It is a deal. :)

This is possibly the greatest thing ever.

Ever. A reply won’t even do it justice. I hear by give the two of you an open invitation to post a blog as a guest contributor on any movie, any topic, any time. Just email me your content and I’ll slap some photos on it and away you go.

Open invitation. Senta, you basically did a fullon interview post. This should be it’s own thing! hahaha.

Saoirse: Introductions are in order. I am Senta’s big sister, the one she is always involving in the background of her comments. FYI, I have been trying to teach her brevity in her critiques, to no avail it seems. It is why she has cajoled me into joining her so that she can hopefully avoid writing another “novel.” Firstly, I cannot believe that no one has commented on this critique. My, my, are there no fans of this movie series? Perhaps it is too experimental for most. Linklater recently made a somewhat avant-garde movie called “Boyhood.” It was shot over a period of several years wherein the child stars literally grew up on film. I saw it, and it was fine. Whether it was worth the trouble is debatable. I think time will prove it nothing more than a curiosity. The “Before” series however, is in a league of its own. Experimental from its inception, it runs on a dare – can a movie completely lacking in plot, remain interesting based on conversation alone? My short answer is yes. All you need is two charismatic actors, a corral of fine writers, a scenic location, and a decent cinematographer. Mix together and shake, and you have a really wonderful cocktail of emotional ambiance and cerebral gymnastics. The first movie “Before Sunrise” was a valentine to young love everywhere. I was seventeen when I randomly saw it on the telly at a friend’s house. We had missed the first half of the show, which already left us in the dark as to what was going on. Throw in the adverts every ten minutes, and it was not exactly a top cinema experience. I had to see the whole movie, so I bought the DVD on the way home! I had no regrets. I watched it at least a dozen times in the space of a week.

Senta: I have to interrupt because I remember this. She was ga-ga over this movie. Every time I walked into her room, it was on her computer.

Saoirse: Anyone have a little sister? She is in my room constantly.

Senta: Blah, blah. I have erased her comment about three times now and she keeps putting it back. :D Anyway, she tried to explain it to me because it was an experimental film shot entirely on location, no studios, with a handheld camera, with no plot. It was literally just two people getting to know each other. Watching it with my sister helped me to appreciate it because…nothing happens in this movie except for two people eventually falling in like.

Saoirse: It has only been a few years since I saw the first movie in the series, but I think now that I am older, I feel less that it was made for young people. Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy were probably both hot young actors of their day; and there is no denying the bait they set for their generation, but watching it now, and being closer to the ages of the people in the actual movie, I see it less as a valentine to young people and more of a valentine to an older generation. The script itself crackles with a very mature hand. These two young people are not the young people you see in most movies today, nor were they representative of the youth in 1995. These two are hyper aware, hyper astute and hyper witty, even if at times they appear goofy. That is good scripting. If you look at the movie this way, older people would have been more attracted to this movie than college kids. This movie came out twenty-two years ago. My father was around Ethan/Jesse’s age, and when he saw this movie, he thought both characters were way too mature. He felt no one talks this way except in movies. However fast forward, and he has reversed his stance. Watching the movie again through my eyes, he realizes the movie was never made for the young men of his time; it was made for him now. That is an odd thing for a father to say but it set me to thinking. If Linklater always knew his series would go on from that first movie, then he always knew these people were going to grow old on screen, and with each passing movie, the nostalgia would only grow; but nostalgia for whom? He was thirty-five when he scripted and filmed “Before Sunrise.” He was already well past the age of his lead male character. He was not writing this for college kids; he was writing it for himself. And although the movie is well-made, beautifully scripted and shot, it was never really for kids my age at uni. My sister loves the scripting but does not always get the nuance that rifts this whole movie…but she probably will ten, fifteen years from now. And so will I.

Senta: …Wow. That was…deep. :) So what you are saying is that I will not truly understand this movie until I am older? Slam! I get this movie. It is about falling in love, meeting that special someone and how tricky that can be.

Saoirse: Oi, you missed my whole point, child. Listen. Closely. Sure you will get the movie’s point, you are a smart girl. But you will not feel it until you are older. This movie was nostalgic from the moment it was made, and you are too young to feel nostalgia.

Senta: …Smarty-pants. :p So…maybe you are right. I will ask da this question.

Saoirse: Already did, already answered. You have to understand the series as a whole. Once Linklater made “Before Sunset,” he changed the whole feeling of the first. It imbeds itself into you differently. They are much older in the second film. Ethan Hawke looks absolutely gaunt. I swear it looked like he had cancer or something. Thankfully, he filled back out in “Before Midnight.” The third film to me is the weakest, but again, father said, it is because of my age. How can I understand Part Three at my age? This is a series people his age will get, not young people. I can see his point but I still did not care for the third installment as much. The ending was too pat. They resolved a harrowing argument which takes up the last third of the movie with little more than hurried scripting, supplying nothing more than a band-aid to stop a hemorrhage.

Senta: I did not like that one at all for just that reason. The argument took waaaaay too long, and what was the whole thing with Delphy sitting around naked from the waist up. It was very uncomfortable.

Saoirse: I read somewhere that Linklater was trying to show husbands and wives as they are, that being half naked is no longer a shy thing, but also what it showed was their closeness. They are having an argument that carries a lot of weight. This is a serious make or break moment, where the marriage seems to teeter on an edge, yet Julie’s character is not covering up.

Senta: Ooh-la-la, perhaps it means that she really does love him. They are being quite harsh with each other and there is a point where you think the marriage is over but she never covers up because despite what is being said, she remains naked and vulnerable. She trusts him not to hurt her.

Saoirse: Maybe. I think you might be reading more into this than what is being shown, but it is a fair point. You could very well be right. I am sure her nudity is something about vulnerability. It is still a messed up scene. I liked how the movie started with the scenic vistas, the general ambient mood set by the people, the dinner and the conversation. The last act however…I will have to wait fifteen years until I am married with kids. Da is right, we really cannot grasp the depth of what this series is conveying at our age. We can understand the simple dynamics but whether it will make sense to us, or move us deeply, really is based on life experience. Our parents rarely fight, but if they do, da is such a charismatic peacemaker, he makes it impossible for maman’s Gallic temper to hold out. That Irish charm, you know.

Senta: Yeah, he is good at that. :) You cannot stay mad at him for long. He knows how to make you laugh at your own petulance. So unfair, especially when you want to stay mad at him. Is that a female thing? I liked the first movie the best, the second movie the second and the third, barely at all, but I will concede my age plays against me. I cannot feel grownup problems. You are right. I can only understand them cinematically, but I will not be able to appreciate it with my heart. Although da said he did not like the third movie either! :D He said the same thing we said, that it started out good, but the last part of the movie got too real and too uncomfortable. Do you think that was actually deliberate scripting, to make us uncomfortable and uncertain of the outcome? It is an earth-shattering argument after all.

Saoirse: At this point, I am scared to say. If that was Linklater’s point, then he succeeded too well. Just because a director meant to do something does not make it a good move. It will be interesting to see what the next installment brings. Closing thoughts?

Senta: …Ask me in fifteen years. :)

Saoirse: I will.