jotix100 Marc and Agnes are lovers who have been together for a while. They are comfortable with one another, and yet, there seems to be an undercurrent of frustration in the way they interact with each other. As the story begins, they are preparing to go out to a dinner with friends. Agnes has forgotten something. Marc seen in the bathroom, where he decides to shave his mustache. His new look is ignored by Agnes, as well as the couple they visit. Marc's new look is ignored by all, giving him a rare sense of reality. He even gets pictures taken years before where he clearly shows the mustache in question. Marc is clearly puzzled by a turn of events that make him doubt about things he has taken for granted. He begins to question himself, his relationship, his world, fleeing from it all. Marc takes refuge in the anonymous atmosphere of Hong Kong where he spends a day riding the ferries across Victoria's Harbor in search for answers. He finds some kind of peace in a humble pension in Lantau's island that has memories of a happier time for him, as well as Agnes.Directed by Emmanuel Carrere, based on his own novel, who adapted it for the cinema with Jerome Beaujour. The film poses a lot of interesting questions which are not easily answered in the film, which will throw off some viewers for the many questions raised but not answered. Like most intellectual French filmmakers, Mr. Carrere wants the audience reach its own conclusions. There are clues along the way that might be interpreted in different fashion by different viewers. What the director gets is an absorbing film in the tradition of Michael Haneke's "Cache" and other films that require involvement. Be prepared to do some thinking.Vincent Lindon's work is the main reason for watching "La moustache". He was at his best in this fantastic account of a man's quest to find out the truth about himself and his relationship with Agnes. The actor does a credible job with his Marc, making us care about this man. Emmanuelle Devos gives a good performance as Agnes, who also plays a complex role in the story. The two stars show good chemistry in their take of their characters. Patrick Blossier's excellent cinematography works wonders in the film, as well as Philip Glass' 'Concert for Violin' enhances the mood created by Mr. Carrere.

regina265 serious spoilers belowi really loved this film, and i didn't expect to! i always log onto IMDb (while viewing netflix) to see what people think (and to figure out the ending b/c i hate suspense.) :D i felt like i was in marc's head the whole time. i related to him running to hong kong, and i related to him being on the boat, back and forth, over the water, clearing his head, regaining a sense of balance and normalcy. (if you've ever traveled where you can't communicate the language, you tend to think... A lot... and it can be very soothing.) i loved the way the carrére showed this bit by bit, as marc started going with the flow in the culture he was a guest in, by moving the seat for the lady, getting proper change for the boat, etc.i loved that when agnés showed up, marc didn't try to argue about anything, he just went with the flow b/c he was so happy to have her back. and in true french film fashion, we get to see agnés as a beguiling woman (doing simple things like brushing her hair and packing) through marc's eyesi recall, many years ago, a great (male) pal of mine said "the way to make a woman happy is to say 'yes dear!'" now - i don't agree with that per se - but it has it's strong points, believe me - on account of we women can make very little sense to our men at times. i thought (within that concept) it was very brave of marc to shave his mustache at the little hotel. hence, he risked "losing" her again. but he finally puts the past behind him when he tosses the postcard in the water.going with the flow is something one must do as a tourist, and it's something one must do to effect compromise with one's mate. oddly - it's also something one should do to enjoy this film (judging from the comments.)this is a gorgeous, gorgeous film. all the tension in Paris is released over the water in hong kong (and glass's score suddenly feels peaceful, as opposed to totally triste.) and vincent lindon's subtlety as marc blows me away. to me, the key is in what marc wrote on the postcard, and the fact that he threw it in the water (if that makes sense.) that, to me, was the (unexpected) moment i was waiting for as a viewer. i wish i could truly define and dissect this movie as an experience - but i don't have the educational chops for that. all i can write is that i felt an emotional shift at the end, and very light. much like seeing an excellent live show, when the band is in their groove and the audience is right with them. it's a little bit of a give and take, i guess, between carrére and us.

ben-654 La Moustache opens with a man thinking about possibly shaving his moustache. There are theories in both spiritual and scientific circles that postulate that whenever we make a decision like this we in fact make them both. We "filter" out the decision that we "didn't" make and continue to live our normal seemingly-linear life, but another reality exists, just as real as "this" one, in which we made the "other" decision.To understand this movie in a multiple-timeline context, we have to back up to the beginning of the main character's adult life (before the movie starts), in which he made the decision to grow a moustache at all. In timeline A he never grew one, in timeline B he always grew one since he could. The movie thus begins in timeline B. To keep things simple, let's pretend there are only these two timelines to worry about.The movie opens with the main character making the decision to shave his moustache. In one reality, timeline B, he keeps it. We don't see this reality for the next week or so of his life. Instead, the decision to shave his moustache is so jarring that he "jumps" to timeline A, or more accurately he jumps to timeline A but elements of timeline B are still known to him, such as the photographs of his vacation, the license in his wallet, and his overall consciousness and memories are still from timeline B. Most of the movie, however, takes place in timeline A.The fact that he is caught between timelines is psychologically disturbing to him and his wife, neither of whom understand the predicament he is in, and assume that he is either going crazy or, as he assumes at times, someone may be playing an elaborate prank on him.Overhearing that his wife might send him to a mental institution, he escapes to Hong Kong. He immediately misses his wife and writes a postcard to her that he will be back by the time she gets it, but doesn't mail it. He takes a ferry from the city side to the airport side of a river, but before boarding the plane, changes his mind again and goes back on the ferry. Then he _keeps on_ going back and forth across the ferry until the end of the day when it closes. He never does go back to the airport.The ferry riding is a very interesting element in the film. A decision - the decision to shave his moustache, was done hastily in the beginning of the film. Again, another decision, to not get on the plane and get back on the ferry, was made quickly. Was he perhaps trying to "trick time" into getting him back into the right timeline? Or is the ferry simply a way to experience the same space over and over again - a "sameness" - that is in fact "different" every time (every time he rides the ferry there are new people, and he sits in a different place, etc. Even the chairs on the ferry seem to have adjustable backs on them that can swing one way or another, so that the rider can make a decision to face backwards or forwards. Only the ticket seller is the same, and she never seems to recognize him or wonder why he is riding back and forth) Normally we experience sameness (e.g. going to work) that can seem very much the same every time (same co-workers, similar work, etc.) and the ferry is a break from that. Or does the ferry "between" the city and the airport represent his state of "betweenness" of the timelines? He doesn't want to go back to France, where they might put him in an institution, but he doesn't want to go to his Hong Kong hotel, where he will be missing his wife. He decides to stay "between" for this day, and he seems content in this between-ness. He doesn't seem that nervous or worried on the ferry. He is cordial, even smiling to teenage schoolgirls that are giggling at him. He is learning to be OK with betweenness.The movie then jumps to what seems like days later (or perhaps even longer) and the main character now has a moustache grown out. The moustache being present is the catalyst to get him back to timeline B, and when he gets back to his hotel his wife his there, and it is as if she has been there the whole time, with him, on vacation.That night he asks if she would like to see him without a moustache, and she says that she might like to have him try it. This is a different answer than at the opening of the movie, where she says that she has never seen him without it, and she doesn't seem to be that into the idea of him shaving it. He shaves the moustache, but stays in timeline B. Perhaps this time the move is not so jarring because he has done it before. Or perhaps it is because his wife seems more approving this time while they are happy on vacation. Or perhaps it is because he has learned to live in and accept "betweenness" after his experience on the ferry. All is well. Or is it? As the lights dim in the room, the viewer is wondering if he will wake up in timeline A all alone.

jwatson-16 Because I'm about to tell you you've been had, like someone swindled by a two-bit fortune-teller.Before I explain why, let me start by saying that it did not bother me that this film didn't resolve itself. I've watched some pretty challenging and experimental films that leave a LOT hanging, and I love them! Try El Topo sometime. There are more mainstream ones too like Naked Lunch, or Brazil. These films do not have nice tidy plot lines where everything makes sense -- they are still brilliant films.The difference in the case of "La Moustache" is that while this film also happens to lack nice tidy plot lines, the film-makers seemed to think that that, all by itself, makes this film brilliant too.I have never before seen a film that was so elitist, so vapid, and so disrespectful of its audience in assuming it is more clever than they are. The really sad thing is that, judging from reviews here, and even many professional reviews, the film succeeded in pulling the wool over many peoples' eyes.Who the hell am I to say these things? Well I watched this film with a professional artist, and man with a PhD in comparative literature (who did extensive work in film studies). And you can probably tell from my writing, I'm no dummy either.And the three of us were in total agreement: This film is like an inside joke whose punch line doesn't make sense, and yet everyone, maybe for fear of appearing not to "get it" starts nodding and laughing nervously.Why is everyone doing this? Because the punch line SEEMS like it should make sense. We want it to make sense. There are all kinds of symbols and portentous happenings that are vaguely related to one another in some way or another -- like tarot cards sitting on the table. Stare at them long enough, and squint, and suddenly you can see "the answer".But your subconscious is really just inventing whatever story it likes, and omitting any details that didn't fit. The movie is not smarter than you are. It is a bunch of seemingly "deep" events that strut around like a Chinese emperor in his newest outfit. (Psst, he's naked!)As a film maker, if you're going to make a film that doesn't tie things together neatly, then you need to realize you have an obligation to make your film about SOMETHING more meaningful than the incongruous events you are showing on the screen.Naked lunch was about the visions of a writer who is losing his mind. Brazil was about how dreams are powerful enough to transcend even a post-apocalyptic nightmare of a future.This film is not about ANYTHING, except how you can make your audience follow a carrot on the end of a string, just by editing together a lot of scenes with great acting, great direction, and high production values that don't actually make any sense.It's apparently what happens when you take a neat starting idea (a man shaves off his mustache, and everyone seems not to notice, then they claim he never had one), and then you become more interested in making yourself look clever than in actually telling a story that bears some relevance on our lives.Very, very sad, or the French would say: Pathétique.