Fernando Meirelles is certainly one of the best and most courageous directors of his generation. The British writer Peter Morgan, in turn, conceived great and elaborate scripts, which delve deep into the dramas of his characters, whether they were TV presenters, young doctors or even the Queen of England. Put the two together and put a stellar cast at their disposal and we're sure to have a good movie on our hands, right? Not exactly. Meirelles and Morgan conceived the feature film "360" for this partnership, a film that resembles "Babel" in its ambition to show us how the consequences of anyone's actions have effects on the lives of many other people around the world: cause and it is made.
Not long ago, cinema found itself hopelessly enamored with multiple narratives with characters linked in order to amplify a feeling of connection, and even randomness. Adept at international projects, disillusioned with the means of promotion in Brazil, Meirelles made use of this expedient, on a veritable tour of Europe and the USA, to film his version of "La Ronde", a classic play by Arthur Schnitzler. They appear interconnected to express multifaceted relationships, choices, vices and virtues. In 360, Fernando Meirelles is omnipresent as a witness, yet never sounding too omniscient. So the film does not hit the viewer coldly calculated, like some of its counterparts.
On a trip around the world, we met a group of people from different places and from different social classes. A woman who enters the prostitution business, an executive far from his family, a lonely journalist, an ambitious photographer, a young woman with a broken heart, a man in search of his daughter, a criminal in search of redemption, a Muslim in conflict with his desires, a neglected wife and a husband at odds with his manhood. All these people are at crossroads and the decisions they make will influence everyone's lives.
In this type of narrative, the directors have little time to delve into the intimacy of those involved, something that is the strong point of Meirelles' direction and Morgan's text. And that's exactly where the long falls short. With rare exceptions, we never got to know those people intimately or understand the motivations behind their actions. This distance and the coldness with which the plots are treated prevent us from caring about the fate of the characters. As good as the actors are, and the cast of the tape is really stellar, it is difficult to build three-dimensional characters without the film delving into their interiors and it is almost impossible for the public to cultivate any sympathy for some. The novice prostitute played by Lucia Siposová already in the first five minutes on the scene shows us that sex is not the only thing she will do for money and it doesn't seem to us that she and her sister live in a situation that would justify such actions.
It's also complicated to root for the happiness of a couple we barely know and conflicts we don't understand, as in the plot starring Jude Law and Rachel Weisz. The love story between the Muslim dentist played by Jamel Debbouze and his married assistant, played by the Russian Dinara Drukarova, could be interesting, but it turns out to be very anticlimactic and without rhythm. And we simply don't have time to understand Rui's intentions, the photographer played by Juliano Cazarré, making it practically impossible to know if he is a passionate man or an opportunist, not least because we only see him for three minutes of film. However, among this veritable tangle of stories that simply don't mesh, one of them works extremely well.
The whole plot accompanying the characters of Anthony Hopkins, Maria Flor and Ben Foster is simply fascinating, involving very human feelings of loss, redemption and desire. Even though it is relatively short, it is a very well-developed plot and the three actors are simply fantastic. Maria Flor's interactions with Hopkins and Foster are pure gold, with each bringing out the best in the other. It should also be noted that Meirelles' camera takes on an intimate look, which captures very well each reaction of the three, making their complex problems more real through an elegant narrative economy, making up with content for the little time on the scene that the trio has. Meirelles still imposes an increasing tension on the story that it becomes impossible not to get involved with it, with the intensity of Ben Foster's performance acting as a kind of tension marker.
Of all the stories told, the most unusual is that of Tyler (Foster), the man just out of jail and determined to defeat the compulsion for sex. His fight signals how much we are victims of addictive behaviors and addictions, banal in the eyes of those who imagine them as the result of coldly rationalized deliberations. Several of the characters in "360" struggle with impulses, dubious solutions, amoral movements and manufactured happiness. Cinema is very different from reality (even when it wants to approach it). However, is there anything more human than the constant struggle to defeat internal monsters? Finally, we have the story of Sergei (Vdovichenkov), the most complete. He leaves Paris, where his marriage to the Spanish Valentina (Dinara Drukarova) has its days numbered, to travel by car to Vienna. In the Austrian capital he meets his boss, the mobster played by Mark Ivanir. After being treated like a dog, as he puts it, Sergei finds himself at a crossroads that could change his life. And make your choice.
"360" is sober to the measure, photographed discreetly and restrained even when passionate. The space that could harbor frills, facilities and mannerisms is occupied by sharp dialogues and by the very sensitive observation of aspects that make us humanly prosaic in essence. Meirelles' film is precisely the split screen thriller that perfectly illustrates this idea. São 360º, a film that wants to turn around itself at all costs, by joining the dots between characters: a Slovakian woman starting her life in luxury prostitution before the disapproving and innocent gaze of her younger sister; blackmailing a businessman to obtain a deal; an adultery; a missing daughter; a dentist in love with his assistant who in turn is married to a driver fed up with the abuse of his mobster boss. And so on. The problem is having something interesting to tell them beyond the metaphysics of bifurcations. The metaphor is repeated at the beginning and end of the story, coming full circle and showing that our lives are built by choices.
And it is in the comparison that 360 loses points. After all, after 1h44min of this production, we were left with a big "so what?" in the head. The great message of this production, left in the reproduction of the image that appears on the panel of the facade of a building in Vienna, is that life goes on? Why, every now and then, when we choose a path from one of the many crossroads we encounter in life, are we opening the doors to happiness or to a real disaster? Yes, this is all true. But other productions that preceded 360 have treated these same themes in a more interesting way, with interesting stories from start to finish.
Besides certain choices being fundamental, and many dangers lurking around these moments - without us noticing anything - "360" deals with something fundamental: how some unforeseen contacts can become fundamental in our life. Like a sentence, a note, a hug placed at the right time, they can be the elements we were missing for everything to fall into place. For life to make sense, and for it to be clear what step should be taken next. It's encounters like those between Hopkins' characters and Maria Flor, among others, that change everything. Sometimes for the better, because they make perfect sense. Other times for the worse, because it "spoils our lives". And the beauty of 360, and of life itself, is that we can never predict or avoid these contacts. They just happen.
But despite what the title might seem, not everything comes back to the same place. Characters fulfill their arcs, whether longer or shorter. If the excess of "coincidences" that makes this group become the circle of the title can cause a certain discomfort, each personal drama there is well understood. There are no subtexts in the stories. One way or another, every character ends up having their story told. "360" is like "Babel", but without being political. The stray bullet leaves the scene and takes its place the bitter feeling of seeing your partner again after spending a few hours with your lover. They are different pains. They are distinct repulsions that also lead to reflection. Instead of asking "what kind of world do we live in?" the question now is "what relationship am I living in?" It is a pity that this urgency is not repeated with the other stories. Even the metaphor of 360 degrees is misused, given that certain plots have almost no impact on others and are delivered in a painfully artificial way. It is even sad to see the excellent technical work of Meirelles and his team, especially photographer Adriano Goldman, wasted in a text with almost no passion or intimacy, something essential in a film whose motto is a fetishistic look at the desires and passions of human beings.
Not long ago, cinema found itself hopelessly enamored with multiple narratives with characters linked in order to amplify a feeling of connection, and even randomness. Adept at international projects, disillusioned with the means of promotion in Brazil, Meirelles made use of this expedient, on a veritable tour of Europe and the USA, to film his version of "La Ronde", a classic play by Arthur Schnitzler. They appear interconnected to express multifaceted relationships, choices, vices and virtues. In 360, Fernando Meirelles is omnipresent as a witness, yet never sounding too omniscient. So the film does not hit the viewer coldly calculated, like some of its counterparts.
On a trip around the world, we met a group of people from different places and from different social classes. A woman who enters the prostitution business, an executive far from his family, a lonely journalist, an ambitious photographer, a young woman with a broken heart, a man in search of his daughter, a criminal in search of redemption, a Muslim in conflict with his desires, a neglected wife and a husband at odds with his manhood. All these people are at crossroads and the decisions they make will influence everyone's lives.
In this type of narrative, the directors have little time to delve into the intimacy of those involved, something that is the strong point of Meirelles' direction and Morgan's text. And that's exactly where the long falls short. With rare exceptions, we never got to know those people intimately or understand the motivations behind their actions. This distance and the coldness with which the plots are treated prevent us from caring about the fate of the characters. As good as the actors are, and the cast of the tape is really stellar, it is difficult to build three-dimensional characters without the film delving into their interiors and it is almost impossible for the public to cultivate any sympathy for some. The novice prostitute played by Lucia Siposová already in the first five minutes on the scene shows us that sex is not the only thing she will do for money and it doesn't seem to us that she and her sister live in a situation that would justify such actions.
It's also complicated to root for the happiness of a couple we barely know and conflicts we don't understand, as in the plot starring Jude Law and Rachel Weisz. The love story between the Muslim dentist played by Jamel Debbouze and his married assistant, played by the Russian Dinara Drukarova, could be interesting, but it turns out to be very anticlimactic and without rhythm. And we simply don't have time to understand Rui's intentions, the photographer played by Juliano Cazarré, making it practically impossible to know if he is a passionate man or an opportunist, not least because we only see him for three minutes of film. However, among this veritable tangle of stories that simply don't mesh, one of them works extremely well.
The whole plot accompanying the characters of Anthony Hopkins, Maria Flor and Ben Foster is simply fascinating, involving very human feelings of loss, redemption and desire. Even though it is relatively short, it is a very well-developed plot and the three actors are simply fantastic. Maria Flor's interactions with Hopkins and Foster are pure gold, with each bringing out the best in the other. It should also be noted that Meirelles' camera takes on an intimate look, which captures very well each reaction of the three, making their complex problems more real through an elegant narrative economy, making up with content for the little time on the scene that the trio has. Meirelles still imposes an increasing tension on the story that it becomes impossible not to get involved with it, with the intensity of Ben Foster's performance acting as a kind of tension marker.
Of all the stories told, the most unusual is that of Tyler (Foster), the man just out of jail and determined to defeat the compulsion for sex. His fight signals how much we are victims of addictive behaviors and addictions, banal in the eyes of those who imagine them as the result of coldly rationalized deliberations. Several of the characters in "360" struggle with impulses, dubious solutions, amoral movements and manufactured happiness. Cinema is very different from reality (even when it wants to approach it). However, is there anything more human than the constant struggle to defeat internal monsters? Finally, we have the story of Sergei (Vdovichenkov), the most complete. He leaves Paris, where his marriage to the Spanish Valentina (Dinara Drukarova) has its days numbered, to travel by car to Vienna. In the Austrian capital he meets his boss, the mobster played by Mark Ivanir. After being treated like a dog, as he puts it, Sergei finds himself at a crossroads that could change his life. And make your choice.
"360" is sober to the measure, photographed discreetly and restrained even when passionate. The space that could harbor frills, facilities and mannerisms is occupied by sharp dialogues and by the very sensitive observation of aspects that make us humanly prosaic in essence. Meirelles' film is precisely the split screen thriller that perfectly illustrates this idea. São 360º, a film that wants to turn around itself at all costs, by joining the dots between characters: a Slovakian woman starting her life in luxury prostitution before the disapproving and innocent gaze of her younger sister; blackmailing a businessman to obtain a deal; an adultery; a missing daughter; a dentist in love with his assistant who in turn is married to a driver fed up with the abuse of his mobster boss. And so on. The problem is having something interesting to tell them beyond the metaphysics of bifurcations. The metaphor is repeated at the beginning and end of the story, coming full circle and showing that our lives are built by choices.
And it is in the comparison that 360 loses points. After all, after 1h44min of this production, we were left with a big "so what?" in the head. The great message of this production, left in the reproduction of the image that appears on the panel of the facade of a building in Vienna, is that life goes on? Why, every now and then, when we choose a path from one of the many crossroads we encounter in life, are we opening the doors to happiness or to a real disaster? Yes, this is all true. But other productions that preceded 360 have treated these same themes in a more interesting way, with interesting stories from start to finish.
Besides certain choices being fundamental, and many dangers lurking around these moments - without us noticing anything - "360" deals with something fundamental: how some unforeseen contacts can become fundamental in our life. Like a sentence, a note, a hug placed at the right time, they can be the elements we were missing for everything to fall into place. For life to make sense, and for it to be clear what step should be taken next. It's encounters like those between Hopkins' characters and Maria Flor, among others, that change everything. Sometimes for the better, because they make perfect sense. Other times for the worse, because it "spoils our lives". And the beauty of 360, and of life itself, is that we can never predict or avoid these contacts. They just happen.
But despite what the title might seem, not everything comes back to the same place. Characters fulfill their arcs, whether longer or shorter. If the excess of "coincidences" that makes this group become the circle of the title can cause a certain discomfort, each personal drama there is well understood. There are no subtexts in the stories. One way or another, every character ends up having their story told. "360" is like "Babel", but without being political. The stray bullet leaves the scene and takes its place the bitter feeling of seeing your partner again after spending a few hours with your lover. They are different pains. They are distinct repulsions that also lead to reflection. Instead of asking "what kind of world do we live in?" the question now is "what relationship am I living in?" It is a pity that this urgency is not repeated with the other stories. Even the metaphor of 360 degrees is misused, given that certain plots have almost no impact on others and are delivered in a painfully artificial way. It is even sad to see the excellent technical work of Meirelles and his team, especially photographer Adriano Goldman, wasted in a text with almost no passion or intimacy, something essential in a film whose motto is a fetishistic look at the desires and passions of human beings.