Flirt (1995)

Hal Hartley appears to be an acquired taste... I have only seen 3 of his films so far (this, the flat-out brilliant Trust, and the okay Henry Fool) but he's clearly one of the most underappreciated American directors working today. I think the delivery of his dialogue is what kills it for most people. It's very deliberate and generally not filled with an overkill of emotion. I find this approach allows me to listen to what the characters are actually saying (as opposed to just how they're saying it). That Hartley's one of the few screenwriters with something to actually say really seals the deal.

I don't want to suggest Flirt lacks emotion though. It manages to pack in more complex emotions that most more histrionic films. In one scene, a man threatens another with a gun, reconciles with him, embraces him, has a change of heart, and shoots him. A woman who witnesses this, hearing some music that begins to play, begins to dance, caught in the moment, slips to the ground, and gets up regaining her sense of reality. This sounds absurdist, and it plays that way in the film. Still, it manages to convey a great deal of human emotions in about a minute without a false note. Hartley is a master at achieving a desired effect.

Flirt is somewhat experimental in that it replays the same narrative with nearly the same dialogue in three different countries with three different casts. This never felt boring to me, as the intention of some of the lines and the overall outcome of the situation changes each time. What's interesting is that the plot of the episodes is that the character has 90 minutes to make up their mind about whether their relationship has a future. Not coincidentally, the film is 90 minutes long. Clearly Hartley is commenting on the use of art (screenwriting, film direction) to solve personal demons. One feels he is using this film to explore a personal dilemma for himself, a point that is driven home when Hartley himself shows up in the third episode as the possibly spurned lover.

It's interesting that such an apparent act of directorial vanity never feels like hubris. Hartley manages to make an extremely personal film that actually has something universal to say. He manages to be stylistically bold without being gaudy or excessive. He manages to make the same plot interesting three times. He manages to create a masterpiece in "Flirt".

FLIRT is not your typical romantic movie of the 90's (when it was filmed). But that's what makes it so great. If you are tired of the "boy meets girl, boy falls for girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back" scenario, then you'll like FLIRT. If not, go rent SHE'S ALL THAT with pretty boy Freddie Prinze, Jr. And spare me the details, please.

I would also suggest that when viewing this film, you not concentrate on the fact that many of the lines are repeated from one setting to the next (and there are a startling number of lines repeated). But rather look for the more subtle differences and similarities.

If you are a person who views things with greater depth than "black and white", I think you will enjoy this movie.

Buy Flirt (1995) Now

Hal Hartley is way ahead of his time. This is not his best film, but it's definitely worth watching. I first saw an excerpt in a sociology/religion class which hooked me: advice on love and commitment in a bathroom. This film takes chances, and some of them aren't that entertaining, but overall it's not as bad as elsewhere reviewed on this site.

Read Best Reviews of Flirt (1995) Here

Repeative. Heard mixed reviews and decided to give it a chance. Liked the different variations on the theme in difference cultures. Felt likie a Woody Allen work but not sure if it was worth the time spent in the end. Worth a viewing to form your own opinion.

Want Flirt (1995) Discount?

I find it amusing that people have been lured to watch this film by indy queen Parker Posey. As all Hal Hartley films tend to be, dialogue and narrative is negated and transformed by repetition and by intentional "non-acting". I mean, do people really think all the actors are acting this poorly? By having the actors not act, the ideas cannot be discolored by subjective interpretation. The film strips away traditional storytelling by repeating it in three forms. The narrative disappears in repeating it. In the three vignettes, nuances in each and differences between them are what is of primary interest. The actors are tools for Hartley's obsession with love, desire, and identity. This film is a poem. It is difficult to evaluate Hartley's films without considering the entire body of work. It may not be Hartley's most successful effort, but it is an interesting experiment nonetheless.

Save 17% Off