Everyone hates Break of Hearts, but I wonder if its critics have actually seen the film recently or are merely relying on Andre Sennwald's negative review in The New York Times. In one respect at least, Sennwald is very, very wrong, and that is in his description of Moeller's direction as "lifeless and static". In actual fact, the direction is extremely similar to that employed in most modern films and television plays, in that it has an enormous and extraordinary reliance on close-ups. If Moeller's handling is "lifeless and static", I wonder what Sennwald would make of almost every movie release since 1980. Whereas Moeller's close-ups are radiant, full of shimmering light and beauty, most modern efforts are unbearably ugly. And whereas Moeller's close-ups are inventive, imaginative and well-crafted in their inspired use of various camera angles and set-ups, modern usage is invariably monotonous, arbitrary, and obtrusively jerky.
When the mood is appropriate, Moeller does move his camera quite dramatically, whereas modern hacks employ a camera that always seems bolted to the floor. True, the radiantly beautiful close-ups of Hepburn and Boyer are achieved with the expert assistance of photographer Robert De Grasse. But even when lighting is not so important, Moeller's mise en scene, his handling of crowd scenes, etc., are likewise laudably effective. Admittedly, the story is old-hat, but it is put across with tremendous panache and sheer imaginative craftsmanship.
When the mood is appropriate, Moeller does move his camera quite dramatically, whereas modern hacks employ a camera that always seems bolted to the floor. True, the radiantly beautiful close-ups of Hepburn and Boyer are achieved with the expert assistance of photographer Robert De Grasse. But even when lighting is not so important, Moeller's mise en scene, his handling of crowd scenes, etc., are likewise laudably effective. Admittedly, the story is old-hat, but it is put across with tremendous panache and sheer imaginative craftsmanship.