It’s pretty dark and disturbing.. The last shot will stick with you.
It’s a very nice film, overlong, aye, but still captivating.
I eagerly await seeing this, I haven’t yet but I’ve been reading various reviews and writings on the film and I am pumped to see it.
As probably many who’ve not seen it will be aware it covers a few days in the life of a Belgian woman (Delphine Seyrig) whose school-age son lives with her. Most of the film is taken up by her household chores, cleaning, preparing meals and shopping and there are brief visits by men- paying for sex. It is filmed with static cameras, in real time with relatively few edits (of course there are jumps in time or the film’s length would have been massive), and all concentrating on the next task for her. There are occasional conversations with her son, cool and understated like the film though seemingly comfortable not cold, and he tells her he used to pretend to have nightmares as he did not want his father penetrating her at night when he learned about sex; theirs seems a slightly odd, overly structured relationship of set routines.
The ending reminded me of a Fassbinder film, again understated and unexpected (if you’ve not read about it already of course). It’s minimalist, crisp and often beautifully framed, drawing attention to little details, including play of light and (often pastel) colour patterns, It’s as audacious as it is understated, even while it may owe something to Antonioni, Bresson, Ozu (she was a fan of Godard but this may be less apparent). My mind did wander occasionally- it’s 3 hours- but concentration is repaid. It makes a clear statement on the lives of women, often boring, repetitive, mainly housebound and serving others, with few clear rewards or entertainments. Its style is in deliberate contrast to macho action films, the usual male concerns on screen, and suits the subject well, feeling less mannered than it might otherwise.
It’s clear what it wants to achieve and it achieves it, not for all tastes, but a landmark film
I watched Jeanne Dielman yesterday. It had a profound effect on me, I’d never experienced anything like it in cinema. Which is what the film was to me – much more of an ‘experience’ than a viewing pleasure or entertainment. I’m fairly certain I came away from watching it changed, somehow.
Some of my initial thoughts on the film:
Lighting – brilliant. The use of darkness and light to represent the passage of time and the movement of Seyrig’s body through the spaces is very inspired. The blue light reflected on the armoir in the dining room from the window is the only evidence of the outside world we see (inside the apartment) as an audience let in on the claustrophobic setting of this woman’s life.
Camera – Akerman clearly made a choice in this film to use the camera as voyeur – as opposed to Jean-Luc Godard’s 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her (which I am completely convinced served as an inspiration for Jeanne Dielman) in which Godard uses the camera more as an active participant (the actors speak directly to the camera throughout ‘2 or 3 Things…’). This use of camera as voyeur in Jeanne Dielman is what gives the film its strength and overwhelming eeriness, I think.
In this sense Akerman uses the camera to develop a new cinematic language – and herein lies the power of the film – the language used is one not before seen in cinema with nearly the same force – that of the daily routines of a typical (despite being a prostitute) domestic woman.
One more thing I found to be overwhelmingly important to the film was the way in which Seyrig’s character communicated, as you point out, Kenji. There is a violence in her need for routine, and a violence in her need for acknowledgment that she herself is unaware of throughout the film. This, I think, is something that is deeply important to recognize.
I think there is truth in Akerman’s statement that the mundane existence of being a ‘housewife’ has enormous potential to create in one an overwhelming sense of inadequacy that can then lead to ever-more intense needs for control and recognition – Jeanne Dielman, in my opinion, is meant to be a critique of this very thing. The particular form of social organization – modern consumerist culture – is also what Chantal Akerman is being critical of in the film (as is Godard in ‘2 or 3 Things’).
From information I found online I believe that Seyrig’s character was inspired (in part, obviously) by her own mother whom she described as simplistic in her approach toward communication in that her very role in life never allowed her to move beyond the most basic methods of outward articulation. Jeanne Dielman, therefore, should not, I believe, be considered a psychotic character, but a quite typical modern housewife – passionate and intelligent but unaware of her own depth due to the very banal nature of her existence – and due to her own fears of breaking out of that existence.
(A great reference is Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘The Second Sex’).
I believe that it was Akerman’s intention in making Jeanne Dielman to dissect and discuss these themes, so I hope she herself would approve of an intelligent and thoughtful discussion about the film – for anybody interested in watching it who hasn’t seen it, it is available on youtube.
I think this is a minimalist film, a term that’s often misused. Yesterday i saw the Hungarian film Hukkle, described as minimalist because there’s barely any need for subtitles, when in fact its depiction of village life was fairly teeming with people and creatures and magnified sounds, time lapse, slow-mo, some extraordinary camera work ranging widely. Whereas Jeanne Dielman is something very pure, and it surpassed my expectations. The colour schemes are also unusual. The relative lack of conversation between mother and son needs some thought, as it feels comfortable and affectionate enough, not mannered film-making but natural. It’s the repetitions and sense of routine that stands out and the way the ending is handled is an opposition to the grandiose Hollywood way of milking. I find it quite touching though some would say it excuses and even condones violence, may be anti-male. Jeanne is presented not as individually psychotic but as the result of her situation, though she is equally not presented throughout as a victim. Thanks JH for the Godard reference, no doubt she had that film, and its depiction of consumerism/prostitution in mind, while creating something of her own making. There is a tremendous quiet dignity to the film, which now makes say Baise-moi (not a film i despised, unlike many) seem unduly straining and confrontational. Too often nowadays films are over-praised i think for difference to Hollywood excess but this film deserves its acclaim.
I’ve been giving this further thought, as i do, while walking the dogs (probably would be better if i was more aware of the wonders of nature each time). I don’t think isms like minimalism or feminism really do justice to the film, it has its own unique subtle restrained beauty, might be considered clinical, unduly calculated by some, very boring or mesmerising by others, but it’s the sort of film that doesn’t reveal its meanings in a hurry, needs time to seep in. Here prostitution appears more a civilised discreet transaction that’s just one part of a daily routine, no more significant than shopping, it’s not handled in any exaggerated “isn’t this oppressive”, “aren’t men beasts” way, it’s a far cry from films like Women of the Night by Mizoguchi or Gate of Flesh by Suzuki that are a rougher more dramatic breed altogether. She may get paid for sex but there’s no great judgment attached, and she’s not defined by her prostitution, she’s a woman and an individual with her own reasons. Prostitutes are too often defined by their job when they are women and individuals, all of worth.
Not much is revealed of Jeanne’s background or attitudes, she seems intelligent, with a need for tidiness and manners but undemonstrative, just quietly repeats to her son not to read while eating. Her life is not presented as totally claustrophobic (that might have been an easier way out for some directors but less real and credible); she gets out to the post office, a few different shops, has a coffee in a bar; it’s dull but it’s not a nightmarish existence. Just little signs that things may be getting to her. It relies on subtlety. I think it has rare integrity- Bill Douglas’ My Childhood is another that comes to mind.
Kenji, I agree with you that ‘isms’ could get in the way of understanding this film on a deeper level. ‘Jeanne Dielman’ is a somewhat hard film to watch, I think. It moves very slowly and shows repetitive action, there is no music and very little dialogue. There are really only two characters that are explored at all in depth, and the focus is obviously mostly on Seyrig’s character – following her in the space of three days – almost as if in real time. There is no over-the-top drama, no attempt by Akerman to shock (despite the ending) or to play to audiences’ habit of receiving film as entertainment.
I also agree with you that the film feels very natural, even while it seems clear that the scenes must have been meticulously planned and executed. Something else I found online explained Akerman’s thinking in working with Delphine Seyrig – Akerman knew what she wanted to capture for each shot, but Seyrig was really a force of her own, both as an actress and a woman. She needed little direction once filming began. Why I not only was capable of sitting through some of the very long shots (Jeanne pealing potatoes, for one), but was completely enthralled and deeply moved throughout the entire experience of watching it is largely due to Seyrig’s performance in this film. At no point does she lapse from expressing incredibly believable and profound emotion, even as the scenes go on and on.
I think the communication between Jeanne Dielman and her son is another very important element in the film, like you pointed out, Kenji. While it comes across very naturally, there is seemingly enormous intent behind every shared moment, every spoken word. The relationship between the two is laid bare – even through Akerman’s very choice to have them speak so little to one another. One important element of their relationship that became clear to me in watching the film was how Jeanne’s son had almost become the focal point of her existence – mostly because she so completely lacked other profound human connection. It was even made excruciatingly clear during the course of the film that she hadn’t had a close or intimate relationship with her husband, marrying him when she was young and failing to identify with her choice later in life.
The topic of prostitution is a whole other can of worms. There is so very much that can be said both about prostitution itself and Akerman’s take on prostitution in Jeanne Dielman – I’ll just start by agreeing with you wholeheartedly that Seyrig’s character is not defined by her choice to earn money sleeping with other men in the film anymore than she is defined by her other actions – her shopping, cleaning, cooking, knitting, listening to the radio, conversing with her son, etc. Akerman seems to be saying that this woman’s choice (although it could be argued just how much of a choice it is – as well as how conscious v. unconscious a choice) only holds as much relevance as any other choice she makes in her life – perhaps until the end of the film when this particular choice pushes her past a point of being able to reconcile her inner reality to the external circumstances she’s elicited.
One more thing I’d like to respond to that you brought up, Kenji, is that the film could be misinterpreted as condoning anti-male violence. It is my take that Akerman’s film is a DEEP condemnation of violence, self-hatred, and specifically, female fear or hatred of men. Jeanne Dielman’s ending is perhaps one of the most tragic I’ve seen in a film, ever. The last moments in which we watch her sitting silently at a table, contemplating her acts, are some of the most screamingly powerful images of modern cinema, and capture the sheer terror of a character’s tragedy in such amazing and beautiful simplicity. I strongly believe that Akerman is not on any level suggesting that Jeanne Dielman’s life is anything but a tragic one – and perhaps all the more poignant because throughout the film there is the temptation to see her as ordinary. Even while we watch her last moments on film, we know that Jeanne Dielman’s life is irreparably and forever changed for the worse. There is no need to see the resulting consequences in action – the images of her sitting in the dark with blood on her hand and blouse are enough to arouse horror in anyone.
Very well put on all fronts. I certainly don’t see it as in any way anti-male, it occurred to me some might. It’s not a provocative agitational feminist film but something quietly serious, touching and even finally tender and sad. An elegant, decent and caring woman brought to such a point.
Mesmerizing, I wasn’t bored for a minute, Seyrig was fascinating to watch. A truly great film.
TheGodfather
So today finally the 2 disc Criterion release of Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles was announced. Who of you has already seen it? My copy of the R2 5 disc Chantal Akerman collection is on its way and I will be getting the Criterion for sure.
Any thoughts on the film?