Screenings & acquisitions, contact:
Mallory Jacobs (non-theatrical requests)
email / 212-941-7744 ext. 205
Maxwell Wolkin (library requests)
email / 212-941-7744 ext. 211
Arman is 33 and ready to make a change, starting with a run in the park. When he literally bumps into Amélie - slightly cynical but nevertheless lovely - on the jogging path, he's dead-set on making a connection with her. As a bit of contrived fate brings them together, Arman's best friend Benjamin suffers an unexpected stroke, relegating him to the hospital for weeks where he falls for his doting young physical therapist. Over the course of two autumns and three winters, Arman, Amélie and Benjamin share the incidental moments, unexpected accidents, unconventional love stories and unforgettable memories that will define who they are.
Write a review »
Jeff in Seattle - Customer Review
Overall, "3 Autumns, 2 Winters" is a nice quirky romantic film. Man and woman run into each other while jogging. Man looks for woman again without success, until the woman is about to get mugged. Love blossoms. They split. Well, you get the idea.. Familiar love storty, but the characters are easy to relate to. So, here's the problem... The characters speak to the audience nearly all the time. It has a documentary feel to it. It certainly distract from the story, and I was unable to get used to the feel since I was expecting a normal film. I must admit that this narration style is an improvement of Goddard's style of narration, which makes me turn off the film just five minutes intot he film. I watched 3 Autmns, 2 Winters in its entirety.
Micah Cowan - Customer Review
What seems to have been Film Movement's favorite aspect of this film, was decidedly its biggest drawback for my wife and I. Namely, the constant narration, especially on the part of the actors, while their in the midst of acting out what they're narrating. I could only withstand about 20 minutes of it. Film Movement claims it creates a special intimacy between actors and audience, but I only found it excruciatingly annoying, and an insurmountable obstacle to any sort of immersion in the movie's story (which, at least for 20 minutes, was bland and predictable). Even in books, an intrinsically narrative form, it's insulting to the intellect (as well as lazy writing) if the author is constantly telling you explicitly what's going on, instead of writing just enough to allow you the joy of understanding on your own. How much more so in film, usually an intrinsically experiential medium? I'm no fan of innovation for innovation's sake - let's not praise experimental movie-making when the innovation's advantages cannot hope to outweigh what was given up to achieve it (in this case, immersion, and realism in acting). It became clear to me that no further event in the film could possibly transform my attitude towards it, which is why I concluded I should not waste further time with it.
Click photo to enlarge. Then copy as you would any online image.