Oh boy. The description on Hulu makes me worried- "A housewife from the Paris suburbs prostitutes herself for extra money." Yep this is going to be fun. Fun in that I personally don't often like the portrayal of sex in films because it doesn't always pertain to the plot or it could cut the scene entirely and I wouldn't lose much of anything. Sex scenes in movies just make me usually uncomfortable. So while I love the Criterion Collection in total because I can expect to be shown important cinematic things from the past, I always have to steel myself when nudity comes on screen. It's just makes me rather step out of the film because of that. Though the director is Jean-Luc Godard and he was part of the French New Wave movement that helped really push the boundaries of filmmaking- fourth wall breaks and partially unscripted bits of the film ight be fun for some but it is a warning. I haven't seen many French films around this period of time but I have heard that they can be rather difficult to get into. And the plot of this film given by Wikipedia seems to show this fact- its a day in the life of a surburban lady in Paris and doesn't really have a plot to speak of in that its more of the director commenting on culture and the Vietnam War. So if you like Fight Club's fourth wall breaking main character that comments on the bored nature of life and that whole shot of him being surrounded by things and whatnot- this might be for you.
I don't know. It's something- but realize that the French New Wave really helped bring some weird techniques into the cinematic arts of America and its not a terrible film. And I've seen films that have done most of their action in about a day so the length of time shown in this film isn't a bad idea (See Rebel Without a Cause and Do The Right Thing for examples) I rather like those films because you have a definite showing of events and it feels immediate. So altogether before I even turn on the film I do have to say that I probably will enjoy this film because its very much a style I have liked before. And its a shorter film being only 87 minutes long so it won't be a sit down and prepare for an epic film- though I do have to warn you that it is a foreign film so you will have to prepare because those have an added thing that changes the experience- subtitles and things so there is a definite language barrier being set up before you start. Though I do have to say that the opening of the film is colorful because its the title of the film in French and that's rather colorfully done.I do have to say that for people wondering who is doing the whisper narration- that's the film's director providing that commentary on consumer culture and the like so while its weird sounding I guess you could say it draws your attention. Also for a while the background noise of things going on is rather nice- it makes the film play with the diegetic sound (which is that it is part of the film's world unlike non-diegetic things like a soundtrack song playing over the scene in question.) On the idea of diegetic and non diegetic elements in film in regards to sound that if its not shown at some point that somebody's hearing the same sound you are it might be non diegetic. But the idea can be played with since the ediiting process of films can trick our brains into creating space that isn't there through sound or light- the idea that people are watching movies or near a bathroom in the film itself? Might not be entirely true. But in regards to ambient sound vs. soundtrack music added in later? Just realize that when I use the non diegetic vs diegetic analysis of a scene I will primarily be talking about the musical sound bits- there is more than just that but that's what I primarily notice. Being a fan of music in my regular life means that I've focused on sounds for a long time.
Moving on though since I don't want to fully bore you about sounds and the like here.
Since I don't really care about/ get the reference to what the narrator is saying about Parisian culture in this film with a message and little plot I won't comment about it since it is more subjective- what I get out of films is different than what you get out of films. I may focus on the historical and elements of costuming and sound design in films and characters if I find some that are fun to latch onto but you might not care about something I do. This is all a way to say that while there may be more interesting things that the narrator is saying, I personally don't really care all that much about it- though I do have to say that I like the camera work in the film since so far it has had some decently cool shots of Paris in the film. Setting can be useful in a film if used correctly. When its something like Lost In Translation though which I have seen recently where the plot is set in Japan and yet the use of Japanese culture is in the periphery and the cultural jokes are rather distasteful now for a film that came out of 2003. Now this is a tangent but I'm trying to get to a point that films should use the setting and not make you think that it could be set anywhere in the world and the setting in the film is used like window dressing. Setting a film in Paris for a FRench New Wave director? First of all, the French New Wave was going against the French Film Academy and they were total film nerds- they had a lot of ideas but not a lot of money. What you may realize in film is when you have not a lot of money, but you still want to have the scene as you want it- that causes people to get creative. So I do have to say that so far I don't mind this film because its very much a film set in Paris, about a Paris lady and the cinematography they can do with the setting might be rather nice because the director is commenting about consumerist culture.
I do have to say that its a rather strange choice for the narrator to show us our main character and describe her though he uses the actual actress's name and she references something Bertolt Brecht said about actors- not really important in the scheme of things but it is a fourth wall break and references an important playwright and German film director that really had a decent impact on filmmaking through the idea of Brechtian acting - whihc in the simplest of terms wants to keep the audience distant from the performance by reminding them that they are watching a play or a movie. Pretty much its a technique that's rather important to recognize that there have been films that have used the technique but its not a widely used one. Most people don't want to listen to some intentionally badly acted or weirdly designed sets and movements in film. So referencing Brecht himself and therefore probably adding to the notion that this film has a message it is trying to get across and through techniques that are noticeably strange or antithetical to normal film editing and scene creation? Yeah this is going to be a different movie itself.
Also its funny that he then describes the actress as the character while keeping the same narration going- she hasn't changed her clothes or anything that makes her actually different so he repeats the same narration but replaces her name to show that we have moved into the idea of the film world again.
What I have to say that the decision for the female main character and the narrator to have somewhat of a back and forth discussion like maybe she can hear him is something that I've never really seen before but it is a cool effect in my eyes. Though usually I have to say that usually watching a film without subtitles is the best- the use of the narrator sometimes whispering so quietly that he is saying things but you can't make it out really makes this a film I would recommend people to watch with subtitles. It's too difficult to hear otherwise.
The use of frames of the film and the film itself to focus on consumerism. What I have to give total props for the director is that, through me reading wikipedia and scouring the links, he was rather tired of American culture by this point and thought that advertising was like pimps- the things you buy would become more of an enjoyment than sex would. Which sounds very French, but realize that this film really doesn't exist in a vacuum in that the French government seems to have been focused on increasing the standard of living and you know what helps drive the economy? Spending money to buy things and therefore creating a loop where you get money and give to to businesses to help them out. Its Consumerism in a loving nutshell. And since the Vietnam War was happening- the film seems to put in that two random people are listening to what seems to be a radio broadcast of President Johnson who was talking about how the Vietnam War was going on- why is that maybe in there? Well the Sixties had Vietnam of course, but this is a French film. What you have to recognize is that Vietnam was French Indochina before the French evacuated- then a Communist regime was set up and then because America is America then they stepped in and pretty much led to the Vietnam War, And the nice thing about the scene is that it ends with the narrator calling out George Washington fighting William Pitt and saying Pax Americana is a brainwasher- the director really doesn't like what America represents- with what he's used to show it though consumerism and war. This is a film speaking about how pretty much America messed up France with their wars and the consumerism- though take that with a grain of salt since that is just my opinion.
The film loves using these fourth wall breaking monologues that highlight the character of Juliette- washing the dishes and having an aside conversation with the audience. Thank you French cinema for really bringing or defining the fourth wall break into the confines of cinema. Though describing dreams is such a silly phenomenon- they always sound funnier or near incomprehensible when there's a dream explanation. Why am I bringing this up now? Because Julliette's kid here had some weird dream about being near a precipice and seeing twins holding hands or something, You know what that meant in the context of the film- the kid says that was North and South Vietnam. Yes an eight year old kid had a dream where he thought of the closeness of war and how Vietnam should be reunified or something like that-
For those who are wondering if there is nudity ten minutes into a film that is supposed to be about some sexual situations- yes there is a bath scene and the actress is naked in the bath. Just commenting here since foreign films handle nudity much freer in a way compared to U.S. films. Though its surprising because that scene also has a very between the surprised woman and the power company guy that barges in- like everything in this film it makes more sense in context- but they don't translate her words but do his. Sometimes this happens in foreign films and when it does it looks a little weird. This whole film barely has a plot and just seems like little vignettes hence why I am trying to comment on the littlest things I can to keep this somewhat interesting in what might be important to know or slightly cool. Because so far twelve minutes in we've got nothing truly spectacular in terms of the plot in regards to how films are usually known. If you are coming into thi film for a really got plot and everything you are going to be disappointed- in a way I could see this as attempt to have some kind of philosophy paper feel- the writer/narrator having an idea of what they want and the story building disjointedly from there. Its not a pretty film in terms of continuity between scenes or scenes going quicker than sixties films were known for or films having an uncomfortably long take of film where you want it to move on but it doesn't. Films like these really make you think of what you expect in film and when you don't really get that experience you have to figure out something to connect to.
Fifteen minutes in and we finally get to hear the narrator explain why Juliette decided to become the prostitutes- her kids are all from different fathers and therefore she has needed to care for them since she has been deserted by those men. Then she finds a nice guy and settles down comfortably but oops, they have a third kid and then the nice guy can't make enough to make ends meet but they still want to live in their house and get stuff. So he tells her to become a prostitute again to get enough money to live. Rather depressing backstory but thanks narrator, I didn't want to see her life so telling me is an okay option when she was a young and dumb kid accidentally getting pregnant and whatever.
What I actually just noticed is that so far there's been no music. Its just been them talking or them doing something. The lack of music is always a cool choice because it makes the life around them the background noise and when that can get cut away in some scenes it is a noticeable lack of anything. Silence hurts in a way in movies because we've become trained to have something with our films- early silent movies had some form of film score behind them to help the action along and give the audience some music in the experience. Sheer silence? It can make people uncomfortable.Though it is cool to see that the view of the movie can focus on small characters like ladies in a shop that Juliette goes to to pick up clothes.
But what is nice about this film so far is that its very much a character and culture study- we see Juliette as a character and here motivation through monologues about her inner life and desire and we see the director show the consumerist culture of the French sixties it seems. And each "segment" of the film starts with an intertitle card saying what the coming segment will hit on. Those are like the transition sentences of a writer going from one idea to the next without a big switch in between in that the film itself might not change scenery but the idea that they are talking about now is different. Like she hasn't left the clothes shop yet and already we have had some decent monologues of Juliette about her character itself. And I checked on why there's so many monologues in the film- the actors all wore earpieces and the director said random questions that they had to answer on the spot. These are all off the cuff ideas it seems though they all work rather well.And narrator himself styles himself a sort of human nature pathologist with his studies in the narration being something akin to maybe later affecting the world through his knowledge of things. In a way I was most definitely right about calling the film itself a study of people and culture because the narrator/ director is doing that exact thing with needing a question answered in character by the actors and that informing the character themselves. The Method school of acting where you bring things you do to your performance and that influencing the character seems to be in full effect here with this idea. The actor gets asked how they think their character should be acting and they answer to the best of their ability. Rather interesting way to do it but it works.
Now when I was checking out wikipedia, it said there was some famous long take of a cup of coffee. I thought they were joking but I think it starts right about 27 minutes in where it focuses on a shot of coffee. This scene in and of itself is rather meta in a way since before it Juliette was looking at a magazine and then another lady looked at it and the narrator used a frame of time in literal movie frames. 150 frames as a sense of time. It's a movie so remember its a movie. And then the narrator is talking about the subjective view of reality and if it can be objective and well look at that I somehow made my talk on how things are subjective in terms of what you get out of something and that being different and somehow I talked about it during a movie which is highly philosophical in themes and how there is objective and subjective things and the narrator himself can't fall into either. His fascination and whisper attitude seems to be because he can't have a state of being or fall into nothingness as he puts it. He;s loud enough for us to notice, but not loud enough to truly have a person that is him. He is a disembodied voice floating in the ether hoping to be heard and truly exist or not exist, but he can't because he doesn't have the capability to.And realize that the narrator is the director himself so its a mouthpiece- the narrator describes what is going and and sometimes influences the characters- so hearing some Marxist ideas about how the working class is in retreat and stuff and some Existentialist philosophy? That's pretty much the director being the thing that creates the film- in this film he is literally a quiet voice barely there but there. What other disembodied voice is there but a sense of a creator being there. He creates the world as he speaks, the film is at his will and the world follows around. His thoughts shape the monologues, his sight shapes the camera. his voice is what the film is. This is the auteur director at work and very powerful in his quiet. The director is the voice of the cinema. While that is just an idea it has some things that later influenced directors in America to really say its their film- a Speilberg Film. A Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Tarantino- "A Film by" kind of credit. The French New Wave really made the idea of the director as a mini creative zeitgeist kind of god figure in their film having the final say of how it looks, how actors are, and how the film is. That really came about thanks to the French. Thank you French film directors. And the film is going with the narrator and everyone as God in a way- language creates things and limits, and when people die their death makes them limitless. But yeah that was a rather interesting scene of primarily a cup of coffee and a idea of the narrator studying humanity and limiting the world because in a way he creates limits on what happens. And so far there was one short piece of music but that was in the background being played by some street performers so even that strange bit of music being present was still part of the world itself.
And finally in the bit titled the Introduction To Ethnology, it seems like Juliette is going to fulfill her prostitute role in the film. Only took a third of the film (minus that like minute long clip of the girl in the bath scene) to have nudity/ Though I do have to say that I like her empowered idea that why should she be afraid of sex because she is a woman thing they have here. She has sex and it doesn't define her- there is this large inner world of hers that she has and only know are we truly getting to the sexual encounters. And no sex scene or nudity in that one. Broke y expectations and I liked it more for it. But the scene following is rather sad being sett at the call girl brothel place and we get monologues of the females in there and they are all sad because they have no future or are scared crossing the street or they lost their secretary job so they became a prostitute to get by..
And now next scene of the narrator saying that life is like a comic strip and that language is difficult because how can you accurately describe an event like how Juliette went to the garge her husband works in at 4:10 in the afternoon. Rather interesting idea since he's wondering about the subjective nature of the story and the use of language- focusing on a woman we learn nothing about for a few seconds or talking about the leaves in the trees or writing on the walls or the blue, cloudy sky. Interesting and his voice rather soothing for a movie that nothing truly interesting has actually happened in.this movie and then yet again the narrator goes look at the Consumerist culture with how objects exist and if we focus on them then that's because they are more real than people. And look a scene transition with the Arc de Triomphe in the background. Wonder if French films just got to use a famous Paris landmark in the film at least once cause Paris?
And now I was wondering how they would introduce the supposed American character in the film. Funny how he's wearing a t-shirt with the American flag on it even in the sixties I guess other cultures were making fun of our ability to wear our American Patriotism on out sleeve. And he's a photographer that went to Vietnam and is relaxing here because its much nicer- "a dead Vietcong costs a million dollars to the U.S., Johnson could have 20,000 girls like these two for the same price." Still funny though because his wall is covered in flags of America while he's being critical of the war effort in Vietnam. And now for some reason they are talking about the nature of a city, this movie is weird. And on the note of the "American" guy- he's played by a Frenchman and he doesn't have a translation of what he's saying when he's speaking in English so its some form of mumble incomprehensible mess that I can't get the gist of. And so far the only actually nude scene is still that girl in the bathtub ten minutes in the film so if you like women only after that getting down to their undergarments than this movie is so far mostly for you. Makes sense though since this was rather risque at the time but add on 50 years and this is rather tame. I never thought I would see a goofy sex scene where the women literally wear bags over their heads and they parade around- though its primarily that we see them from the neck up and whatever but they are still walking around with bags over their heads. This isn't erotic filming at all- rather boring or humorous. And right after she takes off her bag on her head which is still funny, I noticed that the dates don't match up in the film- this is supposed to take place over one day and yet in one of the narrator's monologues, I think about the leaves or around that time, he says its a nice October day and yet Juliette gives us the actual date of the American photographer scene as August 17, 1966 which means that its can't happen over one day and yet make sense- but it does because its a movie and yet either the director didn't notice that continuity error or put it in to mess with us. Though maybe she referencing the date on the Life magazines that she's looking at because that would hopefully clear that up. I hope that's the case cause I don't enjoy noticing continuity errors. But great now her monologue is having still frames of the Vietnam War which is awkward to freeze frame onto, And the background addition of the voice saying "America uber alles" is kind of terrifying because the phrase itself is German and this was made a little over two decade after the end of World War Two and with the phrase being translated to something like America Over All is a definite slam against America. Something like showing the human cost of the Vietnam War with what looks like picture of the aftermath of a gas attack or something? There might be some parallels to the Germans since the beginning of that movie had Juliette''s husband listening to the speech by President Johnston and then the broadcast goes to one of the American Generals saying that they should bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age? Rather harsh language used and therefore it could be seen as a genocide in the eyes of the world- and the uber alles line was in the German national anthem (later removed because of the whole thing being related to Nazism. So America uber alles? That's possibly saying that the whole America is the greatest thing is an awful idea.
And then there's some weird scene with two random dudes in a office or something with stacks of books and one of them just grabbing some and reading a line from each. I don't get it at all. And now its meta again- "People never really talk in a movie, I wanted to do that with you." Yes its a movie and you've all been talking for the last hour straight in some form- its very much a not-movie then. It is one and yet it isn't. This is weird to see a conversation happening and there being no back and forth shot-reverse shots of each person while they are talking and reacting to one another. I knew this was possible of course but seeing it in action is weird. And the scene transition is those two random novelist guys again and the scene ends with the guy reading snippets of books being the background sound and the glasses guy just staring directly at the audience for a decently uncomfortable amount of time.
Sociology of the novel is a strange thing to name the next sequence. I guess it works in a way since we've seen the writers and Juliette's husband who I don't care enough about to name both writing something in the previous scene. Since I can't read French I have no clue what the husband was writing about since it wasn't translated at the bottom or something. All I know is that he was writing. And there's a blink and you'll almost miss it black guy in the film. Yeah the whole film is a mess of white French people talking about language and philosophy and subjective vs. objective ideas and whatnot but its rather nice to see that for a few seconds there was a black dude in the film.And there's a dutch angle tilted shot now for one of the building shots- I don't know why that is. And the narrator reappears- I think for that previous about ten minutes there was almost no narrator. As the film said, it's strange to see people just talk in a movie and the narrator stepped back and let them do it.Okay when Juliette was talking in this section there's a real cool shot of the camera moving around the horizon 360 degrees which is a really long establishing shot for scenery. That was rather impressive. And then she goes home because its the end of the day and for some reason her son shares his essay for school on comradeship between boys and girls and its so weird- I mean its the same kid who dreamed he saw twins which were North and South Vietnam. I just guess that maybe he's a bit strange or something. And good lord I didn't want him to end by also looking at the screen but no he aimed his toy gun at the audience and shot us dead with how terrible his weird essay was. I mean he's like twelve or fourteen here, I guess but seriously its a weird essay to write about comradeship.Well I do have to say that the kids really act like kids with all the crying and hyperactivity involved- so I guess while the older kid being all weird and all is okay. At least it wasn't that one scene with her daughter where she dropped her off to the day care she stayed at and that background noise was just her daughter crying for like three minutes. Yeah that was something. I don't know why in her husband's monologue the director is asking him questions about Hitler and in Juliette's monologue is all about life and knowing what an eye is. Strange ending it seems but I'm chalking it up to French philosophy ideas and cinema.Ending with them in bed and her reading about the man of tomorrow.And the narrator himself goes to rest and he forgets all the tragedies in the world, all of the hostility and problems.And the ending shot is of a "city" built out of consumer goods, dish soap boxes and all. Ending on the whole consumer culture idea that he really wanted to put home.
Overall, I would say that this film is definitely not for everyone. For people that like actual plots in their movies? Stay far away because the film is driving home a message and the plot gets left by the wayside in the goal of getting the message across/ Also the whole focus on long shots of people talking and that rather artistic shot, which I loved, of the narrator monologuing over the cup of coffee scene and all of the non action that the movie thrives on getting out of its way to give everyone a monologue that they can- if you don;t like discussions of inner worlds of the person and how they can see the world and everything, this movie is not for you. But actually I was going in being worried that there would be an ungodly amount of random nudity- and I was pleasantly surprised that that wasn't the case with that one sceen that was super short of that lady in the bath and my today's standards of R R Ratings? Yeah that is very tame. Still exists of course so I am warning you for anybody that goes out of their way to not see nudity in their movies, since I know of at least a few people in my own life that really dislike the use of nudity in tv shows and movies nowadays. But if I had to rate my personal enjoyment of this film would probably have to be a low eight, or, high seven out of ten because of what was in the film and the just feel of the movie and how they built Juliette and the other characters through monologue and for anybody who cares, I don't think this movie with a fleshed out female character passes the Bechdel Test. With the use of monologues while talking to other people its rather hard to tell but I think I saw Juliette really talk to only a few other women throughout the whole movie and those were few and far between for only a minute or two in total. Overall though good film, if tending towards the philosophical and wordy.
No comments:
Post a Comment