Not all films need to be message driven, but I think any director or writer makes a film because they have something to say. In that sense, I'm not sure what 'Passages' wanted to say.
There was an ample potential to make an interesting social cut in the age of more fluid sexuality. "don't pigeon-hall yourself", "follow your heart"", you could be anything and love anybody"... and so on all sound great, but how it actually works in reality, and how it could clash with the traditional idea of a committed relationship, gender roles, and responsibility of a parenthood. There still are remnants of such questions and reflections in 'Passages'. Problem is Tomas is too big a rotten character and consumes all the drama. He's self absorbed (resulting in being selfish even without a malicious intend), cowardly, dishonest with himself and others, emotionally needy yet wants to dominate the situation, and above all manipulative (oh, and his fashion sense is pretty atrocious, but that's just based on my taste). It makes in contrast his male and female partners innocent victims, leaving very little room for a balanced reflection on sexuality/relationship/gender role issues.
Maybe a social commentary was not the director's intention. Maybe a character study was the goal? But surprisingly we don't really get to see the depth of Tomas and even less of Martin and Agathe. Why is Tomas the way he is? What was Tomas's relationship with Martin like before the storm? What did Tomas really see in Agathe and the future with her?
All the sex scenes were fun to watch, but if a character study was the goal maybe the film could have used those minutes more towards... well, to show the character. 'A rotten character ruins the lives of others' is too obvious a conclusion for a character study or even just any old relationship drama.
Passages is an OK drama. Technically sufficient and actings are decent (though I think it failed to utilize all the potential of such interesting actors as Whishaw and Rogowski). But it left me wondering what it really was all for... or is it just me out of my depth?
There was an ample potential to make an interesting social cut in the age of more fluid sexuality. "don't pigeon-hall yourself", "follow your heart"", you could be anything and love anybody"... and so on all sound great, but how it actually works in reality, and how it could clash with the traditional idea of a committed relationship, gender roles, and responsibility of a parenthood. There still are remnants of such questions and reflections in 'Passages'. Problem is Tomas is too big a rotten character and consumes all the drama. He's self absorbed (resulting in being selfish even without a malicious intend), cowardly, dishonest with himself and others, emotionally needy yet wants to dominate the situation, and above all manipulative (oh, and his fashion sense is pretty atrocious, but that's just based on my taste). It makes in contrast his male and female partners innocent victims, leaving very little room for a balanced reflection on sexuality/relationship/gender role issues.
Maybe a social commentary was not the director's intention. Maybe a character study was the goal? But surprisingly we don't really get to see the depth of Tomas and even less of Martin and Agathe. Why is Tomas the way he is? What was Tomas's relationship with Martin like before the storm? What did Tomas really see in Agathe and the future with her?
All the sex scenes were fun to watch, but if a character study was the goal maybe the film could have used those minutes more towards... well, to show the character. 'A rotten character ruins the lives of others' is too obvious a conclusion for a character study or even just any old relationship drama.
Passages is an OK drama. Technically sufficient and actings are decent (though I think it failed to utilize all the potential of such interesting actors as Whishaw and Rogowski). But it left me wondering what it really was all for... or is it just me out of my depth?