gavin6942 A member of Parliament (Jeremy Irons) falls passionately in love with his son's fiancée despite the dangers of discovery.At the time of its release, the film achieved some acclaim. Miranda Richardson was nominated for an Academy Award and won a BAFTA in the category of Best Supporting Actress for her performance as the aggrieved wife of the film's main character. If anyone deserves to be singled out, it is Richardson.This film on its surface is not that amazing. You want it to be, because it is Louis Malle. But this is what happens when you cast Jeremy Irons. He is very understated, and his performances are art that may need to be digested, sometimes in multiple viewings. This is most evident in his work with Cronenberg, but very much here, too.

cheergal I watched this movie several times and gradually developing obsession on its own. It probably sounded more terrified than it should. However, I would say I was obsessive to figure out how the obsession started.There are carnal desires embedded in our instincts which somehow hard to detect not even be recognized with. How we are drawn into someone without even knowing the person it's beyond our comprehension. This movie is a good presentation for that. Obsession cannot be categorized as love. Love is reciprocal. Obsession is forceful without mutual interaction which may cause harms even cost the ultimate price. I think the origin of obsession might come from past traumatic experiences which is so well explained in the movie. There are several movies well laying out the obsession but not the reasons. This one is different. It showed how it started and developed which I was not aware in the beginning until later. I am not a big fan of dark subjects. This one has more substances than others.There is only one thing I felt short of is it did not explain Stephen's process of desiring an affair. As a prominent figure, his struggles seemed not well explained beyond he just ditching out here and there. I felt it should be more than that. It's a good movie just not everybody's cup of tea.

BridgeGuy One of the most unpleasantly realistic but also brilliant films ever made, and the most poisoned spike is the possibility of equal damage being visited on families from every background, exactly as happened to the affluent Flemings.Their position can't help them, indeed it helps destroy them; arguably the feckless and damaged are attracted towards their bright lights, and Stephen Fleming's government rising star's lifestyle must surely make him believe, like many successful men, that anything is possible.Including indeed, pairing off with their son's girlfriend. It comes to no good and if you think the film is bad, try Josephine Hart's book!! The acting by all the main players is outstanding, but special special mention for Juliette Binoche, who sets the bar for butter-would-never-melt prospective friends/lovers/bringers-of-havoc. Nice understated use also of central London's mews terraces and stucco frontages as a rich man's playground, and painfully well-observed marks of true all-enveloping obsession in love.A treat. Horrific in subject matter, but an amazing piece of work.

Rockwell_Cronenberg In Damage, Louis Malle takes the standard tale of infidelity and plays it in a more unique way than we've seen before. That is to say, he keeps all of the emotions bottled up and close to the chest. Adapted by David Hare, from a novel by Josephine Hart, it tells the story of a Parliament member (Jeremy Irons) who falls deeply in love with his son's fiancée (Juliette Binoche) and carries on an affair with her. The set up is standard, but the approach is what sets this apart. A few years earlier, Adrian Lyne brought us the intense and high-drama extreme of infidelity Fatal Attraction, and here Malle brings us the opposition. It's all stolen glances, closeted emotions and passion that comes out only in the bedroom.For the longest time it seemed like it wasn't doing much new, but the rigidness of it all is such a great contrast to the passion in the sexual scenes. Those scenes felt dangerous, erotic and exciting, while the rest of it was appropriately closeted as a result. Irons slipped into the skin of his character so well, making you see him as this guy who had been so passionless his whole life but finally found something worth feeling for. It's a hauntingly apt portrayal of sexual obsession. The first meeting between Irons and Binoche is brilliantly executed; in the first touch between them you can see in him that this is something that has changed his life completely. It's all very close to the chest and the way Malle constructs it is so brilliantly understated, which I felt added even more emotional pull to it.A lot of people could complain about the characters being thin, but I felt that they couldn't have been any more detailed; it's all there if you're looking closely. In their conversations, their looks, they reveal all of the things that don't come out on the surface. This is the kind of film that doesn't waste a word. Juliette Binoche was incredible, playing something quite unique than what I've come to expect from her, almost an antagonist in a lot of ways. Binoche has made a career out of portraying more on the inside than she displays on the outside, and this is taking that skill of her's to an extreme. Her character is haunted by her past, motivated by so much but revealing so little. It's that mystery that makes her so compelling, so frightening yet simultaneously alluring.The final act raises things to an even more impressive, disturbing level. Miranda Richardson has a big scene near the end that is sure to resonate with any viewer. It's hard to think of many scenes that were as hard to watch as that one. There's so much hate, anguish and devastation in her. She took that character to such an emotional extreme, yet somehow was able to keep it from feeling even slightly melodramatic. It all boils down to a conclusion that is devastating, powerful and absolutely haunting, aided by an operatic score.