raidatlanta Duras is a good writer, but a terrible film maker. When you watch one of her movies - and I have imposed a few to myself - you know you will watch somethings that has some interesting ideas, but that lacks any movie making skill.This film which is supposed to take place in India, but which was filmed in France, does good efforts for a virtually no-budget film. I love the opening scene, and the silent, narrative atmosphere led me into thinking this would be a good film for about 15-20 minutes. The main problem is that it gets old quick. at first it's a bit captivating, some original way to make a movie, etc. After 20 minutes you just want anything to happen, you want it to be well filmed, you would like the actors to do more than what a wax figure could do. After an hour and a half I wanted to shoot myself. You need some guts to finish this film, if you want my opinion, mostly because of how long it is, but also because of how bland it gets.

Rebecca I'm not sure what drug one would have to be on to enjoy this film... but it's complete poo if you're sober. I admit that I liked the music and the main character's dress (a lot), but otherwise it was a waste of a beautiful Miami Sunday afternoon. The images were dark and the characters interchangeable. The story was unclear and uninteresting. I feel sorry for the film school guy who introduced it who probably had to watch it several times and try to make it sound interesting. I was crossing my fingers throughout the film, hoping that it wouldn't be a full two hours... but it was. Two hours of watching people look at themselves in the mirror and dance slowly in circles. Two hours of confusing and pointless off screen dialog (I never saw a lip move on screen). Two hours of strange noises and dark images. TWO WHOLE HOURS of absolutely nothing.

regvernon I was taken aback at first - the complete absence of spoken dialogue from the cast was a bit unnerving - instead, the film consists of two strands, visual and aural. Visually, the film is slow, languorous and visually sensual. It is almost a 'silent' film. Aurally, the film consists of voices over, providing not so much a narrative as recollections. The voices over (not being a fluent French speaker I had to rely on sub-titles) are telling a story of events that happened in the past whilst the cast act out the events as though they are the ghosts of the buildings in which the events were played out. But there is a story - of a woman married to a French diplomat, living for the time being in Calcutta, who takes lovers to relieve the tedious boredom of social niceties (and the heat, dust and flies). This story is punctuated by one scene in which someone who has fallen in love with her makes his feelings known to her and then, betraying the norms of his society, declares his feelings and his despair, by getting emotional about it - very emotional. I was transfixed. Fortunately, I watched it on DVD having recorded it from BBC4 - so I've got it to watch again, as I shall most certainly do.

Binoche It's incredible how people dare to write things like this: " Look, some film has got to the be worst ever. I suggest it may be India Song."... And this is just the beginning! Some viewers (but did he SEE anything???) think that their lack of emotion or thinking is an automatic rule for everyone on earth. I don't care if A, B, or C doesn't recognize Marguerite Duras as one of the great experimenters of all the history of movie making. But I care about the fact that IMDb gives so much evidence to words of pure indifference to the cinema that tries to discuss the obvious ways of representing the world. Why the evidence to a commentary that is only a childish protest of someone who thinks the world ends in his own state of boredom?