MovieChat Forums > Past Lives (2023) Discussion > James Berardinelli review - ***1/2 out o...

James Berardinelli review - ***1/2 out of ****


https://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/past-lives

This review could be considered to contain spoilers.

Past Lives is quietly powerful – an understated examination of longing, connection, and unconsummated love. In the way it plays with concepts like fate and soul mates, it’s sort-of an anti-Sleepless in Seattle. There’s something bittersweet yet reassuring about the way the movie approaches its central relationship. Many of the beats and emotions are universal even if the story is specific to these characters and their circumstances. And, by relying on long, lingering takes and non-verbal moments, first-time director Celine Song captures details that a more hurried approach would gloss over. The climactic encounter between the leads, so pregnant with unspoken feelings that are apparent in their body language, reminded me of the final sequence of Charlie Chaplin’s City Lights, the greatest of the silent star’s repertoire.

Song’s overall approach recalls Wong Kar-Wai’s In the Mood for Love. Although less reflective and more grounded, Past Lives evokes some of the same feelings. Perhaps one reason why the film works as well as it does is because it encapsulates a reality that most romantic movies ignore in their quest for box office gold and “happily ever after” endings. Past Lives acknowledges the longing, dreaming, and barrage of “what ifs” while recognizing that there is no one true path to contentment.

Past Lives opens in the present day with an unseen couple observing the interactions among three people sitting at a bar: Hae Sung (Teo Yoo), Nora (Greta Lee), and Arthur (John Magaro). Noting the seeming intimacy between Hae Sung and Nora and the way in which Arthur seems to be an outsider, the observers wonder about the relationships between the two Asians and their Caucasian companion. Although they will never know the truth, the movie proceeds to inform viewers.

The time frame jumps back 24 years to the turn of the century and the location switches from New York City to South Korea. We meet a young Hae Sung (Seung Min Yim) and Nora (who goes by her Korean name of Na Young, and is played by Seung Ah Moon), who are best friends. Every day, they walk home from school together and compete to see who can get the best grades on tests. Their friendship is severed when Na Young’s parents decide to immigrate to Toronto. They lose touch but neither completely forgets the other. A dozen years pass and Hae Sung decides to find Nora, who is now living in New York. The two reconnect via Skype and become obsessed with on-line chats. Long-distance romantic sparks fly but Hae Sung won’t commit to visiting New York and Nora has no interest in returning to her homeland. Recognizing the futility of pursuing a relationship, Nora suggests that they no longer talk. Fast-forwarding another 12 years, the narrative comes to the present where circumstances have changed for both parties. Hae Sung has just broken up with a long-term girlfriend and decided to come to New York to visit Nora, who is married to Arthur. When the two old friends meet face-to-face for the first time in 24 years, the romantic tension is palpable. The connection is so strong that it worries Arthur, but both Nora and Hae Sung attempt to reassure him that, whatever exists between them, Hae Sung has not come to ruin their marriage. Hae Sung believes it. Nora believes it. But, as impartial viewers, do we?

The title comes from the conceit of in-yeon, which argues that when a person encounters another person and has even a brief interaction, it means they have met in a past life. Lovers have an even deeper connection, having met repeatedly in past lives. The implication is that, although Hae Sung and Na Young are destined not to be with each other in this life, they may have been together in an earlier life and/or could potentially be together in the future.

The emotions roiling beneath the surface of this seemingly placid drama make watching it an intense and involving experience. The acting by Greta Lee and Teo Yoo emphasizes all the underlying things transpiring just beneath the dialogue and interpersonal interactions. Parts of Past Lives are in Korean but no subtitles are needed to read body language. Many movies have been made that explore the sweet anguish accompanying unrequited love but few films explore requited but repressed emotions this deeply. Although the movie is primarily told from Nora’s perspective, Past Lives takes the time to flesh out both Hae Sung and Arthur’s characters. In Casablanca, which plumbs a not-dissimilar triangle, Rick and Ilsa will always have Paris. In Past Lives, Hae Sung and Na Young will always have Korea. And, perhaps in another lifetime, they can have more.

reply

I love your writing..so articulate. I just watched this film last night and agree with all you say. I must say I didnt care for Nora as much as I would like to have. I felt she cut him off too fast and when she said they would take space and talk soon, I thought thats what she really intended to do... To then see she married another man, in that time space she took, I felt that was just cold. A bit of a betrayal.. He didnt deserve another 12 years. I did appreciate that her husband was portrayed as a decent man that would never be able to share her history or background, that his acceptance of her feelings for another man was almost expected. Yet there was part of me that felt she not only cheated her childhood love, but that she cheated herself as well.

reply

Yet there was part of me that felt she not only cheated her childhood love, but that she cheated herself as well.


My feelings exactly. I also agree about not being able to sympathize with her character.

She clearly had a much deeper and livelier connection with Hae Sung all along, not to mention amazing chemistry (kudos to both the leads for showing that via facial expressions and body language, esp. when they weren't speaking). OTOH, her marriage seemed to be one of convenience, to fill a gap and devoid of passion. I could've forgiven her decision if she was well on her way to winning a Pulitzer or something, but they made it seem like both their careers were hardly worth sacrificing their feelings for each other. So they were both stubborn at the wrong time and made a mistake at different points, when it was their turn to possibly make it a real relationship.

As cheesy as a happy ending would've been, where the husband (also a very good character played well by the actor) steps aside and let them be together, I would've preferred that to this bittersweet "realistic" ending that left all 3 of them unhappy and miserable. Always nice to be reminded that a movie doesn't need (a ton of) CGI and a huge budget to be enjoyable.

reply

[deleted]

That's an excellent first post and you make some great points. Welcome to MC!

I see what you're saying. Men, IMO, are more romantic and idealize potential spouses, the possible relationship they could have with said person and the future in general, whereas women are more practical and down to earth in these matters.

I do think the 2 of them had great chemistry, while her marriage seemed to be one of convenience and completely devoid of passion. Maybe I shouldn't have said miserable, because that is too strong a word for this situation, but all 3 of them came out unhappy to me - the husband, because he realizes he'll never have the obvious chemistry and connection she has with HS, Nora, cause she realizes she has nothing but a dull marriage and lackluster career to look forward to, and HS, cause he realizes he's never going to marry the woman of his dreams.

You're right about Nora not being the same girl she originally was, but you can see she clearly had strong feelings for him all her life. And her writing never took off either - she was treating it more like a job than an aspirational career after marriage. When they met up and he asked about the Pulitzer, she mentions another, far less prestigious award to work towards instead but didn't seem very gung-ho or even convinced about it. I'm guessing years of working on it had washed away the idealism she would've originally had, and the dull reality of the tedious routine had set in. And even if she was a housewife to HS as he might have wanted (assuming she couldn't have it otherwise, which is also very possible), she could've just as easily been a writer, cause you don't have to go to an office and do it 9-5.

There are tradeoffs with both choices, but I do think the chemistry they had for each other is not easy to come by and just like she did with her husband, she could've made some compromises and made it work, which would've made her happier maybe. But yeah, can't fault with your take on it either.

reply

[deleted]

I also agree about not being able to sympathise with her character. I suppose the message was that you should never forego a genuine connection with someone over furthering your career.

I suppose she was naive and didn’t realise how rare a connection like that is with someone.

reply

Agreed. Very very rare that connection is..

reply