Two Lovers (2008) is a surprisingly good, low-key indie type romantic drama directed by James Gray. Set in contemporary Brooklyn, it stars Joaquin Phoenix as Leonard, the sensitive and somewhat unstable young man who finds himself in the seemingly enviable position of having to choose between two very attractive women, Sandra (Vinessa Shaw) and Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow).

Two Lovers does a good job of portraying a particular ethnic milieu, that of traditional Jewish business owners -immigrants or children of immigrants- in Brooklyn. The way his parents treat the thirty-ish Leonard might seem a bit of a stereotype -the overprotective Jewish parents. It is a little amusing to see him trying to sneak out of the house before his mother (played by Isabella Rosellini) can interrogate him about his plans. But it is made clear early on that Leonard is disturbed -the opening scene shows him in a half-hearted suicide attempt- which makes his parents’ smothering behavior a little more understandable.

The two women represent opposing directions Leonard can take. Sandra is the daughter of his father’s business partner, and a marriage between the two is practically being arranged, Old World style. Michelle, meanwhile, is a Manhattan girl, albeit one with problems of her own, including a tendency to pop pills. Michelle is also manipulative, stringing Leonard along while she maintains an affair with her married boss.

Everything about Two Lovers is nearly perfect, in a way that it’s easy to overlook because of the ordinariness of the circumstances. All of the characters, as well as the setting feel real, and the story, while simple, has a real poignancy. I can’t say I really liked the ending, but I can’t elaborate on that without giving too much away. Besides, even if I would have preferred a different outcome (not so much in Leonard ending up with one woman over the other, but his apparent overall life direction at the end), it was probably realistic and in that sense in keeping with the film’s authentic spirit.

Two Lovers

LOOK takes a not very well known cast and a gimmicky plot and turns it into a surprisingly effective and original drama. The gimmick is the now ubiquitous presence of video cameras that film so much of our existence. Look combines this with the by-now familiar device of interconnected lives in a big city (Los Angeles, where so many of these films are set).

Look maintains a compelling pace and the acting is good, even when the characters seem a little exaggerated for the sake of intensifying the story. A sleazy retail store manager, for example, seems to do nothing all day but seduce the female employees. An equally amoral female high school student plots to entrap one of her married teachers. A pair of crazed gunmen, meanwhile, are committing seemingly random acts of violence.

The somewhat over-hyped nature of the characters is matched by their apparent ignorance of the modern age of video cameras. No one seems to have any idea that they are being filmed. Another strange thing about this film is the lack of any real message. At the beginning, we are told the rather sinister fact that the average American is videotaped 200 times in a day. I have no idea if this is accurate, but either way this intro suggests that the film is going to be a critique of this invasion of privacy. Not so. In fact, by the end, the video cameras are, if anything, made to appear more benevolent than creepy. Yet I don’t think that was the intent. This was, rather, an attempt to simply view the chaos of modern life through the eyes of these cameras. Any moral judgments are left to the audience.

The lack of any blatant moralizing about the video phenomenon is perhaps what gives Look its sly quality of being something deeper and more memorable than the sum of its parts. Like the surveillance cameras themselves, the film itself remains coldly detached and simply lets its often absurd characters make fools (or worse) out of themselves. This is one of those films that makes you think about the very nature of them medium you are watching.

Look is the sort of imperfect independent film that I enjoyed more than many superficially superior -but more predictable- Hollywood movies. At the lower end, most mainstream films are little more than sequences of by-the-numbers action; at the higher end, they tend to be filmed versions of stage plays with actors giving resounding performances as they re-enact the familiar themes that hark back to Shakespeare and Greek tragedies.

Look, by contrast, is a truly contemporary film that could only be a film. Despite its imperfections, it makes us look at the world, and its many hidden cameras, a little differently.