Review of Yes (2005) by David U — 02 Feb 2006

[font=Tahoma][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]One of the final films to be released in 2005, [i]The New World[/i], was a (successful) attempt by maverick Terrence Malick to create a cinematic equivalent of a poem. [i]Yes[/i], one of the most divisive films of 2005 (between the few who saw it, at least), also wants to be a cinematic poem; but Sally Potter's approach is distinctly different. Malick uses beautiful imagery and sparse dialogue to create his poem; Potter takes the more straightforward approach of actually writing her film as a poem. [i]Yes[/i] is a film written in verse.

This novel approach is certainly original and even daring, but then, from Potter I'd expect no less; her [i]Orlando[/i] is only an hour and a half, yet in it's journey through centuries and people and places it has a distinctly epic feeling. [i]Yes[/i] does not span time; it spans issues. As the film progresses, Potter's intent of a rumination on today's broken society and cultures becomes increasingly evident; and, ultimately, means that the film becomes too big for it's own boots.

But, nevertheless, there is much to admire here. The increasingly overlooked Joan Allen (her performance in [i]The Upside of Anger[/i] was the subject of outcry when it wasn't nominated for Best Actress by the Oscars) stars as a woman known only as "She"; in a defunct relationship with her husband Anthony (Sam Neill), She falls into an affair with "He" (Simon Abkarian), a waiter and chef she meets at a gala. The divide between Allen's Irish-American woman and Abkarian's Middle-Eastern man already point to Potter's intent: the hot-potato topic of American-Muslim relations and terrorism. So direct is Potter's intent that she, apparently, began writing the script on September the 12th 2001.

[i]Yes[/i] does not take a conventional approach to cinema in any way, shape, or form. The editing is erratic; sometimes, Potter uses jarring, slow motion; then speeded up footage; then scenes which jump at seconds' interval. Anthony never seems to find out about his wife's affair in the way you'd expect; their fractured marriage is such that they never talk, and shout when they do. "She" is initially reluctant to fall into "He"'s arms; but it is later He who draws away. The pivotal scene, as you might call it, takes place in a darkly lit car park; it is here that the politic undertones of the pair's sexual relationship are unveiled. Too often Potter's dialogue is unreal; can her points be taken as valid if we don't believe that her characters mean them? However, Potter's naming of her two central characters probably points out the idea that these are not people, but ideas; these could be anyone, any two people who fall into an affair which the world says is verboten.

When [i]Yes[/i] decides to move away from it's setting of England it loses it lustre, save for a beautiful scene where Allen's grandmother (Sheila Hancock) is dying and talks to her grandchild through her thoughts; it's scenes in Cuba are rather uncomprehensible and alienating. What is most successful in the film are the short scenes we share with Anthony and "She"'s cleaner, played by the vibrant Shirley Henderson; here, Potter's ideas concerning both the literal and figurative idea of cleanliness (how nothing can ever truly be clean; and why, anyway, would you want it to be?; you should live your life, not clean it away) are poetically and fascinatingly brought to life through straight-to-camera monologues, and, at the end of the day, [i]Yes[/i] will leave you with the idea [i]"That "no" does not exist. There's only "yes"."[/i] And that, my friends, is a very positive idea indeed.[/size][/font].

[/font].