White has a lot of "Polishness" to it, and having a cultural familiarity helps in appreciating the movie better. On display in the movie is a fantasy that taps into many Polish people's desires, especially among the working class, of "making it" financially through scheming, hustling, and moonlighting (there's a word for it: "kombinować"), which White demonstrates beautifully, albeit to an exaggerated effect. This attitude blew up after the fall of Communism as Poles found themselves suddenly in the midst of a fallow capitalist market, but it had always existed even during Communist times. For examples of this kind of entrepreneurship in Polish drama before the collapse of Communism, check out Miś and Zmiennicy. It's no coincidence that those are also comedies like White.
I'm going through old reviews of White at the time of it's release and have now come to realize it was ahead of it's time. The movie holds up better than it's detractors opinions did in the 90's.
White was the best for me. Kept me guessing all the way. The characters are not nice people but i love their pettiness and stupidity. The movie was full of humanity because of these flaws. White had the best soundtrack as well.
I saw this trilogy when I was a young lad and remember loving White the most. Perhaps Red and Blue were emotionally too complex for me then, maybe my taste in cinema was not as complex as it is today, or maybe both. I plan on seeing them again soon and can't wait to re-evaluate them.
As much as I hate to admit that sometimes I agree with Siskel from time to time (Technically not on Trois Colours: Blanc) .. At least he opened my eyes to this trilogy as it has become one of my true favorites in the last 20 years of film.
You cannot expect any number of mainstream Hollywood executives like Siskel to genuinely feel empathy for the position of those who suffer from inequality, unless it involves a racial or sexist element, which then provides a prompt for virtue signalling. Siskel writes off the Polish immigrant Karol as a character (a "sad sack") rather than his portrayal by actor Zbigniew Zamachowski. Culture matters in the themes that films pursue and the characters it presents. Kudos to Roger.
White is a fantastic film on many levels. I simply cannot understand how he did not love it. The icy coldness of so many people reflected by the icy coldness of the environment. Really amazing compared to the garbage produced today.
I think Blue is a great film but White was honestly more entertaining in its own right. It isn't as maybe artful as blue but you never really know what's going to happen next, the character journey is interesting although I'd say unlike Blue there was certain problems I had thinking back (such as it could've been better getting a bit more of Dominique's perspective as she seems a bit 2D).
White is a deranged prank war that just keeps getting more and more extreme. "Achieving equality" and "getting even" are technically synonymous but their connotations are very different. White is a movie where "getting even" is taken to a ludicrous and hilarious extreme.
Have to side with siskel here. I love that they can differ in opinion as respected critics but I just could not get into White, i adored Blue as a film and experience but white just dulled me out
The best for me is Blue, followed by White and then Red. Sorry but that latter film, despite being great, just falters due to Irene Jacob, the girl is just too sweet and idealistic, so much so that it becomes infuriating. It was the same I felt about her performance on The Double Life of Veronique, now that was a pretentious film that was made all the more infuriating by Jacob’s performance.
Why are these two blokes so famous as film critics? I read that they are considered the best. From what I can see, notwithstanding the small time allotted to them, their reviews are so basic and uninteresting I don't know why they're so highly regarded. What even was the point of these snippets?
At the time among contemporaries, they were considered Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee of film critics, but just by sheer length of time, they gained respect from younger critics who grew up watching them. Ebert's writings also gave him some credibility compared to Siskel but Siskel died earlier on so who knows how he would have developed.
Because they were brilliant film critics in print and could write about films better than most. The television show was geared towards informing middle America abt which choice they would make at the cinema that week. Ppl who want interested commentary on movies were still reading it.
SDoesNotKnow Siskel was literally a print critic and lecturer before the show. And both earned highly respectful reputations esp from filmmakers and actual cinema fans. Would love to hear which of their peers thought they were less.
I loved White. It is the weirdest and unfolds the most. Has the best story too.
White is an amazing film.
any film with a young Julie Delpy is an amazing film!
yeah well.. yeah
Have to side with Roger on this one. While I love Blue and believe it is a far superior film, I still think White stands on its own.
White has a lot of "Polishness" to it, and having a cultural familiarity helps in appreciating the movie better. On display in the movie is a fantasy that taps into many Polish people's desires, especially among the working class, of "making it" financially through scheming, hustling, and moonlighting (there's a word for it: "kombinować"), which White demonstrates beautifully, albeit to an exaggerated effect. This attitude blew up after the fall of Communism as Poles found themselves suddenly in the midst of a fallow capitalist market, but it had always existed even during Communist times. For examples of this kind of entrepreneurship in Polish drama before the collapse of Communism, check out Miś and Zmiennicy. It's no coincidence that those are also comedies like White.
Exactly... It may be "too Polish" compared with the other two movies.
I'm going through old reviews of White at the time of it's release and have now come to realize it was ahead of it's time. The movie holds up better than it's detractors opinions did in the 90's.
White was the best for me. Kept me guessing all the way. The characters are not nice people but i love their pettiness and stupidity. The movie was full of humanity because of these flaws. White had the best soundtrack as well.
I saw this trilogy when I was a young lad and remember loving White the most. Perhaps Red and Blue were emotionally too complex for me then, maybe my taste in cinema was not as complex as it is today, or maybe both. I plan on seeing them again soon and can't wait to re-evaluate them.
Me too.. the most touching between the three of them it will be in my mind for mostly forever
White is by far my favorite of the 3. All are wonderful though.
I'm with Roger, I liked white a bit better than blue. Both were absolutely amazing films.
let Ebert talk, Siskel
Exactly
As much as I hate to admit that sometimes I agree with Siskel from time to time (Technically not on Trois Colours: Blanc) .. At least he opened my eyes to this trilogy as it has become one of my true favorites in the last 20 years of film.
You cannot expect any number of mainstream Hollywood executives like Siskel to genuinely feel empathy for the position of those who suffer from inequality, unless it involves a racial or sexist element, which then provides a prompt for virtue signalling. Siskel writes off the Polish immigrant Karol as a character (a "sad sack") rather than his portrayal by actor Zbigniew Zamachowski. Culture matters in the themes that films pursue and the characters it presents. Kudos to Roger.
White is a fantastic film on many levels. I simply cannot understand how he did not love it. The icy coldness of so many people reflected by the icy coldness of the environment. Really amazing compared to the garbage produced today.
I think Blue is a great film but White was honestly more entertaining in its own right. It isn't as maybe artful as blue but you never really know what's going to happen next, the character journey is interesting although I'd say unlike Blue there was certain problems I had thinking back (such as it could've been better getting a bit more of Dominique's perspective as she seems a bit 2D).
I'm Polish and I love this movie, but I agree with Siskel. It's quite incoherent for any person who wasn't familiar with Poland in the early 1990's
White is a hilarious movie
Does Dominique dies at the end?
Watch Red to know that😁
White is a deranged prank war that just keeps getting more and more extreme. "Achieving equality" and "getting even" are technically synonymous but their connotations are very different. White is a movie where "getting even" is taken to a ludicrous and hilarious extreme.
This movie is as close as to a comedy as Kieslowski ever managed.
Have to side with siskel here. I love that they can differ in opinion as respected critics but I just could not get into White, i adored Blue as a film and experience but white just dulled me out
white gets all sandwiched between red and blue
like it!
The best for me is Blue, followed by White and then Red. Sorry but that latter film, despite being great, just falters due to Irene Jacob, the girl is just too sweet and idealistic, so much so that it becomes infuriating. It was the same I felt about her performance on The Double Life of Veronique, now that was a pretentious film that was made all the more infuriating by Jacob’s performance.
Siskel was pretty much a hack.
Why are these two blokes so famous as film critics? I read that they are considered the best. From what I can see, notwithstanding the small time allotted to them, their reviews are so basic and uninteresting I don't know why they're so highly regarded. What even was the point of these snippets?
At the time among contemporaries, they were considered Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee of film critics, but just by sheer length of time, they gained respect from younger critics who grew up watching them. Ebert's writings also gave him some credibility compared to Siskel but Siskel died earlier on so who knows how he would have developed.
Because they were brilliant film critics in print and could write about films better than most. The television show was geared towards informing middle America abt which choice they would make at the cinema that week. Ppl who want interested commentary on movies were still reading it.
SDoesNotKnow Siskel was literally a print critic and lecturer before the show. And both earned highly respectful reputations esp from filmmakers and actual cinema fans. Would love to hear which of their peers thought they were less.
Read his written reviews.
This is not their reviews. They wrote reviews in newspapers. This is just a show they did together