Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Liam Neeson, Olivia Wilde in Paul Haggis' Maddening, Self-Important 'Third Person'

Reviews
by Caryn James
June 20, 2014 8:48 AM
2 Comments
  • |

Unanswered questions linger after "Third Person" ends, but not the kind Paul Haggis has said he intends his ambiguous film to provoke. What I really want to know is: Does he take us for idiots, or does he actually believe that this pretentious, simplistic film has any substance? Is he cynical or deluded? Either way, the result is the same: an overwrought, vapid three-strand story, set in New York, Rome and Paris. Each thread involves a man, a woman and a shadowy third element of the triangle (a spouse, a child) hovering over the relationship. Each story turns out to be more banal than the last. I was hoping  that since Haggis famously left Scientology he might have jettisoned its self-righteous tone too. But his m.o. here is the same as it was in "Crash" and his screenplay for "Million Dollar Baby": pretentious tone, zero depth.   

The film's emptiness is especially maddening because the strongest and admittedly most biographical plot is so visceral and intriguing. Liam Neeson is Michael, a Pulitzer Prize winning winning novelist, and Olivia Wilde is his lover, Anna, a talented journalist who joins him in his Paris hotel. Their relationship is sexy, teasing, fraught, painful as they pretend to push each other away and then tumble together. The actors are dynamic, their playfulness refreshingly different from the rest of the film. When Michael outsmarts her, Anna ends up running naked through the halls; Wilde's giggle says everything about Anna's taste for danger. With a dark secret lurking at its center, this is the story that kept me with Haggis for a good long time.  

That tension doesn't last, of course, because we're constantly cutting away to other stories. As Julia, Mila Kunis is surprisingly convincing in a role that makes no sense. For reasons it takes forever to discover, Julia has one last chance to get visitation rights to see her son, which means battling her furious ex, a painter played by James Franco. We're meant to see her as a loving mother, which makes her ditziness improbable -- why does she miss so many appointments about the custody? She turns down a front-desk job at the Mercer Hotel, where she was once a regular guest, choosing to work there as a maid because, she says, "Maids are invisible -- at least they were to me. " She's dead broke, and might have asked whether the front-desk gig paid better, but then we wouldn't have gotten Haggis's sanctimonious line.   


The most ludicrous of the stories focuses on Adrien Brody as Scott, an American in Rome who buys stolen fashion designs to make knock-offs. In a bar, he meets an attractive, apparently homeless Roma woman, Monika (Moran Atias), who needs money to pay thugs who have smuggled her daughter into the country. (Both characters are doing black-market deals; we get it.) Anyone would suspect her sob story is a con, which makes Scott's actions thoroughly implausible, even after we learn about the guilty act that may have motivated him to help her. .     

 Haggis's smooth direction keeps the film moving fluidly, which helps gloss over the screenplay's clumsiness. That's another Haggis trademark, which explains why "Crash" could have won the Best Picture Oscar and also be so derided. But as the strands begin to converge, every turn that is meant to be revelatory  -- the other lover who keeps calling Anna, the phone message from his daughter that Scott plays over and over -- seems obvious or forced.

The voice Michael hears in his head at the start, saying "Watch me," echoes through Scott's story, as their plots all-too neatly come to mirror each other. The contrivance makes each character's secret less personal, less believable, less trenchant. And if the interlocking stories are meant to suggest that that their problems are universal, or even that the various characters may be part of the same person, those are sophomoric places to land after all this.

The story begins to unmoor itself from geography. A note dropped in Paris can be picked up in New York -- or is it vice versa? But if location doesn't matter, why set the film in three glamorous cities, except to make it all look pretty? (Cinematographer Gian Filippo Corticelli does that much.)

The film's open-endedness and occasional flights from reality aren't the problem; a smart audience has no problem with artistic ambiguity. Haggis' indulgent self-importance and facile ideas are the real issues, because they thwart any genuine emotional drama. The final 15 minutes are so insultingly flimsy that they undermine the entire film.

Near the end, Michael, having coasted on his reputation and his Pulitzer for many previous books, hands over some pages his editor finds to be brutally honest, raw and stunning. If only "Third Person"  had been that, instead of this pretentious cloud of nothing.   

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

2 Comments

  • Bill (or Dave) | June 21, 2014 2:33 PMReply

    Look, hate on Haggis all you want, but everybody who is somebody knows the Biggest Oscar Blunder of all History and Time was "Dances With Wolves" over "Goodfellas."

  • Dennis | June 20, 2014 11:04 PMReply

    It's still hugely embarrassing that perhaps the all-time-great example of Important Social Issue Cinema for Dummies, Haggis' "Crash," won the Best Picture Oscar. Especially over "Brokeback Mountain," which even if you're turned off by the gay theme is obviously a much more subtle and less simplistic drama about recognizably real people--not caricatures devised simply to illustrate the most obvious moralistic conflicts imaginable.

Follow Caryn James

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Swinton and Hiddleston in Jarmusch's ...