In 1988 praised as an erotic movie. In 2018 we can only see Tomas as a sex addict a la "Shame" (2011, Steve McQueen).

Noteworthy just the same is the fact that in the late '60s there were youth protests irrespective of the political system (North America: flower power and Woodstock. Western Europe: Student protests in Paris. Eastern Europe: spring of Prague.).

With respect to coping with a dictatorship the films shows three fundamentally different strategies. Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis) is trying to fight back, Sabina (Lena Olin) flights while Tereza (Juliette Binoche) adapts.

The film was made just before the velvet revolutions of 1989. More than twenty five years later I was reading the book "Dancing bears" (2014, Witbold Szablowski). This book describes that not everybody knows how to cope with the freedom that was conquered. Some people feel more comfortable when they are told what to do and how to behave. Somehow I had to think about Tereza when reading this book.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)

I liked this book a lot, and I like director Philip Kaufman's approach to movies. The best of this movie is terrific, as well: the wild culture of personal and cultural freedom at the start, the chilling invasion of Soviet tanks in the center, and the last half hour of idealized romance and happiness in the country.

That kind of gives away the movie, it would seem. But in a way, the movie is about how all these things happen. This is where it gets to be about taste and patience. It's a long movie, and much of the events are not really a development of plot, but a steady continuation of a variety of relationships (mainly between the lead man and the two main women). There is a plot behind all this, especially around their leaving Czechoslovakia and then finding a return to bliss in the Czech countryside, but this doesn't drive the movie overall.

For me, it wasn't enough to see these people enjoying sex and discovering conflicts between the three legs of the love triangle. Scenes were often leisurely in a way that implies we were glad to just be there and watch things happen within a pocket of frozen time, rather than through time. By that I mean, it wasn't where you were going with the emotional aspects, but it was where you were, the now of the interactions. The might actually be where the book was so successful--it created moods and scenes where you were, actually, glad to just be absorbed. For me, that wasn't always the case in the film version.

Part of the problem might just be Daniel Day Lewis, who is a bit too self-satisfied, not as a character (that is certain) but as an actor. He lacks the magnetism that might sustain the unlikely and ongoing love the two women have for him, even as they know about each other. On the other hand, it's a huge, epic tale about true freedom, and a very real pursuit of happiness. And when the energy gets going, and the mood is fully expanded, there is magic. Especially, again, at the end, including the famous fade to white in the last frames, it is about a kind of heaven on earth. Who can object to that?