Flirt

By: Raymond Murray
In-House Review - Feb 21 2013

Hartley tells a short story of a love affair at the brink of commitment. He tells it three times, in three cities with three casts, and in three different eras using much of the same dialogue each time. In each retelling, there's a and a defining moment, changing one protagonist's life unalterably. And yet, it's a commonplace occurrence, whether in New York or Berlin or Tokyo. The repetition, across cultural boundaries, across issues of sexual orientation, class identity, serves to emphasize the story's universality. Before an extended separation, one partner asks another if they have a future as a couple. Before that person can answer, each must ask someone else the same question. Daffy and romantic, Flirt is about love's pain and exaltation, its nature as solid as a rock and as ephemeral as happiness; it's also about flirting and flirting's role in human relations. Godardian in nature, Flirt is an energetic delight, filled with wry observance and urbane compassion.

By: gayforplay

Even having read that this film repeated the same theme in 3 different contexts, I was expecting to see 3 variations on a theme. But not the exact same story, with mostly all the same dialogue, repeated, and repeated yet again. And the story is not at all compelling, either. Strictly for art house aficianados. It's like watching the repeated execution of a science experiment.

By: Amos Lassen

Spanning three continents, three languages, three races, two sexual lifestyles, "Flirt" is a look at misunderstandings. In each situation a lover has to decide whether to commit to a partner who is coming home.
In New York City we meet Bill (Bill Sage) and his girlfriend (Parker Posey) who gives him an ultimatum to make a commitment to the relationship or end what they have. She is then on her way to Paris. In Berlin, we meet Dwight (Dwight Ewell) a young African American who can't settle down with Johan, an art dealer who is older than he is. In Tokyo, we meet Miho (Miho Nikaidoh) who is in love with two men-her teacher, Mr. Ozu (Toshizo Fugiwara) and an American filmmaker. The movie looks at love as it moves (or doesn't move) into relationships and it tells it three times. In watching the film, we get a look at issues of sexual orientation and. class identity.
In each city, the dialogue is identical and the plot is about violence and the results of flirting and desiring what is not readily available. There are some differences that we notice and these are because of sexual orientation, setting and culture. To a degree this is a film about human behavior and we see that we are more or less the same even if we are not willing to freely admit it. A certain action can bring the same reaction from all of us and this is what I see as the point of this film. Hal Hartley, the director, studies the same situation in three different places which are really not important. What we see here could happen anywhere and we are immediately aware that this is not a conventional film and we really cannot explain why the reaction is the same.
Because this is not a typical movie, many do not care for it. Some feel that the dialogue while excellent is two repetitive. However, the film is fun, insightful and well acted and Hartley again shows us that there is nothing mainstream about what he does on film.
In each story, a character is about to leave town and asks a new lover if they have a future together and then the new lover asks for time and calls another lover, trying to decide between the two. In each story, three other characters give advice and in each story there is a telephone conversation in which we hear the word "no" several times and in each story there is a shooting and an emergency room scene. This idea of a trilogy of films with the same dialogue is clever and we would think that this is a fun film to watch. Hartley is an evocative director and his humor sets the style of his films. Here we really only get attitude and there is no Hartley vision like he usually gives. This really seems to be something of an experiment but it does not hold up for three films.
I am not sure when I realized that Hartley's idea does not work but I do not find that his observations about life are interesting. I think that when he comments on what he is doing is when it begins to fall apart and his humor turns serious. The idea of three identical stories is brilliant but there is something that causes the idea to break down and that is too bad.