Superb in some departments, below average in others

Rating: 7/10 (14 September 2001)

After viewing a 9 Oscar winner, you begin to wonder how Hollywood thinks and rates a movie.
There are some aspects of this film where the Oscar was richly deserving: the intelligent editing, good music, good photography, a rich bouncy performance by Juliet Binoche, who was even better in "Chocolat." The opening sequences were absolutely breathtaking--was it a single shot? or beautifully edited to look like a single shot?
How in the world this movie was rated better than "Fargo" the other film in competition, in other departments, I cannot comprehend. Does "love" for a woman mean more than giving war secrets to the enemy? Does marital betrayal get condoned? It is amazing that Hollywood sometimes chooses to reward subjects than filmmaking: "Gandhi" is an example. Here filmmaking gets appreciated but the content is rarely analyzed.
As for performances Naveen Andrews as Kip was striking; so was Kristin Scott Thomas (who gave a better performance in Polanski's "Bitter Moon"). Both never won awards in this film.
In short this is a good movie in several departments--with lackluster direction and a not-so-uplifting subject.