How A Couch in New York deconstructs the romantic… | Little White Lies

How A Couch in New York decon­structs the roman­tic comedy

21 Feb 2021

Words by Gabriela Almeida

Two people, a man and a woman, standing in a city skyline at night, with a dog between them.
Two people, a man and a woman, standing in a city skyline at night, with a dog between them.
Chan­tal Akerman’s 1996 film, star­ring Juli­ette Binoche and William Hurt, ful­ly embraces genre, hap­py end­ing and all.

A few min­utes into Chan­tal Akerman’s A Couch in New York, an Amer­i­can ele­va­tor oper­a­tor pro­fess­es to Beat­rice (Juli­ette Binoche), a French woman just arrived from Paris, that he loves dancers like her. Curi­ous, she asks him why. He tens­es under her gaze, unable to answer. He was just mak­ing small talk. When she shifts top­ics, he sighs with enthu­si­asm, vis­i­bly relax­ing. The world is back in order.

Released 25 years ago, A Couch in New York was panned by crit­ics as pleas­ant but unac­count­able fluff,” a minor work from a dis­tin­guished film­mak­er that was best left for­got­ten. But it’s moments like the one men­tioned above, brim­ming with the ten­sion between Akerman’s usu­al inci­sive, inquis­i­tive mode of film­mak­ing and the fun and unde­mand­ing nature of a roman­tic com­e­dy, that make it worth re-evaluating.

In embrac­ing the cliché of the rom-com, Aker­man explores one of her prime the­mat­ic inter­ests – roman­tic love – with­in the genre’s con­strained and for­mu­la­ic struc­ture. The film opens in New York, where weary psy­cho­an­a­lyst Dr Hen­ry Har­ris­ton (William Hurt), announces an apart­ment swap in the Her­ald Tri­bune. From Paris, Beat­rice responds, and a series of cross­cuts estab­lish the con­trasts between the two: her apart­ment is noisy and clut­tered; his is qui­et and neat.

Aker­man plays with the genre’s dis­po­si­tion towards quirk­i­ness, ampli­fy­ing the eccen­tric­i­ty of her leads. Beat­rice is Parisian to the point of par­o­dy, a pas­sion­ate, quirky and some­what naïve dancer who dons an exag­ger­at­ed French accent. Hen­ry, on the oth­er hand, is a spir­it­less shrink with a depressed dog and an absent fiancée. Even New York takes on a strange­ly plas­tic qual­i­ty; from too-blue skies and elab­o­rate­ly coloured sets to the end­less lights of the sky­line at night, the city appears unre­al, almost like a painting.

Two people sitting on a bed, looking at a device together.

The direc­tor once referred to the film as a dou­ble fish out of water” sit­u­a­tion. How­ev­er, where Beat­rice quick­ly adapts to New York, even game­ly tak­ing on Henry’s neu­rot­ic patients, his tem­pera­ment, even after the swap, is marked by an aching melan­choly and sense of per­pet­u­al dis­place­ment, char­ac­ter­is­tics dis­tinc­tive of oth­er Aker­man char­ac­ters. The steril­i­ty of his Fifth Avenue apart­ment feels emp­ty and unlived-in – more office than home. That is, until Beat­rice dis­rupts its symmetry.

Hen­ry aban­dons his patients with­out so much as a back­up ana­lyst, and though their calls are pricked with urgency, there is nev­er a sense that the unthink­able will hap­pen. Still, it’s only when Hen­ry set­tles back on the couch and talks to Beat­rice about his moth­er, shed­ding his iden­ti­ty as a psy­cho­an­a­lyst, that the two final­ly come togeth­er and real­i­ty gives way to the fan­ta­sy the film has been promis­ing all along. To this end, it’s Binoche’s Beat­rice who best epit­o­mis­es the airy light­ness of the rom-com; its propen­si­ty for mag­ic and the improb­a­ble. Even with her rudi­men­ta­ry knowl­edge of human psy­chol­o­gy, Henry’s patients show more signs of improve­ment with her than they ever did with him.

Aker­man knows that to watch a roman­tic com­e­dy is to wil­ful­ly sus­pend one’s dis­be­lief. Hen­ry and Beat­rice spend most of their screen time apart. They learn about each oth­er through objects and assump­tions. To Beat­rice, Henry’s liv­ing space reveals a calm, reserved char­ac­ter, some­one very deep, very inte­ri­or.” While to Hen­ry, dis­card­ed lin­gerie and lovers’ let­ters dis­close a charm­ing frank­ness. By the end of the film, they’ve come to know each oth­er only in halves, through mis­tak­en iden­ti­ties and the things they’ve left behind. There is no real rea­son for us to believe these char­ac­ters might end up togeth­er, if not for the fact that they always do.

In one of the film’s most poignant scenes, Beatrice’s friend Anne (Stephanie But­tle) crit­i­cis­es a roman­tic movie they’ve just seen for its hap­py end­ing, scoff­ing that the pro­tag­o­nists look at each oth­er like two cows in a field.” But Beat­rice adores the film – its hap­py end­ing cor­re­lates with what she feels when talk­ing to Hen­ry. Here, A Couch in New York estab­lish­es itself as part of this cin­e­mat­ic his­to­ry – a genre of high dra­ma and emo­tion­al excess – and as part of the fan­ta­sy. Anne accus­es Beat­rice of pro­ject­ing onto Hen­ry a love that doesn’t exist.

Trans­fer­ence, imag­i­na­tion, love – it doesn’t real­ly mat­ter. The film and the romance col­lapse into each oth­er; they’re the most beau­ti­ful thing Beat­rice has ever expe­ri­enced. Some­times it’s good to have a hap­py ending.

You might like