A Review by Phil Calabro
2005, Sony Picture Classics, Dir. Sally Potter – Starring Joan Allen, Simon Abkarian, Sam Neill, Shirley Henderson, Sheila Hancock, Samantha Bond, Stephanie Leonidas, Gary Lewis, Wil Johnson, Raymond Waring, Barbara Oxley, Kev Orkian, George Yiasoumi, Beryl Scott
There is the gross misconception that independent filmmakers solely create intellectual fluff for the egghead audiences that like to visit the French Riviera and drink wine while discussing the state of American society today. This, of course, is an ignorant generalization placed upon this artistic genre, and is constantly proved incorrect. Then there are people like Sally Potter, who invigorates that argument again. 'Yes' had potential, and probably had something really important to say, it's just that it was said only in a way that Sally Potter could understand. If you dig through all the makeup and rhythm that consumes this film's measures, there's nothing left to hear. I can't describe how infuriating it was to sit through this movie. 'Yes' is a lot of things, but to name a few: it's pretentious, boring, and unnecessarily political – probably one of the most alienating independent movies I've seen recently.
Our story is about a female scientist, vaingloriously known only as 'She' (Allen), who is in a rough marriage with politician Anthony (Neill), a cocky and bland womanizer who has been cheating on She recently. (Potter also doesn't recognize how stupid it is to refer to someone known as 'She' in a written review) She meets *gasp* 'He' (Abkarian), a Lebanese cook who was once a surgeon until bad times sent him into Europe. She, an Irishwoman who lived in America most her life, takes He into open arms, falling madly in love with him – He wants to make She the happiest she's ever been, but he's afraid he cannot do this. Soon, hate crimes that surround him make him believe that Americans have corrupted the world (yes, I know, this is confusing you, but it's the truth), and so he breaks all contact with her. In the meantime, Anthony is having an affair with She's best friend, She's best friend's daughter thinks she's fat, She goes to Cuba because her dead aunt wants her to, and more – all in marvelous stereophonic iambic pentameter!
Joan Allen plays a stressed middle-aged woman in the midst of a divorce and longing a new relationship for the second time this year ('The Upside of Anger') and this is not looking good. Her skills have withered, along with her characterization. Allen looks tired, uninterested, and unmotivated to keep up with the movie's flaunting rhyme – which, if I haven't explained to you yet, the movie's dialogue is written entirely in iambic pentameter, for a poetic flow. Potter thinks it's a change that will help the movie's success, but it only convolutes the plots and ruins the experience. I wasn't asking to see another one of those trashy Shakespearean verbatim movies. Simon Abkarian looks like a Middle Eastern Gene Shalit, but lacks his respective charisma. I was stunned when I heard that the love scenes between Allen and Abkarian were some of the best in years, because it lacked pure eroticism, human tenderness, or personal dialogue that is essential in these measures – I could've cared less. Sam Neill, one of my all-time favorite actors, disappoints with a dry and unexplainable politician character.
I can't begin to say how upset this movie made me – it seemed like a somewhat promising romance, but ended up shoving political shame and minimalistic relationship BS down my throat by the gallon. This is basically one enormous tirade on the part of director Potter – an Englishwoman who decided to take everything that she found interesting and paste it all together through choppy editing. I swear, if I have to see another one of those terrible 'Cuban tango dancers filmed in slow-motion through a cheap DV camera' scenes again, I'm going to flip my lid. Potter's angry about the American government, she inadvertently puts it into the plot to argue – totally unnecessary, and is bound to anger audiences who don't expect it. And the rhyme? Why is it necessary? How does it advance the story? None of this is answered, and it doesn't have to be. I hated this movie – I hated hated hated it.
I can't recommend this movie to anyone, regardless of whether or not you'll give it a shot. Even through the middle of the free screening, four people walked out within the first 30 minutes. It's a drudgingly dull, snobbish exposure of intellectual trash. It'll be much easier to just say 'no' than to go and spend 9 dollars to see 'Yes'. And no, I'm not exaggerating.
