Today on Blogcritics
Home » Film » DVD Review: Separation

DVD Review: Separation

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Sometimes when we watch movies we learn things about ourselves. A movie about Adolph Hitler might make us think, “Gee, I’m not so bad after all,” while one about Mother Teresa might provoke, “Gee, I’m not that great after all.” Watching Separation brought me to several realizations. The first is that I am not the art house type (and I hereby vow to stop reviewing movies made for that audience), and the second is that I don’t like art cinema (or “art movies” or “art house films”). The more important realization is why I don’t like arty movies. I really don’t like to dance around a subject; if you have something to say, say it and be done with it. I don’t mind imagery and metaphor if they are incorporated into a direct, comprehensible statement. Art cinema does not always make direct, comprehensible statements. So it is with Separation.

Attracted to the film because it is described as “the inner turmoil of a woman’s breakdown both marital and mental” and containing “often humorous dialogue,” I thought it might be my biography, circa 30 years ago. I enjoyed Separation as much as I would enjoy reliving the drama of that tumultuous period of my life. That is to say, not much.

Separation was filmed in 1967 (actually that’s also when all my troubles began!) mostly in black and white, or—shall I say?—monochromatic. There are a few brief nude scenes that were filmed in color. They do not have the same impact as The Wizard of Oz switching color when Dorothy arrives in Oz. It is choppily edited on purpose, as if this is what goes on in your mind when you go bonkers. Perhaps it is. Or perhaps watching Separation makes you feel that way.

Surprisingly, the costumes and hairstyles do not seem as dated as one would expect in a 40-year-old film. Most of the female characters are either attractive or interesting to behold. The men? Not so much. Jane Arden stars as the woman breaking down. We can’t differentiate between what she is experiencing and what is truly happening; in that way  Separation is effective. Not being able to distinguish the real from the unreal is certainly the sign of some kind of breakdown.

The director uses dialogue in way that it is either deep or silly, depending on one’s point of view. Two actors may deliver a couple of lines and they are repeated several times, indicating more the central character’s disordered thinking than a diagnosis of echolalia or redundancy.

Directors who use black and white photography to achieve certain looks or feelings do so with various results. Jack Bond might have chosen to go monochromatic to emphasize the edginess of Jane Arden’s character. The result is a film that looks pretty much like any other 1960s British import. There is a stab at psychodelia — dreamlike as it is, it doesn’t add much to what we are seeing, and nothing to our understanding. Other ethereal scenes are better realized and are interesting components of a story we can’t quite grasp.

When viewed in the historical context of the era in which it was made,  Separation reflects some of the attitudes of that time period.

Separation will be released on March 30; special features include interviews and commentary. If potential viewers are looking for a film that deals, both seriously and humorously, with a person who may be having a “breakdown,” they should look elsewhere. If a sample of experimental filmmaking is the objective, Separation will fit the bill.

Bottom Line: Would I buy/rent Separation? No. There wasn’t enough Procul Harum music.

Powered by

About Miss Bob Etier