English 5070: Mostly French Flicks

The original gangstaz, Bonnie and Clyde

2008-12-14T15:44:00.000-08:00

Bonnie and Clyde. Another film I liked.

I saw this film some time ago and I enjoyed it highly. Seeing it again was a treat. In the film there is the influence of the French New Wave, but it is mixed with typical Western storytelling. It makes for great film. You actually care for the characters in this film, despite their flaws, they’re likeable. Almost loveable.

Its kinda hard to image seeing this movie back in the 60s where the violence was over-the-top for the time. Yet, at the same time the violence is very striking. I can’t put my finger on why though. I think it may be the build up. Take the final scene for instance. We know whats going to happen before Bonnie and Clyde do, then they figure it out. We’re on the edge of our seats and hope that they can get out of the mess the same way they did for the entire film.

But they don’t. They get gunned down. Maybe that’s why (the final scene at least) is so striking for me.

On the subject of the final scene, I loved the shots going back and forth from Bonnie and Clyde when they realize they’ve been set up. You feel their shock and anxiety, their sense of panic! And the way that the camera pans over once their dead; so cool. You get that feeling of dread, and that you feel sorry for the two. Yet, unlike the other films we’ve seen, it doesn’t make it seem like all life is misery and woe. Actually, the way all the officers stand there silent seem to imply a joyless victory. It seems like they regretted doing it. It was very humanizing.
This was a good movie to end the class with.

The weekend that wouldn't.

2008-12-14T15:18:00.000-08:00

I ended up writing my essay on Weekend, another over-the-top and pretentious Godard film, since it was so fresh in my mind.

I think I was pretty nice in the essay though. A hell lot nicer than I was in since blog recently.

You know what? I’m sorry about that. I’ve just become so disenchanted with Godard and his pretentious crap (and most of the French New Wave for that matter). I mean really, what’s so wrong with movies being like books? Really? I don’t get why that is so bad. I think it’s a great story telling medium! The whole semester has been extremely rough on me, and Godard films were NOT what I needed to see. I like the philosophy that art is supposed to be something that “lifts you up” to a higher place. Not drag you down.

There are many scenes in Week End that one will not be able to forget. Most of these scenes are the long shots such as the traffic jam scene. During this scene, Roland and Connie try to bypass traffic by driving on the wrong side of the road in order to get further up in the line. This scene takes up approximately ten minutes. For those ten minutes the audience is stuck watching Roland selfishly and slowly drive up the road passing by minor accidents, other cars, people having picnics, school children walking in a line, people playing ball or chess, as well as a number of other random things. This scene is humorous at first; as the camera slowly moves on ones sees all the people patiently waiting and then there is a car flipped over or crashed into another. Yet the camera keeps going, the last accident was not the source of the traffic! This continues for the entire scene. With the obnoxious noise of the cars beeping their horns, the humor in the scene slowly fades away and the audience feels like they too are stuck in a traffic jam that won’t end. When Roland eventually passes by the real accident, it is extremely graphic with bodies strewn about the road. However, Godard does not give the audience the satisfaction of seeing it for very long; before one realizes it, the scene cuts to another unrelated one.

Godard has a thing for alienating his audience as previously stated. However, there is more than one way to do it. In another scene, instead of a long tracking shot, Godard violates a conventional rule of film making, the three-quarters rule. This rule states that actors should never look directly into the camera, but slightly to the side. This is due to the direct eye contact that makes the viewer feel uneasy. The scene with the garbage men is an example of this. What happens in the scene is that after two garbage men-one Arab and one black-pick up the couple, they stop for a break. After a small ordeal where Connie is forced to kiss one man for a piece of bread, the Arab man decides to have a speech. However, instead of him saying anything, his “black brother” speaks for him. What is strange is that the camera gives a close up shot of the Arab man, while the black man off screen talks. The Arab man looks directly into the camera without saying a word, while eating his bread. The look is filled with anger and malice; there is no doubt that anyone would feel uncomfortable at this scene. Yet, after the long speech, the camera moves over to a close up of the black man, who does the same thing and his look is filled with even more anger and hatred. To drive the audience into an even bigger state of discomfort, the speech of the black man, as told by the Arab man, is more or less about fighting against the white people. He talks of using violence and bombing malls and other places the bourgeois typically hang out. It is a message of destruction.

coke and marx babies

2008-12-14T15:12:00.001-08:00

Again with the Godard films; same weird pacing, pointless and irrelevant plot, and characters that have no life in them.

Okay, okay, I get it. But I’m sick of him. So sick of his films that remembering them become painful.

Sure, he does a lot of cool editing tricks, but for what? It’s not entertaining, it’s painful to watch. Which seems to be what he wants. While refreshing my memory over this movie, I watched a trailer for it. What caught my eye more than anything was the flashing words shouting “A MOVIE ABOUT PARIS, SEX AND THE PEPSI GENERATION.” It seemed like SEX was flashing for a lot longer than any of the other words and it made me think. (And I totally realize that it’s just a trailer and I can’t base my opinion on the movie for it.) It seems like Godard is provocative only to be provocative. Everyone says that he does these things to show us something. Honestly, I don’t think any of this was intentional. Mainly because there are extremely few, if any, points of reference to show us what is ideal.

Masculin, Féminin rubs me the wrong way for the same reasons I’ve been complaining about for the entire semester. The character Paul comes off as creepy and annoying, not to mention irrational, and his girlfriend Madeleine is just a bitch. One of the roommates wasn’t so terrible, but she only gets a small amount of screen time.
Oh, the erotic film they all watch. I thought that was just plain stupid. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the sort. But let’s face it, what was the point? To provoke us? To make us feel uncomfortable? Eh, you know what, the actress was good at doing her job, which was acting like she was getting raped. So I’ll give her that.

Actually, you know what. I’ll give one nice thing about the movie. The acting was pretty good. The character’s actions seemed natural for them, despite my feelings that the characters themselves were artificial. The conversation where Paul meets Madeleine seems so natural that it’s as if the two really are having that first meeting. (I’m holding my tongue here on how the dialogue was awkward.) The camera, however, kinda ruins the scene by the typical Godard-showing-one-person-during-a-converstaion-thing.

The ending seemed so poorly thought out to me. Paul dies, than then BAM! Madeleine kinda confesses that he liked him, and that she’s pregnant with his kid. And the movie ends leaving us in a state of helplessness. Typical Godard. I’m so officially blah over anything he does.

The depressing story of Adele Hugo

2008-11-26T10:07:00.001-08:00

I sometimes wonder if the French hate life. But to be honest, I thought L´histoire d'Adele H was a good film. I just didn’t personally like it. The acting was well done and believable, even though the character Adele was a complete nut job. When we first started watching the film, I thought it wasn’t a New Wave film, but maybe that was due to me hearing English dialogue.

That too was really cool. Hearing the characters talk in different languages was one of my favorite parts of the film. They spoke both languages so well that I thought it was an English film at first.

There wasn’t much I noticed about this film cinematography-wise. Anything that would be considered “New Wavy” had to do with the plot itself. It was a tragedy based on a female lead’s decent into obsessive madness .

Yet the reason why I wonder if the French hate life is due to the ending scene. It drags out how Victor Hugo was a great man and everyone mourned him at his death, then contrasts with the death of Adele going unnoticed. Personally, I thought this was a bit much. We feel pity for the character the entire film. We want to get the damn girl some help, we want to see her comforted. Yet we are never given that. Fine. I’m okay with that. The movie is a tragedy. But do we really need to just beat the dead horse?

But hey, I realize that this is just a personal preference. This film was enjoyable regardless of my disapproval for the end.
Not bad Truffaut. Not bad.

:)

2008-11-18T17:19:00.000-08:00

Dear God.

Day for Night is the only film in this class I can say I truly enjoyed without exception. The story wasn’t sacrificed for the sake of experimentation. The characters weren’t hating life and weren’t some comical not-close-to-reality drones. (Hey, I’ve met enough theater students and they’re all eccentric like the people in the film are.)

Oh, the characters were relatable! It was so goddamn refreshing from all the other movies I’ve seen in this damn class. I liked them, grew attached to them. I cheered them on when they were down and expressed joy with them when their goals were completed.

See, is there anything wrong with adding a little bit of “mainstream” to your movie? No, there really isn’t. Some conventions are there because they’re enjoyable.
Showing the making of the film with all of it’s technical aspects was really cool. Even showing the extras doing the same things over and over was enjoyable to watch. The shouts of the director were humorous and seemed to make me give some respect for extras in movies. The transitions from that to the montages were awesome and I was actually excited to see them physically working on the movie.

It’s no wonder this film won the best picture of the year.... If only all these movies were enjoyable as this one…

Thanks Truffaut.

Zeroville!

2008-11-18T16:58:00.000-08:00

Alphaville, a sci-fi flick that isn’t really a sci-fi flick. Despite being set in the future, there is nothing in the setting to show this. Godard uses real places (as he always does) and doesn’t bother to use props or anything that would make the movie seem “futuristic.” Even the cars are the same cars of Godard’s time period.
Honestly, I thought it was kinda cool.

I still think the whole film had the sci-fi feel to it. Which I think Godard didn’t want the film to have, but whatever. I got an imagination, I was able to work with it. After all, the fact that only Alphaville is shown leaves the rest open to speculation. (Take that Godard.)

There was a scene or two that I thought was really cool. The whole flashing light from outside the window constantly blinking causing the screen to go black was really well done. It transitioned the scene very well.

In this film Godard goes back to his pointing out the objectification of women by showing all the women with bar codes on them. I thought this was a nice touch and a breath of fresh air from what I’ve normally seen. Also, the fact that most of the women shown were prostitutes is another fact worth noting. Although I’m getting tired of this whole thing. Can we just drop the women as objects thing and…ya know… stop doing it? But hey, I know I like being put on a pedestal and worshiped, but that's just me.

Alphaville: the sci-fi movie that wants to rebel against it's parents but ends up doing what they do anyway.

Godard offically pisses me off.

2008-11-12T19:28:00.000-08:00

Okay I take back all the things I said in the last blog post. In fact, you know what? I think Godard is an asshole and I think most of the French Wave sucks and I’m going to use Les Carabiniers as my reason. This film was the biggest waste of time in my entire life. Seriously, what the hell is the point of making a movie that alienates the audience and is almost unwatchable? This pretentious movie making stuff is starting to piss me off. Yes, I know Godard is trying to make me have this kind of reaction, but that doesn’t mean t becomes a good film, it means Godard is an asshole.

The worst thing is, I love dark humor. But this movie wasn’t funny. I didn’t even know there was “humor” in the flick until it was pointed out in class, and I still think that’s a load of shit. Okay, so they let the girl ramble on about justice and then shoot her multiple times. That’s not funny, that’s stupid. And you know what, I’ve seen something like that done and actually made funny. What was it? I don’t remember, I’m too busy being pissed off here.

Oh, that scene where they take images as deeds? The scene really does not need to be that goddamn long. You get the point almost right away. But it goes on for 10 minutes? Really Godaard? You’re a prick and an asshole and if I ever see you in person, I think I might punch you in the face. That’ll make up for all the time in this class I’ve wasted watching your pretentious shitty art movies.

And the characters….Oh those characters… they were so materialistic and stupid… I mean really, is it even possible for people to be that cold hearted. Yes, yes, I know, they’re supposed to be over-the-top and almost comical, but for what purpose? Oh, right, that alienating BS again. The portrayal of soldiers in this film also offended me, and I don’t even know any personally. Yeah, yeah, I know, “comical” alienating, whatever. You’re all making excuses.

I can tell you one part I liked. The end. The girl’s head was shaved, and the boys were shot and killed. The movie was over. I was slightly happy, but then pissed that I wasted all that time.

"Words should express just what one wants to say. "

2008-11-05T23:05:00.000-08:00

Maybe it’s the weather, maybe it’s because I’m having a really bad semester, or maybe it’s just because I didn’t really know what I liked, regardless, the latest Godard film we’ve seen left me rolling my eyes in the back of my head. I’m beginning to feel bad about hating these films as much as I have been. I just don’t believe these examples of violated rules are all that great. I sure don’t believe that they can make up for what a movie doesn’t have in plot. For instance, Vivre sa vie is the latest Godard film we’ve viewed and while I see them consciously breaking rules, I don’t see that as a reason for making it out to be so great on that reason alone.

One of the big things I noticed in this film where the shots following a conversation. Typically, there is a shot of a person talking followed by a shot of the response. Also, you see the faces of the people talking. In Vivre sa vie, however, the shots in a conversation show the backs of their heads. This drove me nuts. It refuses the audience to get in touch with the characters by seeing emotions that we may or may not relate to. I’m sorry, but I hate this existentialism crap. I know I’m watching a movie you don’t need to remind me, I’m not a moron. Also, the swaying of the camera seemed like a cool idea, but to me it didn’t seem like it went anywhere. Sure it can give off the feeling that the audience is like a kid peering into the life of Nana, but I didn’t get that until someone pointed it out. To me, it seemed like a dance, swaying to and fro. Which doesn’t really give me much to work with for an interpretation.

There were a few things I did like about this movie, (gasp!). I highly enjoyed the scene with the philosopher and the ending. In the scene with the philosopher the shot/reverse-shot is standard like in most films and highly contrasts to the rest of the film. It makes sense why Godard went back to using this sort of setup, this old man is one of the few people in the film who isn’t really trying to get something out of Nana. They have a nice conversation that I thought was very interesting. Looking back I can see why Godard chose to show the backs of heads for a few conversations, but I still find it annoying.

I also found the final scene to be amazing, because it meant the movie was over! Just kidding, I always wanted to say that. I like the anti-climaticness of the scene. I think it worked for the movie as a whole. The viewer is just as confused as poor Nana. Sure, you can see the ending coming along a mile away, but the confusion forces you to connect with Nana. Hearing her beg not to shoot to someone who doesn’t care (and you know it) makes you just as fearful for some reason.

Singing with umbrellas

2008-11-04T08:57:00.000-08:00

Unlike the previous post being a musical without singing, Jacques Demy’s The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is a musical without songs. Sort of. Every line in the script is sung, but there are no standard songs with choruses and such. There is no dancing either. Yet the movie is still very enjoyable, as a musical. The singing that occurs, while they aren’t real songs, seem to be what would be the lead-ins to bigger “actual” songs that would occur in normal musicals. This is very interesting for the most part, but at times becomes slightly aggravating if you are a fan of musicals. There would be many points where you would see the potentiality for a song only to see it disappear with random dialogue. Regardless, the many of the songs that happen are still beautiful. Such as the ever famous “I will wait for you” that occurs before the two lovers depart. It was very refreshing regardless compared to the pervious movie where the music always seemed awkward and funny sounding.

Other than the music, Demy did some interesting things with the camera. For instance, during the song “I will wait for you” there are a few cuts where the two lovers are holding one another in the exact same way they were holding each other in the previous cut. It makes it seem that they are static and only the setting changes. There is even a scene in that song that cuts to the two lovers holding on another on the sidewalk. They are holding one another walking down the street, but it doesn’t seem that they are walking; it seems as if they are gliding. It seems to say something of their belief in love; that although the world may change around them, their love will last. The scene where Guy leaves on the train is long and leaves Geneviève as a mere speck in the distance. With the train conductor walking in her direction, it seems to foreshadow that Guy will return.

The colors in the movie are worth talking about. The rooms all have strange color schemes. I couldn’t help but look into them and marvel how vibrant they were. Most of the colors in this film are vibrant and colorful, and in just about every scene the characters are wearing matching clothes. What is striking is that in the last scene, the bright colors are replaced with whites. It seems to imply that the once vibrant life has been sucked out of Guy. Yet, the white is still beautiful and vibrant in its own way implying that his life has merely taken on a different form.

A woman is a woman is a woman.....

2008-10-26T17:30:00.001-07:00

A Woman is a Woman is intended to be a musical. Despite the fact that there is little singing, and that the music plays at awkward moments when no one is talking (and cuts out when someone IS talking.) I felt like Godard was simply breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules for this film. He deconstructs the musical genre of film, which gives a rather awkward piece of film. The story is simple; Angela is a striptease artist who wants to have a baby with her unwilling lover. They never actually discuss the matter like adults and argue over trivial things. (Looking back on my last blog, I wonder if I’m getting old.) Instead she sleeps with Alfred to have a kid. She feels guilty, confesses, and Emile (her lover) suddenly decides on having sex to have a kid with her. They do, they’re happy, the end.

At some point in the film someone asks if this is a comedy or a tragedy. This quote sums up the movie completely because you can never really put your finger on which one you want it to be. There are many funny scenes in which I laughed-such as the questionnaire on what Emile would want to eat-but the whole thing smelled of the oncoming tragedy. You can see it a mile away really. I’ve learned to stop expecting good plots from the New Wave, but being a writer I have to complain a little.

The “musical” aspect of the film is what made me cringe for most of the film. The music would drastically cut if the character would walk from one room to another. Not to mention the only singing in the film is accompanied by silence. It focuses the audience to concentrate directly on the singing, which was beautiful, but the sudden return of music at the end of the singing was jarring at best. There are also many parts in the film where they could have easily burst into song like in any standard musical, but instead change the topic making “song bursting” impossible. I might’ve enjoyed this movie more had I not been told it was a “deconstructed musical” so I wouldn’t have expected much. At other times the music that does play tends to seem slightly inappropriate-happy, energetic music for serious conversations and such. This is not always the case though, there are moments when the musical does fit the scene. It was almost as if Godard couldn’t make up his mind on what to do. Oh Godard, how you make me appreciate a standard musical!

Jules, Jim, and Catherine....mostly Catherine.

2008-10-26T16:06:00.000-07:00

Truffaut continues to make me question the “awesomeness” of the French New Wave in Jules and Jim. While the title is clearly called, Jules and Jim, it is more about the woman, Catherine, than anyone else. Even the posters for the film show this as a woman is always the center of attention. It makes sense really, considering this woman is the center of attention in the life of Jules and Jim. The movie starts off nicely, but later digresses into a repetitious cycle that made me want to scream. The characters simply do not learn from anything. The entire movie is like a tennis match, with Catherine being the ball and the boys (all of them) being the rackets. The adults seem like children for most of the film, never really doing anything sensible. The characters all seem to act like Jules and Catherine’s child. Clearly, the villagers call them the 3 lunatics for a reason.

The opening of the film show the two friends, Jules and Jim having fun and going to the gym. There is a lot of build up here to make sure we get the picture that these two are friends. I found this part of the film enjoyable. It was humorous and well done. There were even interesting scenes such as when Jules says that he is going to try to marry Catherine. At this scene his words appear on screen much like a silent film or a comic speech balloon. But after the war segment the movie starts to go downhill. The “free spirit” aspect of Catherine becomes annoying as she constantly finds ways to “get back” at Jules by running away or sleeping in another bed, (or another man). It does not start off annoying but the events just keep repeating themselves as Jim starts his relationship with Catherine. Not to mention, this point of the film feels awkward going back and forth showing Jim and Catherine together and then Jules looking pathetic in some way. Actually, this is even foreshadowed in the earlier segments of the film; Jim is always shown physically closer to Catherine than Jules ever is. I have to admit, I could feel the awkwardness in the situation and felt for Jules. Thus I have to congratulate Truffaut on a job well done there, but the story itself could have been done a lot better! I almost wonder is Truffaut hated free-spirited women due to the portrayal of Catherine; she seems like a brat, a spoiled child. It was cute at first when she jumps in the river as a protest in the beginning, but later on I felt as though she needed a scolding. And that melodrama in the scene where she pulls out a gun on Jim? Dear God, I didn’t realize she was seriously trying to kill him until Jim tried to grab the gun. The dialogues’ sudden switch in tone was just executed terribly.

But again, that awkwardness in the latter half of the film; good job Truffaut, but can you please add something that’s not ridiculously repetitive that’ll keep me entertained? Even so, this film wasn’t THAT bad, but it wasn’t THAT good either.

Don't shoot the piano player!

2008-10-21T20:11:00.001-07:00

Shoot the Piano Player was one of Truffaut’s finest works. It is the story of a piano player by the name of Charlie who plays in a bar, until mobsters come looking for his brother causing a chain reaction of events. During the following scenes we find that Charlie’s real name is Edouard Saroyan who was once a famous piano player who went into hiding after his wife commits suicide. The waitress at the bar, Lena is dragged into the mess as she has had her eyes on Charlie for some time, causing their boss, Plyne, to sell both of their addresses to the mobsters.

What is most interesting about the film is the tone, it never seems to decide on what kind of movie it is. Is it noir? Mobster? Tragedy? Comedy? Almost every scene seems different from the last. However, it is done very well. The change is tone is done flawlessly and never feels awkward. When the movie turns into a comedy with the introduction of the mobsters Momo and Ernest, it seems to make sense. Fido runs to another building’s roof and tosses a bag of milk on their windshield and we laugh. It is simple slapstick. Then it becomes another type of comedy when the mobsters take Charlie and Lena hostage in the car, a conversation begins among them and they all laugh. For a moment you forget the hostage situation that is taking place, it seems as though they are all friends! The following scene takes Charlie and Lena back at her apartment. Charlie’s inner monologue takes over, with its deeper voice, instantly changing the tone to a more serious one. Following, is Lena’s narration of Charlie’s past. It is worthy to note that even the acting seems different in this part. It feels more like a melodrama than the rest of the movie. The lines in the rest of the film feel less scripted and more natural.

Truffaut does not disappoint for those that like his innovation in cinematography and regular breaking of rules. When the mobsters tell Charlie and Lena of their boss’s betrayal the movie cuts to a black screen with three circles containing Plyne making animated facial gestures as he greedily takes the money and strokes it. Also, during the gunfight, Truffaut does not put us in the middle of the action. Instead we are given a long shot and watch the fight from a distance. Then when Lena is shot and killed, there is yet another long shot of her tumbling down the hill. It is tragic, but the way it is depicted we almost find ourselves laughing at it. It is a strange sensation we get from the scene.

Once again, Truffaut does not disappoint.

My night with this film.

2008-10-12T17:01:00.000-07:00

Ma nuit chez Maud or My Night At Maud’s is a film by Eric Rohmer. It is the movie that put him on the map and made him big. It follows Jean-Louis as many events happen to him by chance. He falls in love, runs into an old friend, and meets a woman who, in a night, changes him. The whole movie feels very naturalistic, following conversations that could actually happen in real life. What is also interesting is that Jean-Louis is a devout Catholic, Vidal is a Marxist, and Maud is a free-thinker. Jean-Louis is torn on the inside from his devout views and his desire for love, and it is expressed in his conversations with Maud.

Stylistically, My Night at Maud’s is strange in the way it shows conversation. Normally, when a conversation is taking place there is a shot of the speaker followed by a shot with the reaction and response of the person listening. This is not the case in this film. Often, the speaker is not being shown, and the camera will often focus on someone listening instead. While this is strange, it is interesting because it makes the film feel more real because it makes the viewer feel like they are in that room listening to them talk, but looking at someone else. During dinner we are stuck looking at Jean-Louis as he gets interrupted again and again. The camera focuses on him and we are forced to take note of him, and we ignore what Vidal and Maud are talking about. It just isn’t important, which is what the camera motions are telling us. For the rest of the shots like this though, we still pay attention to the words being said because, due to the camera’s position at the dinner table, we feel as though we are sitting there with the characters talking to them as well.

The theme of chance and of mathematics is very prominent. Jean-Louis is shown studying math in the beginning, and there is much talk of Pascal who was a mathematician. Also all of the meetings and events happen due to chance. When Jean-Louis runs into Vidal, they both had gone to a café that none of them ever really go to. The fact that Jean-Louis runs into Francoise as many times as he does also shows chance, as well as when his car gets stuck in the snow. Even the ending of the film is showing chance, as Jean-Louis runs into Maud one last time.

Happiness is....

2008-10-12T14:21:00.000-07:00

Le Bonheur is the second film we viewed by Agnès Varda. It is a very colorful film about a man and his two women. The man, François, lives a good life with his wife and kids. There does not appear to be anything wrong with his relationship. In fact, it seems that his wife, Therese, worships him. Soon, however, he starts an affair with a young telephone operator, Émilie. François lives this double life for some time, telling Emilie that he does not plan on leaving his wife because he still loves her. There is no conflict with this. When he tells his wife, she seems to take it well, they even make love. Upon waking, François cannot find her. He finds out that she drowned, it is not known if it was suicidal or accidental. The rest of the movie involves Emilie moving in with François and her eventual assimilation into the family as a mother.

One of the most distinct things about this movie was the use of color. Everything is vibrant and colorful. There are no dull colored scenes, everything is pretty. For much of the movie, the characters’ outfits tend to match or compliment the scenery. There is a scene where François’s shirt matches the color of his car that matches the color of the gate and wall where he parks. It seems to suggest harmony in François’s life. It is striking when François enters Emilie’s new apartment because it is all white. As their relationship develops the apartment becomes filled with more items, and color. Specifically purples, which Emilie is often shown in from that point on. It is worthy to note that if Therese is almost never shown wearing the colors Emilie often does. When François is looking for her when she disappears, he asks people by giving the description “a blonde in a blue dress.” There is a ridiculous emphasis on color in this film. One begins to wonder if these women are seen by François as colorful objects to be looked upon, not as people. In the ending scene, the children are shown in the same colors they were shown in the beginning, but instead of matching with the parents as they were in the beginning, they not contrast. This motif follows throughout the second part of the movie as Emilie begins to take on the mother role. Due to the harmonious aspect in the first part of the movie, the viewer feels uneasy with the events taking place in the second. This effect was very well put together by Varda.

What is strange about this film is that there is no melodrama. You never see François in an argument. You are charmed by him, just as the women are. It’s almost like Varda was trying to make this film as objective as possible. We see events unfold in black and white (or simple colors) there are never any shades of grey to change our minds or sway our judgment. Yet, in the end what was done was done. François cheated on his wife and there is no way around it. Was Varda trying to envoke a subjective response based on the objective? Or was she even trying to force the viewer to make an objective ethical call? It is a tough call to make. Regardless, Le Bonheur remains a colorful and delightful film to watch.

Cleo de 5 a 6:30

2008-10-07T17:35:00.000-07:00

Cléo from 5 to 7 was written and directed by Agnès Varda, who is now a well-known French feminist film maker. Cléo from 5 to 7 is about a woman, Florence, who is waiting for her test results. She believes she may have cancer. The film takes place in real time (although it actually ends at 6:30). Letting the viewer sit and wait in anticipation with Florence. The tracking shots follow Florence around town and we feel as if we are walking along side her. Yet the movie is not really about the wait, it is about Florence; how she and others view her.

Florence is a singer, and pretty popular as well. She is put on a pedestal, and also treated like a child. It is obvious that she doesn’t realize this until half way through the film. She merely moves along, being frightened of the test results, and buys a hat that she doesn’t need or really want. She is also very self-centered. This is shown best when she walks into a café and puts her song on the jukebox and later complains that no one even acknowledged it. This scene is most revealing because almost everyone in the café is talking about the Algerian conflict, and she only cares about their reaction to her song. One can’t really blame Florence when one remembers the people in her life; her housekeeper chides her like a child over silly superstitions, the pianist and lyricist both play jokes and tease her, and her supposed lover comes to see her only for a few moments and only speaks of himself, belittling her troubles. Her own home does not better. There are swings and kittens all around. It seems like a child’s play area!

There are mirrors in the film frequently. They seem to be calling out to Florence to actually look into herself and see who she really is. It is a very common motif. It also seems to be at the same time making Florence only worry about how others view her physically. In many shots we end up seeing many angles of Florence with the aid of all the mirrors. During her meeting with her pianist, she finally seems to listen to the mirrors as she takes off her wig and storms out. The transformation begins. The next scene is humorous since it shows a child banging away on a toy piano. This can be taken two ways: that the child is mocking Florence or that the pianist is no better than she is in that sense. Her self-discovery begins to make significant progress when she visits a friend and later runs into a solider about to be sent out to Algeria. The solider brings the current news that she cared nothing about close to home as she seems to be making a connection with him. He seems to be one of the few people that take her seriously and treats her like an adult.

One of the most interesting aspect of the film, adding to the motif of the mirrors are the shots of people. We get these shots whenever Florence is walking around. What happens is that random people look directly into the camera. This further adds to the idea that people are always looking at Florence and judging her looks making her more self conscious.

The final scene when Florence finds out the results is brilliantly done. As the doctor drives away the camera seems to be on the back of his car, driving away. Florence and the soldier become smaller and smaller. After, Florence suddenly admits that she no longer feels the fear of death. The shot seemed to be the fear leaving her along with the doctor.

Cléo from 5 to 7 can be considered a feminist film. It begins with a childish woman shows her growth into a serious woman. We walk alongside the girl waiting her results, but also watching her grow in a very very short time span.

Picking My Brain, Pocketing My Heart

2008-10-07T15:47:00.000-07:00

Pickpocket is a film with no emotion. Written and directed by Robert Bresson, it breaks practically all the rules of film cinema. For instance Bresson uses non-actors to play all of the roles. They under-emote and carry stoic faces for the entirety of the film. This creates something either one will love or hate. Bresson trys to make the viewer fell uneasy, and he does. However, I have to disagree with New Wave fans and say that this does not mean it is a great film.

At the beginning of the film we learn that Michel was put in jail for stealing, and that his mother is dying. One assumes that Michel does not visit his mother out of guilt, but the viewers never really know for sure. Soon Michel successfully pickpockets and the story begins. Most of the movie shows very mechanical things, Michel walking up or down steps, to and from places, or stealing. What is probably the single interesting aspect of the film are the shots of the stealing. It concentrates on hands, we almost never see the faces of the victims. This is interesting because it does two things; it shows the craftsmanship of the art of pick pocketing, and gives a slight view of the world from Michel’s point of view. Specifically, it shows that Michel does not see his victims as people. It’s all simply work he has and/or wants to do. Another interesting, and slightly annoying feature of the film is that no action is shot. The death of Michel’s mother is not seen. The arrest of Michel’s fellow thieves is not seen. Michel’s own arrest is never seen either! This lack of action makes the viewer uneasy again. We are not allowed to feel for Michel.

The actors in this film are not actors. They were all people Bresson literally picked off the street. I believe this is what destroys the film. They under-emote, and remain stoic for ninety percent of the film. Bresson does not want you to become attached to any of these characters. You cannot make judgments or even feel sorry for them. The under-emotion in this film is what drives me wild. People do not act like they do in the film, neither do they walk or talk like them. Everything was robotic and dead. This is not what I personally want to see in a film. The whole film was alien. I found myself bored, and annoyed. When Martin LaSalle “acts” in the film, I wanted to rip out my eyes and stab my ear drums. There are two scenes where he “acts”: when the inspector confronts him and the final scene. When the inspector confronts him and accuses him of stealing, he gets mad. He does not get mad like an ordinary person, he just shouts without a shred of human life in him. I didn’t know that was possible. The final scene is supposed to bring everything together, to give the viewer what they want, and make this film one of spiritual transcendence. It doesn’t do any of these things. You sit for seventy-some minutes of stoic lack of life and you’re supposed to be moved by this sudden movement. I, for one, wasn’t. I just rolled my eyes. It seemed so out of place and I simply given up on what I wanted. I didn’t feel moved, I felt robbed of seventy-five minutes. It was as if I was traveling through sewers looking for the Holy Grail, and merely found a plastic cup painted yellow.

I can see why people would like this film. It breaks rules and takes no prisoners. It challenges the film medium and makes the style of the film more important than anything else. I have seen D-movies with more life in them though, and the list of those terrible films I’ve seen is long. (It’s a masochistic hobby.) Would I put Pickpocket in with those films? No, because I can at least respect what it was trying to do. I believe it failed, but that’s just my two cents.

"I told you being afraid is the worst sin there is."

2008-09-17T23:23:00.000-07:00

À bout de soufflé (aka Breathless) is one of the films that put the French New Wave on the map and influenced movies forever. It was, in fact, an enjoyable movie and it is easily understandable why the movie became so popular. While it wasn’t anything in the story itself that was remarkable, it was in the way that the story was presented that made it survive the test of time. The movie played with the conventions of the gangster genre that it was and broke many rules of film. For instance, in the beginnings of many films there is often a monologue. One of the rules about this is that the person who is speaking in the monologue is not supposed to be shown actually speaking. In Breathless, however, he actually speaks to the camera and even acknowledges its existence! It puts the viewer right in the car with Michel driving along the countryside, especially when he turns over and looks directly into the camera and tells you to “piss off” (if you don’t like anything about Paris that is). Even though many parts of the French New Wave have become standard, you still don’t see this type of actor-to-camera interaction very often.

One of the rather jarring parts of the movie, yet still interesting, were the use of jump cuts. They occurred at a few points in the movie while characters were rambling on for some time. It seems to show passages of time while giving quick glimpses of unimportant pieces of the conversation. It always catches the viewer off guard, one expects the motions to be fluid. Yet with the cuts they are stiff and violent, violating our eyes and minds with movements we could not see coming. It spices up what could have been a boring talk between two characters. The character Patricia is always involved in these jump cut scenes, Michel is not. With this, one wonders then if this is showing something about Patricia. It could be implying her inability to truly connect with the males on screen, since the cuts always happen when she is talking to either Michel or her boss. It could be that she has yet to make a firm decision on what she wants. After all, it is not until the end of the film that she decides to turn Michel in and betray him, and even so, she appears uneasy about the decision.

The final scene is also notable. A typical gangster convention is that at the end of the film, the gangster is shot, stumbles about, and dies. In Breathless, Jean-Luc Godard toys with this idea. After Michel is shot there is a long shot of him stumbling down the street for awhile. Calling it a long shot sounds misleading because it feels like forever. Michel keeps limping down the road for what seems like hours—a voice in your head even screams, “Hurry up and die already!”—until he finally falls face first. In the next cut, however, he is face up. This was probably another deliberate action on Godard’s part, playing with how gangsters always seem to fall perfectly face up to say a few more words. As Michel lies there dying he is still as animated as he was during the entire film, making faces to Patricia. Another thing about this scene is that his final words are not actually known by the characters. The police officer seems to have misheard Michel and tells Patricia the wrong phrase and even so, she doesn’t understand the French slang. This almost never happens, where the final words are mistaken. Their meanings may be unknown, but they are always heard correctly. Godard is once again playing with a typical movie convention.

With all these aspects of the movie in mind, it isn’t hard to see why this film helped put the French New Wave on the map. Not everyone may think it’s the greatest movie ever, but no one can deny that it was very clever and very well done.

Les Cousins

2008-09-10T20:22:00.000-07:00

Les Cousins is a story about two cousins, Paul and Charles. Charles is an almost stereotypical boy from the country who comes to Paris to get an education. He stays with Paul, who is also a stereotypical city boy. The two characters contrast in every way possible: Charles is hardworking, Paul gets by on luck; Charles is shy, Paul throws large parties for friends; Charles never seems to have things go his way, Paul gets by without even trying. It is this last contraction that takes up most of the movie. At first Charles tries to win over a girl named Florence; he stumbles around as he talks but somehow convinces her to go on a date of sorts with him. She ends up going to the cousins’ flat a few hours early, instead of the school, and ends up hooking up with Paul. This devastates Charles and he never seems to get over it the entire movie. After this heartbreak, Charles remains in the study and spends all of his time preparing for the test. Night and day he studies, he even denies himself the pleasure of attending Paul’s party. However, he fails the exam. Paul on the other hand never picked up a book once, nor was he ever shown attending class, and passed without a problem.

On one hand all of this seems to suggest is the futility of trying to better one’s position in life. On the other, it speaks of conformity. Charles, the country boy, is out of his element in the city. He can’t succeed because everything is working against him. He does not adopt the lifestyle of Paul and his friends. It is debatable if adopting such a lifestyle would actually have helped Charles pass the exam, but it seemed to work for Paul! However, this is all probably due to Paul being in his element, being surrounded by and brought up with culture and high society. He didn’t study because he didn’t have to. The exam might as well have been questions regarding his personal life. In this case it seems Charles is doomed from the start. He is a timid country boy who probably knows very little academia.

Would have Charles passed the exam had he conformed to Paul’s group? Probably not, but the after effects would have been less severe. In the beginning of the film we already see what the result of never fully conforming in Philippe. He snaps and tries to commit suicide after a heartbreak that no one takes seriously. This parallels Charles’s later demise. What is interesting is that the reaction to Philippe is minimal, no one really cares. This is because he never fully conformed to the group and therefore they had no real reason to like him. Had Charles conformed to the group it is likely that he would not have tried to kill Paul.

What is interesting visually about the film is how Charles is portrayed against the things he wants. For example, Charles is often shown separated from Florence. In the beginning they are separated by what looks like a silver statue. Later on as she lies nude in the sun, from Charles point of view she is above him on the second floor behind bars. It is almost like a bird in a cage; something to look at, never to touch. Also, the school that he attends is never fully shown, just as his dreams of making his mother proud are never fully realized.