Water Drops on Burning Rocks, which I saw in French, subtitled in English, was not an excellent film. The premise, namely that of a curious young adult boy being taken home by an older businessman, eventually leading to them living together as lovers, and fighting heartbreak is an excellent concept for a film. Exploring situations contrary to gender stereotypes, and seeing significant emotions portrayed by characters one would normally expect not to play them makes not only for good cinema but definitely keeps your interest.
There are several old and overused clichés in this picture which are given a new light when set in the nonstandard context this film is. The great pity is that the exceptional context is all that is used to make the clichés remain entertaining.
When a stereotype is broken in reality, no bounds need be imposed on how exactly the breaking of the stereotype occurs. In a fictional work, however, one must take care to make the breaking of the stereotype believable. The fourth scene (of four) in this movie leaves the realm of possibility, and becomes strictly surreal.
Surreality in movies can be portrayed to great effect as reality, but this movie takes the opposite road, and attempts to portray actual reality as surreal. It sadly fails, and the fourth act, instead of being thoughtful and provocative, manages to leave the viewer wondering "what the hell was that for?" In the final scene, of Vera (one of only four characters in the movie) attempting and failing to open a window in Leopold's apartment (where the entire movie is set), makes it blatantly obvious to the viewer that the scene was created to symbolize the whole movie. Don't get me wrong - the scene does symbolize the whole movie, but only because you know the director was attempting to do so with the scene. Just before the credits roll, at what should be the apex of emotion or closure, the viewer is left disappointed, and with the full belief that yes, this was only a movie.
There are several old and overused clichés in this picture which are given a new light when set in the nonstandard context this film is. The great pity is that the exceptional context is all that is used to make the clichés remain entertaining.
When a stereotype is broken in reality, no bounds need be imposed on how exactly the breaking of the stereotype occurs. In a fictional work, however, one must take care to make the breaking of the stereotype believable. The fourth scene (of four) in this movie leaves the realm of possibility, and becomes strictly surreal.
Surreality in movies can be portrayed to great effect as reality, but this movie takes the opposite road, and attempts to portray actual reality as surreal. It sadly fails, and the fourth act, instead of being thoughtful and provocative, manages to leave the viewer wondering "what the hell was that for?" In the final scene, of Vera (one of only four characters in the movie) attempting and failing to open a window in Leopold's apartment (where the entire movie is set), makes it blatantly obvious to the viewer that the scene was created to symbolize the whole movie. Don't get me wrong - the scene does symbolize the whole movie, but only because you know the director was attempting to do so with the scene. Just before the credits roll, at what should be the apex of emotion or closure, the viewer is left disappointed, and with the full belief that yes, this was only a movie.