|
|
|
1983 - France
Director
Maurice Pialat
Starring
Sandrine Bonnaire, Maurice Pialat
|
|
Excellent, excellent film: Pialat is confirmedly one of my guys. I seem to be watching a lot of hyper-sexual adolescent angst films lately… this one rings truest, satisfies most. Sandrine Bonnaire is absolutely sensational as Suzanne, a bright but disinterested young woman, whose family life is in shambles and prone to sudden violence, and who can forget it all when she’s with a guy but can’t make it work with the one guy she loves. If I’m making this sound too much like an 80s American teen sex comedy, the fault is all mine, because this film really is exquisite, sensitive, deeply felt. The ending is perfection.
I love them both but I’m probably going to be all alone in preferring Pialat’s Loulou — maybe I’d say they’re similar in tone, equal in quality, but a slightly older cast works better for me.
I like Eli’s idea of watching the Doinel films as he reaches the age of the character. Characters my own age always resonate more deeply.
Screencaps
   
[À ma soeur!]
2002 - France
Director
Catherine Breillat
|
This is nothing but a long spoiler, so warning from the outset, but I can’t discuss this film otherwise.
Catherine Breillat, what goes on in your head. I liked a lot of this movie, for many of the same reasons as 36 fillette: realism, emotional honesty, unsentimentality about adolescent sexuality. For me, that is a good project; I like people to fuck up our notions of what sex is in cinema and life, as long as it doesn’t cross over into exploitation, and I really don’t feel that Breillat does.
That said, the ending ruined it all for me. Not from the very moment of sudden, out-of-nowhere violence, which I suppose could be criticized as being poorly motivated, an example of a director who doesn’t know how to finish her film, but that’s not my criticism. In a film like this, plot issues don’t bother me much. I was cautiously willing to go along with it. It was ruined for me at the rape scene, or the per-Anais not rape scene, because she wanted it and she liked it and you can believe her or not that’s your business. Mad No 13-year-old watches her mother and sister be brutally murdered then anticipates and enjoys sex in the woods with the killer. Not unless she is some intense psychopath – and sure, aww, adolescence is hard, but that the film doesn’t support. I’m willing to be taken to dark places but I guess I’ve found the line beyond which I cannot cross. That destroys everything I liked about the film, and Breillat’s work, in an instant. Honesty and realism this film lacks in profusion.
Now what to rate this, what to think of Breillat? Watched the two interviews on the Criterion disc and found her to be immensely well-spoken, very insightful, arrogant sure but not a pompous academic. Fascinated by a lot of what she had to say (frustrated that she had next to nothing to say about the ending). Well apart from this and the low rating I suppose I must give the film I remain very interested in what she does…
|
1988 - France
Director
Catherine Breillat
|
Ultimately not a hugely shocking film — in fact, it surprised me how shy Breillat’s camera became at times — about a 14-year-old girl in a hurry to lose her virginity and an older man who’s a swinger, and comfortable with all manner of unusual sexual behavior, but can’t understand why this kid has such a hold on him. It’s a percerptive and non-judgmental film in how it handles all the characters, portrayed with unflattering realism and many shades of ugly humanity. It’s never exploitative, and has a messy truthful quality. Thoroughly uncinematic. The final shot confirms the film does have a plot, and in that moment a very well-executed one.
(It’s bizarre and adorable to see middle-aged Leaud using the same goofy affectations of his childhood. He’s such a lovable nerd.)
|
|
|
|
1997 - Austria
Director
Michael Haneke
Starring
Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, Arno Frisch, Frank Giering
|
|
It’s fascinating to wander through the IMDb board and user comments for this film. Sure, there’s plenty of dismissive and ignorant statements (”It’s boring!” “It’s shit!”) but there are also a lot of thoughtful comments that nevertheless miss the mark entirely. “I hated it when he picked up the remote, it completely destroyed the realism of the movie.” “There are no characters to connect with; the family was unrealistic; no one changed throughout the film.” “The plot left no grey areas or a chance for them to escape.” “How could the bad guys win?” “The kid had every chance to escape… The mother had every chance to escape… How did they only have one phone in the house… Why didn’t they just kick them out from the start…”
A lot of these people have evidently read up on the film, they understand Haneke’s point in making the film, and they felt profoundly unnerved by it. Yet they insist upon criticising it with the same set of criteria they would use for any Hollywood slasher. It’s absurd to look for plot holes in this film, to look for realism, to look for good to triumph or even to stand by the notion that there are “good guys” and “bad guys.” Haneke does his thing more explicitly here than in any other film I’ve yet seen with a character who faces you, asks your opinion, and invites you into his game. How does this not fundamentally destabilize your idea of watching a film and all the tropes and techniques you expect to find in it? Or if it does, because the emotional impact appears to be felt, how does this not make you question, a little deeper, why?
Anyway, I loved it. I’m just glad that it does make its point explicitly so I don’t feel compelled to rewatch it right away, as opposed to Code Unknown. Because it really is an unpleasant, nasty thing!
Screencaps
    
    
    
    
    
    
   
|
 Lauren, 25, out-of-work librarian. At the moment, TLC is but a review blog and catalogue of my film-related perversions. I always plan to do more with it — and to one day step outside 30s Hollywood again. Who knows?
Films: All reviewed | Favorites
Actors: Profiles | Favorites
Directors: Profiles | Favorites
Screencap galleries
All films by year
2008 Viewing log
» The Great Lie 1941, Edmund Goulding
» In This Our Life 1942, John Huston
» The Crash 1932, William Dieterle
» Café Metropole 1937, Edward H Griffith
» Dodsworth 1936, William Wyler
» The Rich Are Always with Us 1932, Alfred E Green
» Lilly Turner 1933, William A Wellman
» Frisco Jenny 1932, William A Wellman
» Female 1933, Michael Curtiz
» Waterloo Bridge 1931, James Whale
The Great Lie (2)
- Lauren: Au contraire, I love the idea of the potentials of artlessness. …And wish I had somewhere to go with...
- Mango: Wonderful, an update. Cool spoiler device. It sounds like this strikes on the wonderful potentials artlessness...
In This Our Life (1)
- John McElwee: I’ve just discovered you, spent the last hour reading “The Life Cinematic”, and let...
Dodsworth (2)
- Lauren: He’s the guy on the ship early in the film who first tries to seduce Mrs Dodsworth. Too bad they...
- Mango: David Niven is in Dodsworth? I don’t remember him…
Currently reading
On the shelf
| |
» Film library
» Complete library
» Allure
» Awards Daily
» Bright Lights Film Journal
» Cinemaniacal
» Cinemascope
» Cinema Talk
» Classic Cinema Online
» Collective Contemplations on Cinema
» Critical Culture
» Criticker
» Fataculture
» Film Comment
» Film Int
» Greenbriar Picture Shows
» House of Mirth & Movies
» If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger...
» Jump Cut
» Mango Grove
» Not Coming to a Theater Near You
» The Pagan Agenda
» Pop Matters
» Rants & Musings
» Reverse Shot
» Self-Styled Siren
» Senses of Cinema
» Shining a Light on the Forgotten Classics
» Sight & Sound
» Sin in Soft Focus
» TCM schedule
» They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
» Through a Blog Darkly
       
Friend me
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
