I'd be lying if I said I weren't enchanted with the film in some measure even before ten minutes had passed. I've seen no few other pictures that came off with a vivid sense of theatricality, as though the filmmaker was porting to the cinematic medium some sensibilities that viewers would best recognize from the stage. Sally Potter goes further here, being especially plainspoken in the feature's influences - not least, of course, as the dialogue is mostly written in iambic pentameter. What a lovely turn! Like it or not, one has to admire the extra flowery, poetic flourishes in this regard, and the imagination poured into it. There's that, and also the delightfully classical choice of having a secondary supporting characters, the maid of "She" and her husband (Shirley Henderson, in a fabulous casting decision), approach and speak directly to the camera and the audience to observe and comment on the plot as it progresses. Even Potter's scene writing and direction readily seem geared toward that end as shots and scenes discretely center only one or at most two people, even when other figures are present, and still more so when dialogue is involved. The narrative, too, seems handmade for the stage, recalling the works of various playwrights, as it revolves around troubled marriages, love affairs, and the (re)surfacing of the past, personal problems, and interpersonal divisions and latent prejudices. In no small part it rather feels like Potter wrote and directed 'Yes' as if it were a stage play and not a film, and never more so than when the character and domestic drama is emphasized. I deeply admire that unconventional approach in and of itself, and makes for a rather bewitching viewing experience. I'm not saying that this is perfect, but it's hard not to get swept up in its fancifulness, and its strengths pretty well compensate for any flaws.
I'm of the opinion that the greatest faults here are simply those ways in which the picture's craft or storytelling are further embellished. Some of Aleksey Rodionov's cinematography reflects needless garnishes, with atypical angles and the like that just seem ill at odds with the tone that 'Yes' otherwise adopts. The same is true of Daniel Goddard's editing, especially where it chops up and slows down the image - presumably for dramatic effect, yet instead of amplifying the impact of a sequence, it only distracts. Voiceovers are employed semi-regularly to present characters' thoughts, an abbreviated echo of the monologue or soliloquy in theater; they are used here too often, however, becoming overbearing, and more so in multiple instances of overlapping vocal tracks. And possibly even more injurious than anything else, there are elements of the screenplay that come off as extraneous. The more the storytelling steps away from the core of She, He, and the central domestic drama, the less steady, interesting, and worthwhile it becomes. Her visit to Her aunt could have been significantly reduced without losing anything, as it almost feels like a total sidestep; scenes or dialogue revolving around Her job don't add anything; in general the writing could have been tightened, with some bits left on the cutting room floor, and the end result would have only benefited. It seems like the movie is ever on the verge of trying to Say Something, broach Big Ideas, and achieve profundity, not least when Henderson's character commentates, yet it never actually gets there. Its reach, toward broader notions, exceeds its grasp, the primary tale. Or let me put it this way: in no few regards there are times when 'Yes' feels like a romanticized conception of a "romantic drama," but without the utmost concrete definition and substance to be romanticized. Imagine, if you will, painting on a canvas, then removing the canvas such that the paint just hangs in the air.
None of this is to discount the ingenuity of the film, or the hard work that went into it. Even if I disagree with some choices that were made in the technical construction, I appreciate the effort. I very much like the cast, and I think everyone gives strong performances of range, personality, and nuance - Joan Allen, Simon Abkarian, Sam Neill, Stephanie Leonidas, and yes, even Henderson in her unconventional role. The production design, art direction, and filming locations are swell, and even if I weren't already familiar with Potter to some extent, I think her direction here is solid. While imperfect, more so than not I think the filmmaker's writing really is terrific, most specifically in the novelties adapted from the stage - and recognizing that Potter also seems to have composed her own film score, I can only remark that the themes are wonderfully entrancing, and possibly the most consistent facet of all. By and large I do like 'Yes.' I also wonder if there's not something I'm altogether missing, as my divided opinion is especially critical of the content within the somewhat whimsical structure; wherever the feature tries to go above and beyond the story of He and She, to me it comes up short. Maybe this will find more favor among those who theater nerds more than cinephiles; maybe I'm just not properly attuned to Potter's exact wavelength in this case. In any event, I do think this is worth checking out, with the caveat that, for different reasons, I understand why this met with mixed reception upon its release. As if to accentuate the point, at the same time that I want to like the movie more than I do, I also question if I'm being too kind in my assessment. By all means, please do give 'Yes' a look if it in any way sounds appealing; just keep in mind that in one way or another, it may not be completely satisfying.
I'm of the opinion that the greatest faults here are simply those ways in which the picture's craft or storytelling are further embellished. Some of Aleksey Rodionov's cinematography reflects needless garnishes, with atypical angles and the like that just seem ill at odds with the tone that 'Yes' otherwise adopts. The same is true of Daniel Goddard's editing, especially where it chops up and slows down the image - presumably for dramatic effect, yet instead of amplifying the impact of a sequence, it only distracts. Voiceovers are employed semi-regularly to present characters' thoughts, an abbreviated echo of the monologue or soliloquy in theater; they are used here too often, however, becoming overbearing, and more so in multiple instances of overlapping vocal tracks. And possibly even more injurious than anything else, there are elements of the screenplay that come off as extraneous. The more the storytelling steps away from the core of She, He, and the central domestic drama, the less steady, interesting, and worthwhile it becomes. Her visit to Her aunt could have been significantly reduced without losing anything, as it almost feels like a total sidestep; scenes or dialogue revolving around Her job don't add anything; in general the writing could have been tightened, with some bits left on the cutting room floor, and the end result would have only benefited. It seems like the movie is ever on the verge of trying to Say Something, broach Big Ideas, and achieve profundity, not least when Henderson's character commentates, yet it never actually gets there. Its reach, toward broader notions, exceeds its grasp, the primary tale. Or let me put it this way: in no few regards there are times when 'Yes' feels like a romanticized conception of a "romantic drama," but without the utmost concrete definition and substance to be romanticized. Imagine, if you will, painting on a canvas, then removing the canvas such that the paint just hangs in the air.
None of this is to discount the ingenuity of the film, or the hard work that went into it. Even if I disagree with some choices that were made in the technical construction, I appreciate the effort. I very much like the cast, and I think everyone gives strong performances of range, personality, and nuance - Joan Allen, Simon Abkarian, Sam Neill, Stephanie Leonidas, and yes, even Henderson in her unconventional role. The production design, art direction, and filming locations are swell, and even if I weren't already familiar with Potter to some extent, I think her direction here is solid. While imperfect, more so than not I think the filmmaker's writing really is terrific, most specifically in the novelties adapted from the stage - and recognizing that Potter also seems to have composed her own film score, I can only remark that the themes are wonderfully entrancing, and possibly the most consistent facet of all. By and large I do like 'Yes.' I also wonder if there's not something I'm altogether missing, as my divided opinion is especially critical of the content within the somewhat whimsical structure; wherever the feature tries to go above and beyond the story of He and She, to me it comes up short. Maybe this will find more favor among those who theater nerds more than cinephiles; maybe I'm just not properly attuned to Potter's exact wavelength in this case. In any event, I do think this is worth checking out, with the caveat that, for different reasons, I understand why this met with mixed reception upon its release. As if to accentuate the point, at the same time that I want to like the movie more than I do, I also question if I'm being too kind in my assessment. By all means, please do give 'Yes' a look if it in any way sounds appealing; just keep in mind that in one way or another, it may not be completely satisfying.