Third Person

This was a very weird week at the movies for me. I reviewed three new films this week, and each of them would qualify for the term “mixed bag.” However, Paul Haggis’ Third Person might be the most mixed of the lot. Even more peculiar is the fact that I find myself in the position of defending the movie, which seems pretty incredible because no one has ever called me a fan of Paul Haggis’ work. I’m not even sure I’m exactly a fan of Third Person, but it’s getting a raw deal from most of my critical brethren. Or so it seems to me. Maybe I’m just dazzled by a movie in which Liam Neeson isn’t playing an AARP-endorsed action hero and where I don’t feel a great need to slap James Franco. These are notable accomplishments in themselves, but there’s more worthwhile to the film than that. Up front, I will admit it’s not a great film, nor even a very good one, but it’s ambitious — and kind of fascinating.

Haggis’ film is made up of three separate stories in three separate parts of the world — Rome, Paris and New York — that may or may not interconnect. Right away this is likely to call to mind Haggis’ 2005 Crash, a work that’s more notorious for beating out Brokeback Mountain for a Best Picture Oscar than anything else. The odd truth here is that it should call Crash to mind, but not because the two films are all that much alike. No, it’s because the two films are part of a single vision, and it’s that vision that Third Person is ultimately about. The problem with pursuing this line of thought very far is that it can’t be done without giving away more of the film than I should. But when Mick La Salle (one of the movie’s biggest supporters) in the San Francisco Chronicle says it’s the film Haggis “has been building toward for years,” this underlying theme is what he’s talking about, I think. It truly is a kind of summation. It is also something of a puzzle, and this is where a lot of the complaints about the film originate, and yet the film plays fair in this regard. There are hints throughout — some subtle, one obvious — that things are not quite what they seem.

The three stories that make up the film have similar themes. One theme in particular is, in itself, a clue to the overall movie. In New York we’re dealing with Julia (Mila Kunis), a wreck of a human being trying to keep visitation rights to her son (newcomer Oliver Crouch) despite the best efforts of ex-husband Rick (James Franco) to prevent this. Julia, who works (not very well) as a chambermaid in a posh hotel, simply can’t get it together. In Paris is Michael (Liam Neeson), a writer with both professional and personal problems. He’s in a writing slump and dealing with estranged wife Elaine (Kim Basinger) back in the U.S. and his more-than-slightly disturbed girlfriend Anna (Olivia Wilde) in Paris. In Rome we have low-rent fashion thief Scott (Adrien Brody). While waiting for a plane back to the States, he becomes involved with a beautiful woman, Morika (Moran Atias), who may have mistaken him for a rich American and set him up. Haggis moves freely from story to story with increasing speed, sometimes blurring the lines. The film builds in momentum to arrive at a conclusion that … well, makes perfect sense, but is not going to be a crowd-pleaser. It’s also not quite as profound as Haggis seems to think — unless you look at it as part of a broader picture of the artist’s relation to his work. That’s probably not something most people will be willing to do.

Is Third Person a failure? Very probably it is. But it’s a kind of glorious failure — and one that’s beautifully produced and acted. More than that, however, it’s a bold film and an idiosyncratic work of great ambition and personal integrity. And we don’t get nearly enough of those — certainly not enough that we can afford to overlook a flawed gem like this. Rated R for language and some sexuality/nudity.

Playing at Carolina Cinemas.