As someone who (heresy alert!) has always had reservations about Hiroshima Mon Amour and Last Year at Marienbad, I was blindsided by Alain Resnais’s extremely hard-to-see Je T’Aime, Je T’Aime (1968), which screens at the Siskel this weekend. The movie reworks the same themes of lost love and fragmented memory as the other two films, but in a more prosaic style that only increases its power. A failed suicide (Claude Rich) is recruited to test a time-travel device; he’s set to go back one year, but he becomes, as Kurt Vonnegut would dub it in 1969, unstuck. Unlike Resnais’s flashier earlier films, it simply cuts from one scene to the next, utilizing the film medium’s inherent capacity for time travel to make its point. The chronology is shuffled; the movie sometimes jumps back half a beat or repeats footage, but every moment gets equal weight. (Not to cite another film school text, but I was reminded of Stan Brakhage’s “Window Water Baby Moving.”)

It’s been suggested that Je T’Aime, Je T’Aime provided a blueprint for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a connection almost impossible not to draw while watching it. In its structural freefall, it also holds the DNA for Shane Carruth’s Primer (a.k.a. the should-have-been cult film of the last decade), and the biomorphic time machine resembles the game pods of David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ. Indeed, this may be one of the most influential films you’ve never seen. Simultaneously a love story and a mystery, Je T’Aime, Je T’Aime is nearly impossible to parse on one viewing. You’ll have two chances: Tomorrow at 3pm and Monday at 6pm.

Our local rep tells me that Fox won’t have a print of Avatar ready until after the Chicago Film Critics Association’s voting deadline. This is consistent with what Indiewire’s Anne Thompson reported nine days ago, which is that no one anywhere will see the film before December 10. By holiday-movie standards, that’s actually a pretty ominous sign: If it turns out to be true, it means the movie won’t be in contention for the National Board of Review’s awards, the Golden Globes (see calendar) and many critics’ best lists. Obviously, this is no ordinary film, and it’s easy to believe that James Cameron will be futzing with his putatively revolutionary technology until someone drags him away from his keyboard. But it’s harder to believe that Fox won’t shove a rough version at awards groups, as New Line did in 2005 with The New World. (New Line actually released the first cut for a New York/L.A. run in December before rolling out a shorter version in January, which meant that only the early one was eligible for the Oscars.) It’s true that the reaction to the Avatar footage shown in August was, as this video makes clear, not super-duper positive. But on two occasions Cameron has made hits out of what were, in their respective times, the most expensive movies ever made, Terminator 2 and Titanic. He’s also been underestimated before—remember, advance buzz suggested that Titanic would be a disaster. I’m still guardedly optimistic.

To: Joshua Rothkopf

From: Hank Sartin

Josh,

You were certainly right yesterday about one thing: the real auteurs—or at least the real source of energy—in Twilight Saga: New Moon are the audience members. It’s rare that a studio logo gets an anticipatory gasp and keening sigh, but so it was last night when the Summit logo came up on the screen. And they certainly added some needed zing when things started to drag a bit in the middle, which for me was at the fiftieth email from Bella to vamp Alice, a device that surely works better on the page than on the screen. The audience’s pleased but slightly self-aware laugh at how often and easily the film gets Taylor Lautner out of his shirt made me feel like I wasn’t wrong to find it a little comical.

Nope, I haven’t read New Moon. Made it through Twilight, thought in a vague way that I ought to read the second book before the film came out, and never did anything about it. And last night I didn’t feel too bad. I imagine the book does a better job of explaining how exactly Jacob is so in thrall to Sam and his pack of werewolves-without-a-cause. And maybe the book makes more sense of the fact that after months of his daughter waking up screaming from horrible nightmares, Bella’s dad doesn’t insist on the services of a good psychotherapist. Most parents would wonder if she’d been raped based on the deep psychosis she seems to enter. But I’m with you when it comes to reading source material: when you can, fair enough, but in general, if appreciating the film demands it, there’s something wrong.

For me, the film feels a bit monotonous. Bella is depressed. Edward is gone. Bella hangs out with Jacob and is marginally less depressed, which does make one wonder at Jacob’s nakedly randy obsession with her (refreshing as it is compared to Edward’s “I daren’t touch you” cool flame of a love). For me, the energy jump in the film finally comes when Michael Sheen starts swanning around just acting the pants off all these monster-wannabe whippersnappers. The scenes with the Volturi are amusingly purple.

But overall, I’ll counter your ’sequels are often better’ thesis with a counter: when the film is part of a planned trilogy or tetralogy, the second film is doing a lot of bridgework, but doesn’t get you to the farther shore. Think of how frustrated we were at the end of The Empire Strikes Back (back when that was its full title) to find so many plot threads left hanging. I felt that way about New Moon. Werewolves introduced. Check. Love triangle established. Check. Threat from Volturi made clear. Check. But so much is left up in the air in that last scene. I’m sure that’s okay with the fan base, who know damn well what comes next, but for the casual filmgoer, it’s like walking into the middle of a film and then walking out again before the plot resolves. Mostly what we get is the mopey middle.

Hank

To: Hank Sartin

From: Joshua Rothkopf

And now the screaming starts. My crowd was totally, completely owned by this movie. Serious shrieks. (I added one myself, in a quiet moment, just for fun.) This biggest ones came at that first slo-mo shot of Pattinson and also Taylor’s initial T-shirt shedding scene—and, of course, right at the dream-come-true line of dialogue right before the cliffhanger blackout. (No spoilers here!)

Not to sound like an I-toldja-so, but this movie was way better than the first one. Come on. The cinematography is greatly improved, especially that near-poetic rotation around the mopey Bella as the seasons changed. Kristen Stewart was given a lot more to do, and amply carried some difficult dramatic tensions. (I also loved her offhanded way with teen speak, especially this: “Jake’s…kind of a werewolf.”)

I guess the biggest surprises for me were these: how long Pattinson is absent from the movie (an hour-long stretch of middle) and the almost-racist tensions between vampy Alice and wolfy Jacob (”Put the dog out”). You must admit that this film was much more interesting that the last one—and I agree with you about the Michael Sheen scenes being purple. Again, that’s not in the negative column for me, especially when you also have crazy-eyes Dakota Fanning hurting people with her mind.

The close-up nuzzling scenes were the best: Twilight really is a unique cinema phenomenon, a full-blooded return to high melodrama. And as a casual viewer myself, I feel there’s more of a draw here than you imply.

Just a heads-up that tonight is your last chance to catch Richard Kelly’s beguilingly strange The Box (see review) within Chicago city limits. Despite Kelly’s efforts to push it as a post–Southland Tales attempt at commercial filmmaking, the movie is basically closing after a lackluster two-week run. Next time move faster, cultists! I agree that it’s a flawed film—after two viewings, I still think it gives up its secrets much too easily—but there’s a lot of subtext to mine, and Kelly does retro-paranoia with a level of skill, craft and personality that surpasses anything comparable in theaters right now.

Frankly, I’d file it on my list of really interesting movies killed by their studios. Warner Bros. delayed most American screenings until Wednesday or Thursday the week of release (depending on the city), which created the impression of badness, which in turn created a certain amount of peer pressure among critics to pan it. Not that critics always follow a studio’s signals, but when confronted with a large WTF factor, a short deadline and a wink and a nod from the people putting the movie in theaters, fewer reviewers are willing risk looking ridiculous by praising it. There are, of course, perfectly legitimate reasons for disliking The Box, but I can’t help but wonder what kind of reception the film would have gotten if it had been marketed the way Paranormal Activity was.

To: Joshua Rothkopf

From: Hank Sartin

Josh,

Tonight’s the night we finally get to see The Twilight Saga: New Moon, and only this morning I hear that in a MovieMaker interview, director Chris Weitz says he thinks he’s got one more film in him and he’s done. (What is it with directors announcing they’re bailing out?—Soderbergh is making the same noises). Not that it matters to the Twilight crowd, since they’ve got director David Slade (Hard Candy, 30 Days of Night) working on The Twilight Saga: Eclipse as we speak.

I’ll confess I’m actually pretty excited, and here’s why: As you rightly noted yesterday, Kristen Stewart is a good actress, and there’s every indication that this film will give her some fun stuff to do (feeling rejected by Edward’s departure, getting wild on motorcycles with Jacob). And honestly, though I’ve been the house crank in this debate, I think Weitz might bring an interesting energy to the story. To be honest, while I didn’t like Golden Compass much, I felt the reactions to it were more negative than it deserved, and I thought Weitz did pretty well (he’s pretty frank about how the film was taken away from him in editing, and I wonder if it might have felt more coherent if he’d retained control).

So there you are. The cranky naysayer admits he’s pretty excited about seeing New Moon tonight. What about you?

To: Hank Sartin

From: Joshua Rothkopf

I’m impressed with your open-mindedness; that’s the Hank I know. Tonight’s semi-public [invitation-only] screenings should be crazy scenes: screaming girls, etc. So there should be plenty to turn your stomach. But the movie could be an improvement over the first installment, as most second iterations of franchises are. It makes sense: more dramatic complications, less of the heavy lifting that introducing characters requires. I have high hopes.

Thrillingly, I know absolutely nothing about New Moon. Nada. I mean, yes: I’ve learned that shirtless werewolves are somehow involved. But I’ve managed to stay completely “tabula rasa” on the second story, and having never read the books, I’m prepared to have a blast. This raises a provocative (if general) question about film criticism: How important is it to read the book on which a movie is based? Obviously, reading the source material lends a critic more authority. But authority is not the only important component of a review—there’s also engaging with what’s actually before you (and not merely on page) and writing entertainingly about it. I’ll be able to see if the movie works on its own terms. I personally don’t give Chris Weitz much credit here; the true auteurs are the costars—and maybe the tweens themselves. Thoughts?

In anticipation of the release of The Twilight Saga: New Moon, Time Out Chicago’s Hank Sartin and Time Out New York’s Joshua Rothkopf will be exchanging emails discussing and debating the cultural phenomenon that is Twilight. Today, they talk about marketing.

To: Joshua Rothkopf

From: Hank Sartin

Josh,

I think I reached the official Twilight media saturation point the other day when I saw a rather breathlessly excited news story on the coming release of the Jacob Black doll (shirtless, natch) from Mattel. But I have to give credit to the publicity department at Summit Entertainment; they’ve played the media like a violin. Looking back on the past year, the strategy seems to have been give a little at a time, and don’t let your clients out to too many media outlets at once. A well-placed rumor about Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson having a romance is worth far more than ten talk show gigs. No hosting Saturday Night Live (imagine Pattinson trying to be funny, or Stewart valiantly putting up with some SNL mocking of her fame…). No Twilight Happy Meals—the tie-ins and merchandising have been carefully chosen.

And the drip-drip-drip leaks of images and footage has been timed to perfection. Just when interest seemed to have flagged in April, Summit started making the trailers available online, one by one, and sent Stewart and Pattinson to the talk shows. That might seem weird—scheduling them to chat up a movie that wasn’t coming out for months, but Summit knew that all they had to do was fan the flames for a while. The soundtrack was released this fall, long before the release, once again drawing attention to the movie. And they worked social media, keeping buzz alive on MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iTunes. Pure gold.

I’m not suggesting that the frenzy doesn’t have a strong basis in real fans out in the world; based on the angry responses I’ve been getting for criticizing Twilight, people care and care deeply. But their passion has been fueled by a smart campaign from people who know about the idea of the slow build.

But now, in the last week, I wonder if it’s getting too omnipresent. The only thing saving us is Sarah Palin, whose book release has taken some of the media oxygen away from Twilight. Otherwise, it would be All Twilight All the Time on the morning shows, Entertainment Tonight and in the glossies. So, once again find myself in the strange position of  thanking Sarah Palin (the first time, of course, was when she helped scuttle McCain’s campaign by being such a nutjob). Weird world, huh?

Cynically yours,

Hank

New York’s response after the jump

To: Hank Sartin

From: Joshua Rothkopf

Um, yeah: supercynical. I guess I’m just not upset about this like you are. Of course this is a calculated campaign—millions of dollars and months in the planning. But how, exactly, is that quantifiably different from, say, George Lucas releasing a Star Wars prequel? Or the media saturation for, say, last summer’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Megan Fox?

Let’s get to brass tacks here: The Twilight phenomenon is hardly more damaging to young people than a myriad other franchises that are more violent and less sexually mature (see above). Essentially, Twilight is a courtship based on romantic tension—again, a charming anachronism in today’s mediascape (it sometimes reminds me of the pent-up vibe of The X-Files). And because it’s turning fans on to books, you’re not winning any arguments on anti-intellectual grounds. How are you able to geek out over a Lord of the Rings movie and still call Twilight a cynical media spin?

Did you not see Adventureland? Kristen Stewart is a very sharp actor and increasingly self-deprecating in interviews. If the movie turns out to be even halfway decent, all the hype will be justified. You’re on your own with Sarah Palin.

To: Joshua Rothkopf

From: Hank Sartin

I’ve been thinking about all the mania around Robert Pattinson and his portrayal of Edward in Twilight. As an actor he reminds me of all the early hype around Hayden Christensen, who was sold as the next big thing circa Life as a House and Shattered Glass. Now he’s doing Jumpers 2. Pattinson’s Edward seems to me like a placeholder—he doesn’t have to do much except look dreamy and aloof, so girls can project their fantasies onto him.

It seems to me that the appeal of Twilight comes largely from the fact that the romance can’t be consummated (and I don’t just mean sexually—it’s all about frustrated love). As I said in my tirade on all things Twilight, I find the opposition of Edward and Jacob suggestive. Jacob has a dark secret too, but there’s none of the stuff about irresistible yet abstract charisma with him. Jacob’s much more normal than the vamps, except when he, you know, turns into a wolf. With options like these, it’s no wonder Bella is confused.

But the more I think about these characters, the more I get their appeal for teen readers and viewers. They’re archetypal and easy to fantasize about, and their darkness makes them more adult. Still doesn’t explain why adults are so taken with them.

Thoughts?

To: Hank Sartin

From: Joshua Rothkopf

Did you read Vanity Fair’s profile of “the Pattz”? He’s extremely uncomfortable with all the scrutiny and would probably agree with you. The role doesn’t have a lot of room for personality. But here’s a fun fact: Tween readers were screaming at Stephenie Meyer during her book readings before an actor was even cast. Revealing, no? In other words, the phenomena is about an idea of the beautiful, unattainable “Edward,” not a celebrity. It’s almost a mark of success on Hollywood’s part that they managed to find a portrayer who wouldn’t get in the way of the girl love.

Which leads me to a theory I have (well, others have it too, but I’ll take credit for it), one that might address your “Why adults too?” question. Consider Edward: attuned to the slightest scent, attracted to Bella’s spirit yet repulsed by her, unbearably gorgeous and stylish. I think the appeal here—for savvier readers—might be same as the one in Clueless that poor Cher had for Christian. Cher is, of course, (wonderfully) naive to Christian’s true nature. Going any further along this psychosexual strand might require several textbooks, and perhaps a therapist or two. But Twilight’s appeal, I think, runs deep and unexplored in straight women. It’s not an abstinence from sex, per se, so much as the desiring of a different kind of partner: the almost-perfect man whom a potent young woman dreams of “turning.”

Boom!

To: Joshua Rothkopf

From: Hank Sartin

We’re a week away from the release of The Twilight Saga: New Moon, and as I recall you came out as more of a supporter of the first film than I was. So I watched Twilight again, and I stand by my first take; I like the new-girl-in-town stuff the best. Now if we could just get rid of those dye-job vamps. And, though I know this is heresy, I don’t get the hype around Pattinson. He’s got dead eyes that aren’t an acting choice, just a lack of any interesting spark. And the last act of Twilight just doesn’t work at all—a sudden jump into Perils of Pauline action that feels rushed and messy.

My resentment of Twilight has actually grown over the last year, because the damn thing has been so unavoidable. Everywhere I turn, I have to read about Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart’s romance and Taylor Lautner’s abs (Taylor himself? Who cares. But if his abs did interviews on their own, journos would line up). It all feels contrived, like fake grassroots to me.

But enough of my hate. What are you thinking, now that we’ve got a little distance on the first film, if not on the hype around the whole Twilight phenomenon? Does the first movie hold up for you? Is all my ranting about anti-feminism and knee-jerk reactionary values in Twilight credible to you?

Bring it on, pal.

To: Hank Sartin

From: Joshua Rothkopf

Such a meanie you are, Hank. Getting crotchety over the Twilight phenomenon is like getting angry over the omnipresence of air. This is the stuff we breathe as moviegoers. As long as there are teenage girls with allowances, there will be dreamy Robert Pattinsons—just as there was a dreamy Leo DiCaprio in Titanic. As for the specific virtues or faults of the first film, I remember being charmed by the gothy pout of it all, kind of how I remember teen crushes to be. It felt like a Cure song (boy, am I dating myself). Returning to it recently, I think Hardwicke brings more personality to the quiet moments than she gets credit for. Some girls in my audience screamed at Pattinson’s on-screen appearances. Do you actually deny what they’re feeling? Of course, this is a Hollywood fabrication. That’s sort of why the town was invented.

As for the older women reading Stephenie Meyer on the subway, this is way more interesting to me—and again, not a bad thing. (I’ve never read any of the books.) I think the connection to Edward is a projection of romantic frustration, and thus, precisely what escapist fiction is for. You’re simply not going to persuade me that ANY literary phenomenon is evil, unless you mean reading cat calendars. You forget, my friend, that we played with Star Wars action figures. Meanwhile, by the time this younger generation turns 16, they will have devoured over 10,000 pages of fiction between Meyer and the Harry Potter tomes. They have us totally beaten.

Complete Twilight Saga: New Moon coverage, events information, a sexy vampire quiz and New Moon trailers.

Photos: Jon Willoughby

Visit our Twilight page.