I was very impressed by The Dreamers as well. Bertolucci always brings passion to the screen and that can’t be a bad thing.
“the dreamers” is a great film. i can rarely find fault with a film that is so explicitly about the love of cinema, in both form and content. this is a film made for people like us. this is a film about people like us.
I have also just seen the film and i share your fondness for it.
But you shouldn’t forget that the film is called “The Dreamers” and that the love for film displayed is a tragic one.
All the other films are not cited as an end in themselves, but they illustrate our heroes’ escapism.
Once the Cinemathèque has closed, the outside, before at least present as light projected on a screen, becomes completely obsolete.
Instead of participating in the protest, the three now project these films onto their own lives and in this way, film has an unconstructive power.
And while the people outside fight for new social freedoms, the three constrict their living space more and more: first to the flat, then to the bathroom, then to a tent. And each framing distances them more from the off-frame.
And in this microcosm they celebrate (it really is a celebration) their anti-bourgeois rebellion (i would call their relationship uncommon, but i would not impose an ethical adjudgement on it); at best their rebellion is oedipal, the leviathan remains unbattled.
But in the very moment their self orchestration offers its Shakespearian finale the “brick solid” outer world literally shatters the glass of their housing.
And in which moment do they step outside? In it’s most cinematic, when the riot reaches a climax.
Now what does it mean that Matthew is not entering the fighting? Does he refuse to leave the illusion or does he refuse to keep it up?
Ah, but the pardons never come from up-stairs. They’re always a moment too late, but it’s entertainment, keep the crowd on their toes, it’s justice, we’re safe. It’s not a hit, it’s a holiday, shoo-bop-shoo-bop, my baby
Rilo Kiley “It’s A Hit”
Anti-Cryptidist, I think you hit upon why i was disappointed with the film- sorry to put a dampener on the party: its distance from events, the lack of real enthusiasm and passion in such heady and exciting times in both politics and films (as well as the sexy swinging sixties). Bertolucci’s never been one to shy away from sex, but, like Last Tango in Paris, i found it coldly unerotic and found it hard to care very much for the characters. I understand the homosexual element of the threesome was toned down- by Gilbert Adair from his original. I much prefer Philippe Garrel’s Regular Lovers which covers similar territory.
I’m with Kenji on this one, Bertolucci seemed more interested in paying homage to his favorite Frenchisms of yesteryear rather than engaging much with the material of the actual politics or films, they were merely background devices to set the tone of the 60s. So when Pitt’s character calls out Theo at the end it just fell flat for me since it’s apparent from the start he never had any interest in the politics outside of the sexy mystique of it. So maybe Bertolucci was offering a condemnation of the young French 60s attitude of protesting for the sake of protesting, but he sympathizes with his characters too much for the criticism to hold much water for me. It all just seemed a dull, empty retread of an era that has been covered so well in much better movies like the Garrel film Kenji mentioned or Godard’s Les Carabiniers.
The quetion is, in how far a directors choices have to meet our expectations and whether you can demand a distinctive political statement, if a film is set in a crucial environment.
I’m going to bump this thread because I finally finished watching The Dreamers today and am interested to hear what more people think about this film, particularly people who weren’t impressed with it.
On the surface, there’s a lot of inside baseball going on here, even for me, and although all the film stuff didn’t ruin the film, it did feel like there were a lot of references meant for only a select few. I don’t know. Why don’t I absolutely love this movie? Eva Green is stunningly beautiful. Bertolucci is a damn genius with the camera. The way he sets up a shot and blocks a scene is really a thing to admire. I liked all the mirrors and I’d be interested to find out where the three mirrors next to the tub came from. Was that something Bertolucci conceived? And the story itself is interesting – obviously the time period is compelling, although I don’t know much about what was going on in France during that time so it was hard for me to identify with all the protesting.
But ultimately the film felt flat to me. I’ve been trying to figure out why and the only thing that I can think of is because of the characters. They all seemed quite unlikable and naive. And when I say naive, I don’t mean it in a innocent way but rather naive in a stupid way. What do these characters believe in? What are they standing up against? They’re rebelling against social norms and there upper class lifestyle but why? They don’t talk much about revolution and fighting for the common man. They talk about movies. They recite lines of dialogue. They play out scenes. One of the few times Theo shows his disgust for American imperialism, he attacks Matthew as being part of the problem. The irony (and I have no idea if this was intended or not) is that Theo questions Matthew for why America is in Vietnam when his own country was there before the Americans were! When Theo confronts Matthew with this, I wished Matthew would have reminded Theo of this (as well as France’s involvement in other countries, such as Algeria).
This was part of my issue with Matthew. While it’s easy to dismiss the siblings as being odd because of their relationship, I didn’t identify much with our protaganist either. He seemed incredibly weak and I never understood where his motivations came from. He so easily decides to live with them and adapting into their lifestyle even though it’s completely inappropriate. Why does Matthew decide to live with them in the first place? Ok fine, he’s lonely, he’s found some friends who share in his love of the cinema. But then why does he accept their inappropriate behavior if he finds it so wrong? Why does he decide to join in? It seems that once he moves in with them, he completely shuts himself off from the rest of the world – why? Why did he go to France if he wasn’t going to experience France?
These are some of the questions I had and they all stem from my disconnect with the characters. The film seemed more about celebrating a time in France and cinema and less about making us care about these characters. I don’t know. The sex stuff didn’t bother me and even the incestual relationship seemed inconsequential because it was presented in such a non-sexual, bizarre way. A couple times Matthew calls them out on their relationship and accuses them of acting inappropriately but yet he then goes and supports it. If he was so disgusted, why stay?
The ending it seemed tried to make us see that the characters do in fact believe in something but by then I didn’t care. Eva Green had it in her mind that she was going to die anyway and since she always stood by her brother, she did so at the end too. I don’t think it was b/c she actually believed in the cause. And for Matthew, I don’t know. It felt contrived that he would all of a suddent take this position against these two. After everything he has witnessed and even participated in, the fact that he took a stand against fighting the cops seemed weak. That line where he tells Theo we are not like that, we don’t fight like that, not only was it cheesy dialogue but it felt completely out of left field.
Anyways, I’d like to know what others think – on a site like this, you would assume most people love this film because it’s so much about cinema and cinema lovers. But for me, because I saw these characters as so naive and childlike, I almost felt like Bertolucci was looking down and making fun of cinema lovers as being stupid and unrealistic.
“I almost felt like Bertolucci was looking down and making fun of cinema lovers as being stupid and unrealistic.”
that’s right Fredo,and that’s why Dreamers will be the 3rd best non-Italian feature Bertolucci ever directed,especially when he created some abominations mid-90’s,Little Buddha comes to mind,hehe..
and after all,Bertolucci is possibly mocking himself in the face of all characters,transformed as a passionate woman,a carefree brother and a bisexual and asexual simultaneously “curious” youth,all of them non-cinema characters…
Was it a critique or celebration of ’68? I lean toward critique: the nauseating self-absorption, the ridiculous politics, etc.
“What do these characters believe in? What are they standing up against? They’re rebelling against social norms and there upper class lifestyle but why? They don’t talk much about revolution and fighting for the common man. They talk about movies.”
This is a huge point. As I was saying in the anarchy thread, Theo is full of talk, but he never actually does anything. He’s rebelling just to rebel, and he does nothing for this cause that he supposedly feels so strongly about.
“Ok fine, he’s lonely, he’s found some friends who share in his love of the cinema. But then why does he accept their inappropriate behavior if he finds it so wrong?”
If I may be as romantic to say, that once he got to know them he began to fall in love with Isabelle. And honestly, can you blame him?
“And for Matthew, I don’t know. It felt contrived that he would all of a suddent take this position against these two.”
This is because he finally decides that enough is enough. He no longer wants to put up with their naivety.
^ I would argue it was both a critique and celebration of youth in 1968. I see this movie more as an equivocal meditation on sexually-adventurous, idealistic yet passionate youth.
All of the above. The dynamic between the three and a shared love of film, in Paris, 1968.
Dimitris – If you are correct and Bertolucci was in fact mocking himself and cinephiles, then I give him credit for that and have a better appreciation for the film! lol
Drew – That was my point about Matthew at the end. It didn’t seem like he had had enough. His decision at the end came out of nowhere. It didn’t feal earned at all but rather just a way to end the film. His frustration with them throughout the film was very sporadic and half assed and his consistant willing participation in their fancies left me feeling that his frustration with them was not that sincere.
I felt that the life style was attractive to him, and enjoyable so he participated, but whenever he would think about it his morals would get in the way and he would see the problems. I felt it was earned due to him expressing frustration throughout the film. Isn’t furstration usually sporadic?
A disappointing film.
Bertolucci was in Italy during May ‘68 and always wanted to be there. This was his imaginary rute to that slice of history. It’s based on a novel by Gilbert Adair written as a modernist hommage to Cocteau’s “Les Enfants Terribles.” In the book it’s a total three-way with the guys doing it with each other as well as the girl. But right after the book came out Gilbert announced — with great fanfare — that he was now straight.
This was a cause of considerble mirth among is friends (among whom I was one but no longer.) He has since, reportedly, slipped back
But that’s neither here nor there. Bertolucci missed a teriffic chance for a love scene between Louis Garrel and Michael Pitt.
Eve Green is quite interesting, though not as interestign as her aunt Marika (the star of Bresson’s “Pickpocket”)
For the REAL May 68 stor see Philippe Garrel’s “Les Amant Reguliers” — also starring Louis.
^ I was just about to say that Regular Lovers seems like a more accurate portrayal of “the times”.
Would make for an interesting double feature, I think.
What do you make of the part when Lilie enunciates, “Bernardo. Bertolucci.” to the screen?
David,i love Les Amants Reguliers as well and a whole lot more than Dreamers where Philippe Garrel has fused the “opium” unvierse in a truly exceptional photographic style..and a bittersweet nostalgia..
but i can’t stop feeling that Dreamers is Bertolucci’s requiem(cinematically speaking…)and his swan song no matter how many films he’ll create from now on,be it 1 or 10…
Frustration can be sporadic but I never really SAW him being frustrated, I HEARD him be frustrated. In other words, he would chastise these two people but his actions never mirrored what he said. I never saw him truly disgusted with them, only that he said he was disgusted. You see what I mean? I think for the end to resonate with me, I would have wanted to see more of him getting to that point, instead of just continuing to be a willing participant. Yeah, he yelled at them but he never did anything about it. It seemed like he was just spouting off what he thought was supposed to be said, but his actions spoke otherwise. His actions spoke that he really didn’t care about their behavior. I don’t know, it just felt like a very passive film with characters just wondering and meandering, which is sort of odd because the time period was anything but passive.
for the ones who are disappointed by Bertolucci’s U.S. and generally non-Italian films(because i also hear negative comments about Tango in Paris)…then try The Conformist and begin going backwards….you’ll feel compensated ;)
Fredo, I think thats because he wasn’t all that frustrated. “It seemed like he was just spouting off what he thought was supposed to be said…” pretty much sums it up. By society’s standards and his moral standards Theo and Isabelle’s relationship is wrong, and their lives are lazy, but it doesn’t bother Matthew all that much until he thinks about what he should be feeling.
I haven’t seen Last Tango in Paris or The Conformist but I absolutely love The Last Emperor. Normally I hate sweeping epic films like this but for whatever reason, this movie is one of the exceptions (along with Larry of Arabia) and I sincerely enjoy it.
It’s like the Citizen Kane of cinematography.
I do hope Bertolucci gets another chance. Last I heard he was seriously ill with back problems that caused the cancellation of a long-planned film about the world of opera.
haha,Emperor is a very safe choice :P just kidding,i admire it the same as you,but Citizen Kane of cinematography???exaggerating a bit there? ;)
even Alexander Nevsky surpasses Last Emperor in those terms ;) and many more but this is not the appropriate thread,hahaha.
“but it doesn’t bother Matthew all that much until he thinks about what he should be feeling.”
But Drew, how do you SHOW that? How do you show someone thinking in a movie? A character can’t just have an epiphany that comes out of nowhere – that’s when it feels contrived and the manipulation of the writer (or laziness of the writer, in my opinion). I do agree with you that their relationship didn’t really bother Matthew that much, which is why the end felt false to me.
For me, a movie needs to be moving towards something, characters need to be moving forward, not just randomly wondering through life then at the end have some revelation that it was all wrong. As my writing professor used to say, “That’s too easy!”.
I don’t think he had a revelation that it was all wrong. I think as I said that it isn’t so much him having a problem with it, but him thinking he should have a problem with it.
Which is interesting, because Matthew mentions earlier in the movie that they (perhaps including himself) weren’t doing anything but drinking expensive wine and reading books, and that somewhere out there – a revolution was going on… And in another part, he expresses somewhat approval of US troops being in Vietnam, no?
So he’s kind of a hypocrite. At least when it comes to the moment when things are actually happening.
This is a movie that I own and think is great…however, I do have to admit, I don’t think it has much replay value.
The revolution is the real white elephant in the room… the bizarre sexual relationship is just a feature of this misguided "family"’s fantasy (which Matthew himself joins, for a while). I don’t think Matthew ever worries about the incestuous love affair he’s participating in… he would continue to take part in it, if he thought Theo and Isabelle could still maintain their link with reality.
Matthew is a realist, not a reactionary. He doesn’t defend Vietnam… he defends the troops themselves, taking a pragmatically sympathetic point of view. Ultimately, this pragmatism is what drives him away from the family… Theo is naively romantic, fantasizing about violent revolution from the safety of a self-indulgent sexual relationship. Isabelle is living in a different fantasy, where she and her brother can have a perfect relationship, familial, sexual, romantic, and protective, and this ultimately drives her to chase after Theo, who is chasing after his misinformed romanticism.
I think Matthew decides to leave this behind because he sees the reality beneath Theo and Isabella’s fantasy. He sees that their relationship can’t be maintained without perversion and jealousy, and he realizes that violent revolution isn’t the profound, noble act of defiance that Theo imagines it to be. He walks away from the pair knowing that he has to find revolution in everyday life, rather than in a fantasy world built from scenes from movies.
I think the characters were so young and lived such a sheltered life that they were completely out of touch with reality and were innately selfish; they only cared about themselves and their participation in the riot at movie’s end was just them going with the flow.Theo and Isabelle are still trying to find their path and their own beliefs; they are still at an age where they can be malleable and mouldable, like clay. It was hard to sympathize with such characters for these reasons. Mathew was just weak and curious. The twins seemed alluring to him because they lived in a fantasy world.
Thank you, Ganselmi, for “the nauseating self-absorption, the ridiculous politics, etc.”
Still, I’m fond of this film, because Bertolucci offers something to gaze at and a place to go.
(As per usual.)
I can’t find a whole lot wrong with Eva Green, either.
Also, it’s fun to watch the monstrously self-absorbed privileged class spout lefty sentiments.
It’s an absolute riot when they attempt to flirt with Marxist notions.
That’s an old tradition among certain cinemaphiles, such flirtation.
In fact, a lot of that silliness goes on here, at times.
I take my cue from Bertolucci and write it off to youthful idealism.
Anyway, The Dreamers puts all of that in a visually pleasing package,
and the very title provides the most appropiate description for all those kids with the ridiculous politics.
Drew Gregory
Maybe I just can’t help like a film about film lovers that references a ton of other great films but after just finishing The Dreamers I have to say I loved it. So lets put aside the film lover aspect because all of us here are bias. The relationship between Isabelle and Theo and Matthew and each of their individual relationships are just astonishing to watch. Isabelle and Theo are so enticing to Matthew but he struggles with them due to their strange, childish, and in my values just plain wrong relationship. What works so perfectly is we as the audience feel the same way. Isabelle is beautiful and says the day she was born was when she saw Breathless, I’m sorry call me shallow but as a film lover I’m ready to marry her. And I don’t share the sexual attraction that Matthew had for Theo but still a friend who could argue with me over Chaplin vs Keaton and Hendrix vs Clapton is pretty cool. I want to love these characters but it is just so hard due to their inappropriate behavior towards one another, which is similar to what Matthew goes through. I just really enjoyed watching these characters interact and struggle with their feelings.
I’m having a bit of trouble expressing why I loved this film so much but maybe after sleep and some thought I will come back with more. Oh and having watched both this and Last Tango in Paris for the first time tonight, Bertolucci has jumped miles in my book.