Spoilers follow.
I agree. I hadn't thought of it before, but the interpretation offered below (my thanks to Eric of Seattle), according to which Harry is a mere figment of Michel's imagination, and everything that happens in between the opening sequence with the bickering family in the hot car and the peaceful family in the air-conditioned car doesn't really happen, or at least doesn't happen in quite the way we see it happening, is dead right. But this doesn't make the film any better. The knowledge that it was all just a dream can't add zest or resonance to a story that lacks both. Rather the reverse. Initially, I was disappointed when Plum was killed, because one potential source of interest was removed; and besides, I liked her. As it turns out, she wasn't really killed, because she never really existed. This is even more disappointing.
In short: the act of interpreting the film is more interesting than the film itself. I don't want to give the impression that it's dull. It's slickly made, with no discernible stylistic blunders, and the key revelations and developments are for the most part interesting-in-theory. The two mystery characters, Harry and Plum (especially the latter, although it could be that I'm being influenced by the fact that Sophie Guillemin is one of the most gorgeous women in the world) had potential. But the trouble is they REMAIN mysteries, of exactly the same kind, throughout. They're guns on the wall that are never fired. When we find out later (possibly not until months after first seeing the film) that they weren't real people after all but fictional characters springing from Michel's imagination, we have an explanation of sorts, but not one capable of justifying the film's thinness.
Some compare "Harry" to Hitchcock, others to Chabrol. Unfortunately it's more like the latter than the former: a competent but lugubrious going through the motions that ought to be more exciting than it is.
I agree. I hadn't thought of it before, but the interpretation offered below (my thanks to Eric of Seattle), according to which Harry is a mere figment of Michel's imagination, and everything that happens in between the opening sequence with the bickering family in the hot car and the peaceful family in the air-conditioned car doesn't really happen, or at least doesn't happen in quite the way we see it happening, is dead right. But this doesn't make the film any better. The knowledge that it was all just a dream can't add zest or resonance to a story that lacks both. Rather the reverse. Initially, I was disappointed when Plum was killed, because one potential source of interest was removed; and besides, I liked her. As it turns out, she wasn't really killed, because she never really existed. This is even more disappointing.
In short: the act of interpreting the film is more interesting than the film itself. I don't want to give the impression that it's dull. It's slickly made, with no discernible stylistic blunders, and the key revelations and developments are for the most part interesting-in-theory. The two mystery characters, Harry and Plum (especially the latter, although it could be that I'm being influenced by the fact that Sophie Guillemin is one of the most gorgeous women in the world) had potential. But the trouble is they REMAIN mysteries, of exactly the same kind, throughout. They're guns on the wall that are never fired. When we find out later (possibly not until months after first seeing the film) that they weren't real people after all but fictional characters springing from Michel's imagination, we have an explanation of sorts, but not one capable of justifying the film's thinness.
Some compare "Harry" to Hitchcock, others to Chabrol. Unfortunately it's more like the latter than the former: a competent but lugubrious going through the motions that ought to be more exciting than it is.