Note: due to the excessive camera movement in the second half of the film, it didn't digitize as well as I would've liked.  Due to compression you lose most of the detail of the characters' faces, which is a shame.

But, the first time I saw this film was online, at the MNTV site, and one of the things that appealed to me about it was how cool it looked compressed.

It reminded me of an impressionist painting.  The way the subtle gradations of color in the landscape are reduced to blocks and smudges of color.  One of the great technical innovations of Monet's work, in fact, I learned in art class, was the use of the square-tipped paintbrush.  Which was taken further by Cezanne in his use of a palette knife alone for some of his paintings.  Interesting.  Here in the 20th century we have these big blocks of compressed video instead, which everybody complains about.

But enough about that.  This film is undoubtedly more beautiful uncompressed.  The way the fall and winter colors come out in the late, veiled light, the way everything rolls past in a slow motion blur.  Miles upon miles of landscape, it seems like.

In film school we're taught economy, efficiency, brevity of storytelling.  The most information in the least amount of time.  And this, translated to acting, gives us the concept of "beats".

As we watch the character, they register a single choice. We see the change as the actor emotes.  Then the character performs an action, which advances the story, which other characters react to in turn.

Simple, and efficient.  But a far, far cry from the reality of human emotions, one could argue.

In "Hearts Breaking in Slow Motion", there is one beat per scene, and two scenes.  We are supposed to watch the characters, watch it taking place inside them, without any obvious, overt clues.

Watching people's faces.  What a curious and wonderful idea for a movie.