Léos Carax‘s Lovers on the Bridge is an extraordinary mix of greatness and failure. Known as Les Amants du Pont Neuf in France, this film has one of the more interesting histories for any modern film.

Historical Background: Lovers on the Bridge is one of the most infamous films ever made in France – in pretty much the same sense that Waterworld became notorious in America. The film ended up costing $28 million dollars to make. To put that in perspective, the average French film at that time cost $500,000 to produce, so Lovers on the Bridge was made for about the cost of fifty-six average French films! A big part of that expense was caused by interminable delays. First, the lead actor Denis Lavant broke his leg, setting back filming for a year. Then, the director, Léos Carax, broke up with his lover – who, as it happens, was the lead lady for the film, Juliette Binoche. During the delay, Binoche’s stock was on the rise and she could have found better alternatives than continuing work on Lovers on the Bridge, but fortunately for Carax, Binoche remained loyal to the project. Carax had negotiated for filming rights on the famous Pont-Neuf, the oldest bridge in Paris, but his permission ran out because of the delays in production. Carax would not be deterred, however, and built a replica of the bridge over a lake in southern France, including facades of three famous buildings that were part of the Samaritaine department store near the bridge! To say that the production of Lovers on the Bridge was ambitious is something of an understatement.

The distribution history of the film was equally jinxed. The French distributor jacked up the price for this film in order to try to recover some of the monumental expense for its production. Consequently, a full nine years passed between the release of the film in France and its availability on video in America. It was not until Miramax took on Martin Scorsese as “presenter” that they were inclined to market this film. As a result of Carax's financial excesses with Lovers on the Bridge and the problems with its distribution, Carax had to wait seven years after Lovers before undertaking another film – Pola X (1999). Carax had earlier produced two other films, Boy Meets Girl (1985) and Bad Blood (1986). Carax’s films are somewhat consistent in their characteristics. They tend to be artsy, weak on plot and dialog but strong on dramatic visuals, and reflective of Carax’s bizarre perspective. He very clearly wants us to understand his indebtedness to traditional French film masters, including Renoir, Vigo, Cocteau, and Godard. The weaknesses of Carax’s films are glaring while the strengths are equally exceptional in the other direction. It is precisely because of the huge discrepancy between the weaknesses and the strengths that critical opinion varies so widely in relation to his films – especially the two later ones. His works have been hailed by some as masterpieces and savaged by others as utter trash. His last two films, in particular are, in fact, both: masterpieces of visual ingenuity and travesties of narrative design.

The Story: The story of Lovers on the Bridge is quite different from what one might anticipate from the title of the film. This is no conventional love story, except, perhaps, for its setting in Paris. Alex (Denis Lavant) is a homeless vagrant of modest intelligence, dubious psychiatric health, an illicit drug user, and a drunk. He’s our hero! In the opening scene, we see him in the middle of the night staggering along one of the dashed white lines that demarcate lanes on a Parisian street, until, finally, he collapses. He scrapes his forehead repeatedly on the pavement in a kind of self-mutilation until he passes out cold. We also see another vagrant, Michele (Juliette Binoche), walking along the gutter of the same street in the opposite direction, wearing rags and a ratty old coat and a patch over one eye, and carrying the large portfolio of an artist. She and we next observe a car speeding down the street run over the outstretched leg of Alex. Soon, a bus comes along that picks up the homeless for delivery to a combination hospital and shelter. Alex is carried into the bus by a couple of the more sober vagrants already onboard. This is the ugly life of the homeless mirrored in large cities throughout the world.

At the shelter, the homeless shower and are fed. A physician and his small staff attend to their most pressing medical needs. Alex’s leg is put in a cast and, with a crutch under his shoulder, he heads back to his usual sleeping place on the Pont-Neuf, a famous Parisian bridge but currently closed for repairs. Also living on the same bridge is an older vagrant, Hans (Klaus-Michael Gruber), who acts as Alex’s surrogate father figure – as best as a vagrant can. Hans informs Alex that someone has taken his spot on the bridge but that they’ll run off the newcomer in the morning.

The newcomer turns out to be Michele. Alex, who is desperate for love, takes an immediate interest in and shine to Michele. And why not? How often does a Juliette Binoche wander into the life of a dim-witted, self-mutilating, mentally-disturbed, and physically-unattractive vagrant. Though Binoche’s beauty is dimmed somewhat by her ratty hair, eye-patch, and rags, enough of her essential beauty remains exposed as to garner both our interest and that of Alex. Gradually, over the course of the film, Alex becomes increasingly enamored with Michele and determined to keep her in his life.

Hans, by contrast, wants no women in his life. They stir up bitter memories of his beloved wife and her downward spiral into alcoholism that destroyed his once-happy life. Alex promises to keep Michele out of Hans’s sight and wins his permission to let her sleep on the bridge. Bit by bit we begin to discover some of the circumstances that created the downward spirals for these individuals at the very bottom of the societal hierarchy. They reveal nothing willingly, but bits and pieces of their respective stories nevertheless emerge. For his part, Alex is intent on understanding Michele’s history so that he can ensure that she will remain with him. He reads a letter among her things, discovers her former address (in a wealthy suburb), breaks into her former house, and steals her diary. We gather through Alex’s initiatives that Michele is going blind from some rare ocular disorder and that she was also jilted in romance.

The highlight of Lovers on the Bridge is a series of scenes near the middle of the film that develop the burgeoning romance between Alex and Michele. The most famous scene of the film shows Alex and Michele frolicking and dancing on the bridge in the midst of the Parisian Bicentennial celebration, with magnificent fireworks illuminating their carefree abandonment. This scene leads to another breathtaking one in which the pair steals a police speedboat so that Michele can water ski through the fireworks display. Another spectacular scene illustrates Alex’s one source of income – his work as a fire-breathing street performer and acrobat. An especially well-shot sequence occurs at a carnival where the two of them ride a Ferris wheel and a roller coaster. There is a rather humorous sequence in which Michele spikes the drinks of various Parisian café customers so that she and Alex can steal their wallets once they’ve passed out.

The last third of the film seems hardly worth relating. I could use the excuse of avoiding spoilers but the fact of the matter is that the twists that occur during the last third of this film are, in fact, spoilers. They spoil what up to then appeared to be a promising film. The contrivances become increasingly ridiculous and unbound by any narrative logic or believability. There’s also little compensating entertainment value, emotionally satisfying outcome, or meaningful message. The film simply collapses in puerile nonsense. I don’t even want to have to mention the pathetic scene on the beach with the silhouetted Alex sporting a twelve inch device, masquerading as an erection, while racing down the beach hand in hand with Michele. Blood flow can only reach so many capillaries at a time.

Themes: There doesn’t seem to be any real theme to this film that I can identify. It certainly is not a plea on behalf of the homeless who, in this film, appear to lead pretty exciting and satisfying lives at times. The film may start out with the squalor of homelessness, but pretty soon we see our young vagrants water skiing down the Seine, easily “earning” thousands of dollars by petty thievery, and cavorting and making love on an expansive beach. The theme might have been love can emerge in the most unlikeliest of places except that nothing about the relationship between Alex and Michele is believable, nor does it truly qualify as “love.” Alex, in fact, is determined to keep Michele at his side even if it means subverting an opportunity to save her from going blind. Alex invades Michele’s privacy and throws her off the bridge along with himself rather than allowing her to leave. We are supposed to believe in a happy, romantic conclusion to this film – knowing full well that whenever Michele should attempt to abandon Alex he will become violent. Certainly, there is no moral message in this film, since a rather sordid romantic relationship is given more importance than the lives of two people apparently killed by Michele and Alex (one shot, one burned to death), others drugged and robbed, another conked over the head, and “domestic” violence between the two principals. There really is no coherent theme to this film other than for us all to duly note Carax’s talent for producing striking visual images.

Production Values: The camera work in Lovers on the Bridge is simply spectacular. That is Carax’s great strength, augmented by the talent of his fine cinematographer, Jean-Yves Escoffier, who later shot Good Will Hunting (1997).

The dialog in Lovers on the Bridge is so sparse and uninteresting that the film could just have well been made as a silent one with little impact on its quality. Carax makes no bones about the fact that a relatively ancient film, Jean Vigo’s L’Atalante (1934), was his model. Lest there be any doubt, the final scene of Lovers on the Bridge occurs on a barge (as in L’Atalante) that will deliver the lovers to the Atlantic. The lack of realism in Lovers on the Bridge (romanticizing homelessness) is not as much of an issue for me as for some other reviewers. Cinema has romanticized criminals and war-makers – why not the homeless? My problem with this film is its lack of narrative coherency.

Binoche is magnificent in the role of Michele. To be honest, Binoche is a person who I could enjoy watching scrubbing the kitchen floor and she is the reason that I picked up this film in the first place. It is fascinating to watch an actress best known for her beauty and playing characters of great strength and goodness here portraying a distraught, homeless, amoral character in rags and eye-patch. Binoche won the Best Actress award at the European Films Awards for her portrayal of Michele. Binoche is best known for performances in The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988), Damage (1992), Blue (1993) (See Three Colors), The Horseman on the Roof (1995), The English Patient (1996), and Chocolat (2000). Denis Lavant’s part was physically demanding, requiring flips and acrobatics, dancing at times and limping at others. His is not an attractive character, but he delivers a fine performance. Lavant’s other credits include Bad Blood (1986).

Bottom-Line: Lovers on the Bridge is a film without either taste or discipline but, nevertheless, possessing in its middle section some of the most extravagant visual treats ever put on film. Carax’s work is sometimes characterized as visual poetry – and it is, but it’s the kind of poetry written by a creative novice. Occasionally one encounters a beautifully turned phrase, a stylistic flourish, or a metaphor of startling originality and raw genius, but between those moments the poem collapses into such insipid nonsense as to make one shiver. This is an average film, at best, overall, but it is composed of some five-star elements intermixed with some one-star qualities. I have to acknowledge that I’m glad to have seen the film – for its five-star scenes – despite its glaring shortcomings. I therefore recommend it, but only to those who have time to occasionally watch a weak film with some exceptionally powerful visual imagery. Lovers on the Bridge is in French with English subtitles. It has a running time of 120 minutes.

Recommended:
Yes

Video Occasion: Good for a Rainy Day
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age