I’ll have to circle back to this when I have more time (I’ve been super busy lately) but I wanted to say that I really loved this movie. I haven’t seen a lot of Denis (Chocolat, White Material) but I think I like 35 Shots of Rum best.
OK, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the film.
Btw, I like The Intruder the best, and I think of it as Denis doing Antonioni.
Your’re right, the description is no good. It’s particularly obvious when Noe jumps in the river, Josephine going along with him trying to amuse her, it seems playfull, as if they knew each other for quite a while.
I think that the university is an opportunity to look at Josephine in a different environement, with a completely different demeanor, it’s another aspect of her life.
The Thirl World/immigration thing doesn’t necessarily have to relate directly to the characters (though it seems plausible that the issues discussed at school are important to Jo), it’s just the world they’re a part of, it helps describe what it is to be a part of that community. On the other hand, if I got it right, Denis wanted to give a different perception of non-whites on film, in which being black and living among a majority of black people actually isn’t so important, she’s making a statement by not emphasising the entire thing. Zadie Smith did something very similar in On Beauty, where the race of the characters isn’t (explicitly) specified, which makes it very hard to ‘place’ them for the first fifty pages or so, and tells you quite a lot.
There’s a scene where Gabrielle asks what’s that 35 rhums story, and Lionel answers that it’s an old story, which might also be a wink to Late Spring, which would put even more emphasis on what Lionel, the character, is saying – it’s not just old, we’ve also been telling it for a long time.
@Cam
I think that the university is an opportunity to look at Josephine in a different environment, with a completely different demeanor, it’s another aspect of her life.
I guess. But the time in the university (including the anthropology student strike) felt a little tacked on…or perhaps, Denis is showing us that showing Jo as a more sympathetic character? What I’m suggesting is that maybe some people see people like Jo as a “troublemaker” (as in protest against the establishment) and a liberal do-gooder, but we see another side to her that most people (including those of a more conservative bent) would find likable. Denis also gives more humanity to working class minorities, especially those in more menial work (like a taxi driver).
There are two sides to these minority characters—the perception that the larger public might have on them and the other, more typical middle class life, not very different from the majority (white) middle and upper class population. I don’t know if that makes sense or if this is a valid reading, but that’s something that came to mind when you made the remark above.
Denis wanted to give a different perception of non-whites on film, in which being black and living among a majority of black people actually isn’t so important, she’s making a statement by not emphasising the entire thing.
If you mean Denis wanted to show that the black characters similar to whites of the same class and any viewer, regardless of their ethnicity would find the characters appealing and likable.
Btw, I don’t know if anyone agrees with me, but I thought a lot of the characters in the film were a little too good looking. I mean, almost all the women in the film (at least the black ones) are really attractive. (The male characters were, too, but I’m not as sure about that.) I don’t know maybe its just me.
@Jazzaloha
What I’m suggesting is that maybe some people see people like Jo as a “troublemaker” (as in protest against the establishment) and a liberal do-gooder, but we see another side to her that most people (including those of a more conservative bent) would find likable.
For me it’s the inverse, you see her as quite tender from the start, and then at uni she’s somewhat insecurely arrogant, less (directly) likeable.
I’m not sure that Denis focused on that liberal/conservative conflict, there is something American (no negative connotations) about it that doesn’t feel, let’s say, right in this context. Also, the character likeability question was, I think, less important here than, in a way, just telling the truth. Usually with her films, the viewer too has to do some work in order to like or accept the characters.
It’s impossible not to be beautiful in a Claire Denis film, she knows how to shoot people, and I’m not sure that the beauty of Diop and Dogue would be a matter of general consensus (though Diop is bloody lovely). I read a review where Colin is referred to as ‘a mess of sexiness’, and there is that shot at the end of him waiting for Jo, with the camera looking up, and there is an air of readiness which feels quite erotic, so yeah, she knows how to shoot people (there is generally something female about her camera, which is fascinating).
@Cam
For me it’s the inverse, you see her as quite tender from the start, and then at uni she’s somewhat insecurely arrogant, less (directly) likeable.
Right, I agree. We see her with her father first, and then we see her at the university. My point is that there are two maybe very different sides we see of her character.
I’m not sure that Denis focused on that liberal/conservative conflict, there is something American (no negative connotations) about it that doesn’t feel, let’s say, right in this context.
Interesting. You could be right as I’m really not aware of the French sensibility with regard to this matter.
Also, the character likeability question was, I think, less important here than, in a way, just telling the truth.
Wait. I don’t get this. You sound as if Denis is making a documentary, more than a fictional film. Why is Jo’s likability the “truth?” Denis didn’t have to make her likable, right? Or am I misunderstanding you?
and I’m not sure that the beauty of Diop and Dogue would be a matter of general consensus (though Diop is bloody lovely).
Well, I think Lionel is strikingly handsome. And the Lionel’s female co-worker sort of took me a back. (Some of the other male co-workers seemed pretty good looking as well. I wondered if they were supposed by “normal” looking or if this was like a Hollywood film where really attractive actors play “normal” looking characters. The owner of the bar and the couple that come into the bar, from the rain, were also quite attractive, I thought. Oh well.)
Well, I think Lionel is strikingly handsome. And the Lionel’s female co-worker sort of took me a back. (Some of the other male co-workers seemed pretty good looking as well. I wondered if they were supposed by “normal” looking or if this was like a Hollywood film where really attractive actors play “normal” looking characters. The owner of the bar and the couple that come into the bar, from the rain, were also quite attractive, I thought. Oh well.)
Jazz, you are getting picky. More than usual haha.
Heh. Seriously, though, I’m saying that I can’t tell if the characters’ physical attractiveness is supposed to be ordinary or not—because if that’s the ordinary looking people in France, I want to see the good looking people.
I don’t think Claire Denis pursuit that kind of realism in this film.
A discussion of the look of the characters is more pertinent in Friday Night. Remember the lead? a real, normal looking woman in a romantic film where normally leads are beautiful and sophisticated (as in… cinema).
I don’t think Claire Denis pursuit that kind of realism in this film.
You could be right, but what makes you think that? The characters and relationships don’t seem too melodramatic or unrealistic in other ways.
Never saw Friday Night.
I remember talking with you about that film! (maybe it was someone else or another film)
I meant the realism that allows you to infer even the real look of the people Denis is representing in the film. In this case it doesn’t matter if they are ugly or beautiful. Where Denis get realistic is where it’s relevant and important to her: that this people suffer for love which is an abstract concept but are anchored in very concrete issues like the job they work in, the house they live in… this means from a economic point of view (which is what they are discussing in class as far as I remember).They are very grounded characters which is something you get in Ozu as well and is precisely where Denis takes this from apparently.
Btw, you should watch Late Spring Jazz! It’s one of my favorite films and the main source of 35 Shots Of Rhum.
@M
It wasn’t me. I haven’t seen the film.
Where Denis get realistic is where it’s relevant and important to her: that this people suffer for love which is an abstract concept but are anchored in very concrete issues like the job they work in.
I like the concept of what you’re saying, but I’m not sure it applies to the film. Love can be an abstract ideal, but in the film, it’s not, right? The love between father and daughter is very palpable* I agree that the characters are grounded and that this is a similarity between Ozu.
As for Late Spring, I might have watched it. I get confused by the titles of his films!
(I saw *I Stand Alone before this and it did take away a little from my enjoyment of the film. I kept worrying that the hugs were going on a little too long. I don’t think I can really enjoy a European film with a father-daughter relationship portrayed in a conventionally touching way. :)
@ Jazz
Wait. I don’t get this. You sound as if Denis is making a documentary, more than a fictional film. Why is Jo’s likability the “truth?” Denis didn’t have to make her likable, right? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Well, somewhat, yeah. I was trying to reformulate your previous comment (If you mean Denis wanted to show that the black characters similar to whites of the same class and any viewer, regardless of their ethnicity would find the characters appealing and likable.). By truth I meant, let’s say, the artist’s truth. David Foster Wallace often said in his interviews that he writes what feels real (and his work isn’t very documentaristic), or as Zadie Smith wrote Fictional truth is a question of perspective(…) It is what you can’t help tell if you write well. So maybe to Denis it ‘feels real’ that being part of a minority doesn’t necessarily imply poverty, ghettos, violence, facing racism (as it is usual in films focused on these communities), but more importantly, driving trains and missing a daughter. I wanted to say that she didn’t portray ‘them’ as similar to ‘us’ so that we find them likeable, they (characters, or black people) are like that, that is her perspective. The likability thing would be condescending maybe, both to the audience and to the characters (or minorities). Just wanted to make that slight difference.
@Cam
I think I know where you’re coming from now. By “truth,” you mean that Denis portrays them as real, ordinary human beings—ones that other human beings could relate to. I think the characters are likable, but the better word might be “relatable”. (I agree with this, btw.) Does that make sense?
dp
Love can be an abstract ideal, but in the film, it’s not, right? The love between father and daughter is very palpable.
I agree with that. But then Denis entangle this with the economics of people and the expenditure of time which is something far more concrete and of course actually affects people and its relationships and viceversa. That’s the point of the scenes you felt disconnected. In Late Spring you also have this kind of economic information (though admittedly is more subtly integrated)
I don’t think I can really enjoy a European film with a father-daughter relationship portrayed in a conventionally touching way. :)
What about Father-Son? Watch Father and Son (Sokurov). Haha. I’m kidding ¬¬
@Jazz
You might rephrase it, they are relatable because they’re real (to the author), but we’re saying the same thing, I think.
I don’t think I can really enjoy a European film with a father-daughter relationship portrayed in a conventionally touching way. :)
I’ve heard several Europeans making the same comment so… My great theory is that it’s ‘the times we live in’, the overexposure to images of tenderness-gone-wrong.
But then Denis entangle this with the economics of people and the expenditure of time which is something far more concrete and of course actually affects people and its relationships and viceversa. That’s the point of the scenes you felt disconnected.
But do these more “concrete” aspects affect the relationships? (I haven’t thought it about, so I genuinely don’t know the answer to this.) Or do you think the film simply tries to contrast one with the other? What are some of the differences that you see? (There doesn’t seem to be very strong differences.)
What about Father-Son? Watch Father and Son (Sokurov). Haha. I’m kidding
I hope you are, because I wanted to see that one. I’m going to be a little skittish going into this one now! :)
But do these more “concrete” aspects affect the relationships?
The more evident example is Rene’s. He is forced to retire and then he commits suicide.
They are not constrasted as they are intertwined.
In reverse, there is also what happens when Josephine marries. The estructure of the family changes and Lionel has to buy a new rice maker. Of course it’s a symbol of change and even of solitude but in the other hand it’s a concrete detail, an economic decision.
Ahhhh you meant especificly the relationship between Josephine and his father?
There is no one as dramatic as the Rene’s example as far as I remember but that’s what the Rene’s subplot is for. We can project the importance of the job in Rene’s life into the lead characters without problem. Yet, the decisions of the characters are conditioned by this activities for instance the father looking for her daughter when she gets out of her job late at night which serves to bond the characters. The dinner time is another example which has to do with the arrangement of activities through the day. These expressions of love are not in a vacuum they depend to an extent in these concrete aspects and it’s shown with care and emphasized.
Ahhhh you meant especificly the relationship between Josephine and his father?
Right—and the relationship between Jo and Noe, Lionel and Gabrielle—basically the “domestic relationships.”
There is no one as dramatic as the Rene’s example as far as I remember but that’s what the Rene’s subplot is for. We can project the importance of the job in Rene’s life into the lead characters without problem.
You mean that the function of Rene’s character is to show the extent to which Lionel values his job? I’m not sure I buy that. Or are you saying something else?
Yet, the decisions of the characters are conditioned by this activities for instance the father looking for her daughter when she gets out of her job late at night which serves to bond the characters. The dinner time is another example which has to do with the arrangement of activities through the day.
I don’t see the scenes in the university or Lionel’s workplace influence or connect to the more domestic scenes.
The estructure of the family changes and Lionel has to buy a new rice maker. Of course it’s a symbol of change and even of solitude but in the other hand it’s a concrete detail, an economic decision.
Actually, an interpretation of that scene just occurred to me. First, I don’t think Lionel has to buy a new rice cooker. He brings out the rice cooker that Jo bought for him in the beginning of the film. So they both bought the rice cooker without the other knowing about it. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with O. Henry’s story, “The Gift of the Magi” (and if you’re not, I’d recommend it—especially during Christmas). But the buying of the rice cookers remind me of that short story. In a way, it’s a simple way of showing their love for each other—Jo buying the rice cooker relates to her cooking, which is a way she shows her love for her father; Lionel, buys the rice cooker out of consideration and appreciation for his daughter. Finally, to my mind the rice cooker is a Japanese thing (in Hawai’i almost every house has a rice cooker like that, but my guess is that it’s a Japanese thing; then again, it could be Chinese or Korean)—which is a nod towards Ozu. (Then again, are rice cookers common in France? It’s not common on the mainland US—at least the places I’ve lived.)
You mean that the function of Rene’s character is to show the extent to which Lionel values his job?
No. The function of Rene’s character is to show the importance of his job for himself and then for people in general.
RE: Rice cooker
Jazz, yeah. In the beginning Jo is buying a rice cooker (but this is a flashforward scene in the film, the rc is white?) and the first one is bought by Lionel (which is red?) and they cook rice the first night he brings it home. Is that what you say (that’s what I meant but miswrote)?
It’s definetly a nod to Ozu, I agree. I think french don’t eat rice too much (I could be wrong)
I don’t see the scenes in the university or Lionel’s workplace influence or connect to the more domestic scenes
The scene in the university is a discussion about the debt of third countries which means the economic state of affairs. This is directly related to poverty and number of jobs available. Then we have Rene’s subplot which is about the importance of his jobs as an fundamental aspect. Finally we have some insight into the jobs of Jo, Lionel and Gabrielle (and the activities derived from it like commuting) which in a way serves as a ground for their lifes. It works smoother than that I think but in any case my point is that they are not unconnected.
In the beginning Jo is buying a rice cooker (but this is a flashforward scene in the film, the rc is white?) and the first one is bought by Lionel (which is red?) and they cook rice the first night he brings it home. That’s what you say (that’s what I meant but miswrote)?
Yes to all those questions.
I think french don’t eat rice too much (I could be wrong)
And even if they do, are those rice cookers common?
No. The function of Rene’s character is to show the importance of his job for himself and then for people in general.
and
The scene in the university is a discussion about the debt of third countries which means the economic state of affairs. This is directly related to poverty and number of jobs available.
OK, I fear I’m going to start annoying you (but that’s not my intent)… I understand what you’re saying, and I agree, but these scenes just seem almost completely unrelated to the domestic relationships and the scenes depicting them. In Late Spring or most domestic dramas by Ozu, I don’t recall scenes like those. There are scenes at work places and outside the home, but the dialogue also seems to be about the family or relationships with the family in some way. I’m not suggesting that Denis has to follow the same pattern, but I’m just pointing out the way the work/school scenes don’t seem to connect to the domestic scenes, and I don’t get this same feeling from an Ozu film. See what I mean? (I’m assuming you’d disagree with that.)
Hah, I was afraid I was annoying you.
I see what you are saying but I would’t say it doesn’t connect with the main plot, I’d say they connect in a indirect way, that it’s not without purpose. At this point we might be saying the same thing, though. Actually, I agree that it’s not like Late Spring where the secondary plots are directly integrated because they are about marriage especificly.
We have also to take in account that it’s a homage then the subplots about the importance of jobs are obviously also a nod to Ozu.
I was afraid I was annoying you.
Not at all.
I’d say they connect in a indirect way, that it’s not without purpose.
I’m just not seeing the connection, I guess.
Jazzaloha
A pleasant film, although like other Denis films, I feel like I’m fully “getting” the film (although this one less so than some others). I learned later that Denis thought of Ozu while making the film and I wished I picked up on that while watching the film! Anyway, I don’t really have much to say, but I am interested in hearing from people who really liked the film—particularly for any subtext in the film. Here are some other questions and comments:
>I wasn’t quite sure about the relationships in the film. Here’s my understanding of them so far:
Lionel and Josephine are father and daughter living in an apartment—owned or managed by Gabrielle. Gabrielle and Lionel seem to have a past together, but Gabrielle is not Josephine’s mother. The description of the film describes Noe as a “new man coming in their lives,” but I got the feeling that Noe lived in the apartment for a long time. (There’s a point where the word “family” is used to describe the four characters.)
>In what way, if any, do the aspects of Third World countries/immigrants relate to the larger story of Lionel, Josephine and Noe?
>How does Rene’s forced retirment and tragic ending fit into the larger story of the film? A part of me feels that both Rene’s character and the scenes at the university are sort of thrown into the film without connecting to the larger whole.
>I liked the dance scene in the bar—for the way it wordlessly conveyed a lot about the relationships. If anyone has any comments or interpretations of this scene, in particular, I’d be interested in hearing them.