Straddling the line between remaining true to Douglas Kennedy’s original novel and venturing off into director Pawel Pawlikowski’s languid style of filmmaking, THE WOMAN IN THE FIFTH is an enigmatic and fluidly paced film that is both a peculiar, character-driven drama and an elusively curious psychological thriller that features a wealth of fine, unshowy performances.
Ethan Hawke plays Tom Ricks; a troubled American writer who has travelled to Paris to, he claims, look after his daughter while his estranged wife (Delphine Chuillot) works. After breaking his court-appointed exclusion order, misplacing his luggage and being continuously denied access to his daughter Chloé, Tom finds himself penniless and alone, staying in a squalid hotel but unable to pay the rent. Hired by the shady landlord to lock himself away for six hours at night, watching a CCTV monitor and mysteriously letting strangers in to the room next door, Tom finds himself a prisoner of his own imagination, searching for material for the follow up to his moderately successful novel. Coinciding with his night job, he begins an affair with the mystifying and alluring Margit (Kristin Scott Thomas), a sensual, bilingual woman who puts his unsteady, turbulent emotions temporarily at rest. But who is she, and what is her secret?
Pawlikowski slowly begins to toy with expectation, offering distractions to a story that rarely does what it apparently sets out to do
After building up a series of plot strings and characters, presenting a seemingly straightforward narrative trajectory, Pawlikowski slowly begins to toy with expectation, offering distractions to a story that rarely does what it apparently sets out to. Mixing an unclear relationship between reality and fantasy, elements themselves that are never made particularly clear, the film knowingly goes off on tangent; exploring Tom’s fragmented and tangible relationships with those around him, setting the audience up for a dénouement that toys with everything that has come before it. Working again with cinematographer Ryszard Lenczewski, who imbued his previous film MY SUMMER OF LOVE with a vibrant luminosity, Pawlikowski films Paris with a muted, airy and often beguiling sensibility. Focusing predominantly on the French capital’s rarely captured seedy underside, it sustains a haunting sense of tension made palpable by the various obscurities within the story.
Although at times frustrating, THE WOMAN IN THE FIFTH is at its strongest when it becomes entangled with Tom’s increasingly disintegrated mental state, focusing predominantly on what he and the audience perceive as the truth. Mirroring his inability to focus on his writing abilities, Pawlikowski’s film teases the audience with a variety of directions that either build to unfortunately easy conclusions or ultimately lead nowhere, delivering a finale that is both swift and hypnotic, mixing intrigue with whiffs of perplexity.
I have seen this film. I can neither undo having done so, nor would I want to.
My question is simply this: if I hadn’t seen it, what is my relation to this review, in terms of trying to determine whether I want to?
The first statement (in bold), from which I infer that Ed Frost has read the novel that ‘has been turned into’ a film, seems clear enough (although I am thrown by the use of so many adjectives and other qualifications).
However, the review, as it unfolds, does not tell me whether EH or KST deliver good performances, only about how Paris has been photographed – and which bits of it (although that observation is not unequivocally true, as we see little of where EH, as Tom, is staying except to establish where it is at the bus-stop terminus, and mainly inside (though there are views of not seedy trees or trains)). (The cinematographer may be the same as however many years ago the director’s previous film was, but he, at any rate, has made other films.)
As to the narrative trajectory being ever ‘straightforward’, I simply do not think that it was: there were puzzles throughout for the viewer, puzzles of the kind that indicated that they might never have any more than a subjective answer.
Maybe a review shouldn’t reveal too much, but I really wouldn’t know, from some of the phrases used in this one, what on earth it is shying away from referring to openly. And that’s not a reflection of the film: as with Haneke’s Code Unknown, to which I believe there are nods, it is very much what one makes of it.
To be honest, I wasn’t left in much doubt by the first paragraph: “features a wealth of fine, unshowy performances.”
Now, I must confess at this stage I haven’t seen TWITF – but after this it seems Ed has told viewers not to expect the obvious or a crystal-clear narrative: “After building up a series of plot strings and characters, presenting a seemingly straightforward narrative trajectory, Pawlikowski slowly begins to toy with expectation, offering distractions to a story that rarely does what it apparently sets out to.” Emphasis on ‘seemingly’ there.
To me, it indicates the film is confusing, but unpredictable and interesting, and the leads carry themselves well. If you’re the sort who can cope or embraces slightly confusing narratives, you will enjoy it. Otherwise, you could find yourself a little frustrated by it.
As you say yourself, “it is very much what one makes of it.” On a slightly more defensive point, it’s worth bearing in mind we try to keep the reviewers to a word count, this is probably under 450 words. Your own review (which is good by the way, I enjoyed it after I followed the link in your name) is probably closer to 700.
Having read Ed’s review I personally wanted to see it more, as I knew nothing of it beforehand but tend to enjoy the sort of film he has described here.
Good to get a bit of discussion going on it though, shame I missed the film.
Thanks, Jim!
I seem to have missed getting to the end of that first long sentence in bold, then – people challenge me because of my often titanically distended syntax, which one friend likens to the prose-style of Thomas Mann (but I see its origins in that of writers as diverse as Kafka and Chaucer), and that one is worthy of me.
Perversely, but in line with much of the population (who can be proved not to have understand an e-mail in the context of its subject-line), I do skim ‘the things at the top’, not least because (in a newspaper, at least) they tend not to contain the thoughts of the person who wrote the feature or review, but some edtorial gloss on it. I must apologize to Edward to having missed what he says at the end of that sentence (athough, to be fair to me, it does not tie itself down to an actor, and there are almost half-a-dozen, all or any of whom it could relate to), but, as I say, it is not one that, like my own, necessarily invites one ‘ to stay with it’.
Your other points are well made, and thanks for reading my own review and commenting on it.
As to TAKE ONE’s survival of the Festival in this form, I made a posting on my blog, when I stumbled across that fact here – I say ‘stumbled’, because I had not picked up by any other means (and I am a Picturehouse Member) that this was happening, although I deliberately say that in such a way to admit that it may have been in some other piece of text that I didn’t read properly. The posting is here, so, if you want to add a comment, that would be interesting as you will see, it is called Somehow I blinked…:
http://unofficialcambridgefilmfestival.blogspot.com/2012/02/somehow-i-blinked.html
Thanks again for taking the time to respond
Ap.
Dear Apsley
Many thanks for your comments, and also for the support I see we have had from you ever since our incunabular first issue. We have since grown like Topsy, with little ceremony, although we are now doing our best to drum up interest. I do hope you’ll continue to follow us here, as well as on Twitter and Facebook, and your friendly feedback will always be appreciated.
Best
Rosy
I shall certanly try, Rosy, to keep taking a look at these pages:
However, if you did delve into my blog too deeply, you would find that I mock something called Arsebook, and tweeting seems something that – although I have tried – goes nowhere beyond the four walls of my Twitter account (and I am also told that the Twitter line that I have incorporated into the footer of my postings is inoperative).
I hope to be able to read something about the Wrest Park experience (as I know the property and grounds quite well), for which I went to book a ticket too late and found the screening of The Shining sold out. Good for Movies at the Mansion, but not for The Agent…
Ciao
Ap.