the past.

 

Can they do this? I am not going to tell you. If you want to know the answer to this question, you will have to watch the movie all the way to the end.

 

As you can see, this movie is a psychological drama which has a complicated structure. This is not a movie for everyone. What do reviewers say about it? 

 

Here are the ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb:

 

** Rotten Tomatoes = 25 percent (the critics)

** Rotten Tomatoes = 46 percent (the audience)

** IMDb = 60 percent

 

This is not much for a movie whose cast includes Sophia Loren, one of the most famous actresses in the world.

 

Canadian film critic Ralph McGinnis calls it “a hopeless film” and gives it one of five stars (20 percent). He agrees with the low ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

This movie is filmed in Toronto and McGinnis says that for once the location is actually named as Toronto. 

 

In many US movies, Toronto has to stand in for New York or Chicago, because it is cheaper to shoot a film in Canada than in the US.

 

In one scene, some sculptures are on display in front of the Royal Ontario Museum, known as ROM.

 

While we do not see much of the building, there are some banners inscribed with the letters ROM. But, as McGinnis points out, the building that is supposed to be the ROM is in fact the R. C. Harris filtration and water treatment plant, which is far from the city centre!

 

The real museum, which is located in the city centre, next to the university, is not shown. 

 

In other words: even when Toronto is supposed to be itself, it is still not allowed to be itself. 

 

Why does the director show us a filtration and water treatment plant? Why does he not show us the real museum?

 

As a contrast to the poor ratings, I will mention two positive reviews, both of which are available online. The first one is written by Christopher Null, who says:

 

“The direction is solid and the acting is universally good but rather one-note. There's a lot of crying and tearing of hair, all designed to get you to do the same.”

 

He offers 3.5 of 5 stars, which corresponds to a rating of 70 per cent.

 

The second review is written by Sam North, who refers to the famous Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski (1941-1996) and his famous trilogy about the three colours of the French flag: Blue (1993), White (1994), and Red (1994).

 

Why does he do this? Because Edoardo Ponti is a keen student of Kieslowski and because he has tried to follow in his footsteps.

 

Is there any basis for this claim? Yes, there is. As Sam North points out, the musical score to this movie is composed by the Polish composer Zbigniew Preisner, who is best known for his work with Kieslowski.

 

In other words: there is a clear line from Kieslowski to Preisner to Ponti.

 

Sam North ends his review with the following words:

 

“Between Strangers is a sensitive, captivating little movie that deserves a wider audience. Seek it out.”

 

As you can see, there are some positive reviews of this movie, but they are few and far between. The general trend is low: one, two or maybe three stars. Not more than that.

 

I understand the low ratings and I agree with them. There are several reasons to give this movie a low rating.

 

Let me explain:

 

# 1. The three women are in Toronto, but they do not know each other. This is why we may well ask: what are these three women doing in the same movie? Perhaps the answer is that the director wants to make a feature film, which has to run for 90 minutes.

 

The story of one woman will give him 30 minutes; the story of two women will give him 60 minutes, while the story of three women will give him 90 minutes, which is exactly what he needs.

 

Perhaps Edoardo Ponti is trying to follow in the footsteps of Kieslowski, who made three movies about the three colours of the French flag: blue, white, and red. Perhaps this is why he has chosen to make a movie about three women in Toronto.

 

If this is the case, it seems obvious that the three women should represent three different generations: one who is around 20; one who is around 40, and one who is around 60. But this is not what we have here.

 

The director chose two women, who are in their thirties, and one woman who is much older than the other two.

 

His choice of actors who play the two young women is most unfortunate. Deborah Kara Unger and Mira Sorvino look almost alike: they have almost the same age – the former was born in 1966, and the latter in 1967 - and both have long blonde hair.

 

If I were the director of this movie, I would make sure that the first woman had long hair, while the second woman had short hair, or make sure that the first one was a blonde, while the second one was a brunette.

 

Why did Edoardo Ponti pick two women who look so much alike to play these two roles?

 

# 2. The story about Natalia includes a scene which is superfluous and a scene which contains a factual mistake. Natalia wants to study the photos she took in Angola, so she goes to her editor’s office and says: 

 

“Can I have my contact prints?” 

 

He tells her that they are not in the office. He has them at home.

 

Later that day Natalia shows up at his house and again she says: 

 

“Can I have my contact prints?’ 

 

He says he will not give them to her now. First, she must go with him to a bar in town and celebrate with some of their colleagues. Natalia does not want to celebrate, so now she screams at him: 

 

“Give me my contact prints!” 

 

Only then does he change his mind. 

Only then does he hand them over to her.

 

This scene is completely superfluous. It raises many questions: Why is there only one set of the contact prints? Natalia took these photos. Why did she not make a set for herself before handing them to her editor?

 

Why are the prints not in the office? 

Why are they at the editor’s home? 

Why does he refuse to give them to her? 

Why does he say she must go with him to a bar to celebrate, when it clear that she does not want to do that?

 

As far as I can see, there is only one reason why this scene is in the film: the director wants to make it longer.

 

In the following scene, Natalia is at home. She is studying the contact prints using a light-box. But this does not make any sense.

 

A light-box is used for negatives which are transparent. Contact prints are positive and printed on paper. Having a light-box to study contact prints is completely irrelevant.

 

A real photographer would never do something like this. The director has made a factual mistake.

 

The prints are rather small, ca. 3 x 4 cm, so Natalia uses a magnifying glass to look at them. Why did she not make a large print of all her photos? If she had done this, it would be easy to see the details.

 

While in Angola, Natalia used a camera with film. But the story is set in 2001. The digital camera has been invented. If she had used a digital camera, she would have had all her photos in her camera.

 

She could have connected her camera with her computer and she could have looked at them on the computer screen. No need to talk to the editor, and no need to use a light-box.

 

# 3. The story about Olivia and her husband Pete includes several scenes which are unrealistic. Pete is a traditional man. He wants his wife to serve breakfast in the morning and dinner in the evening. In one scene, when she comes home a bit late, he says:

 

“Do you realise what time it is?”

 

He talks to her as if she is a child. In another scene, he reaches for his coffee cup on the table, but then he realizes that there is no cup. He is shocked. At once, he rolls his wheelchair into the next room and says to her: 

 

“You forgot my coffee!”

 

Scenes like these would be realistic if this movie was set in the 1950s. But this is not the case. We are in Toronto in 2001. Not many Canadian men would be able to treat their wives in this way and talk to their wives in this way – and get away with it.

 

Pete is old-fashioned. He lives in the past. Why does Olivia put up with him, day after day? Why did the director write a script that is so out of touch with the modern world?

 

# 4. The ending is not successful. Without revealing what happens and where the characters are, I will just say that the ending is not a good conclusion to the three story-lines that we have been following in this movie. To me, it is not convincing; to me, it is not plausible.

 

# 5. The title of the movie is odd. I understand the last word, but I do not understand the first word. The title could be Three Strangers or Three Women in Toronto. 

 

Perhaps these suggestions are not very catchy, but at least they are accurate.

 

I am sure Edoardo Ponti had some good intentions with this movie and some good ideas. But good intentions do not guarantee a good result; nor do good ideas.

 

When we are talking about a movie – or any other work of art – the only thing that really matters is the result, and in this case, it is simply not good enough.

 

What is my conclusion?

 

I feel a rating of one star is too harsh. On the other hand, I feel a rating of three stars is too generous. I want to land in the middle, between the two extremes.

 

This is why I think this movie deserves a rating of two stars (40 percent).

 

PS # 1. Olivia’s sketches are made by Phil Richards.

 

PS # 2. Amanda’s sculptures are designed and created by Boris Kudlicka, Jan Kudlicka and Gordon Becker.

 

*****