I agree completely with Blue K’s original assessment. Drew, I think your own love for this film is mainly because of Eva Green (which is understandable until she opens her mouth and tries to act ) or the fact that the term cinephile is used as a term of respect. In all other ways, the film is rather a mess: unconvincing, poorly scripted and acted, and a travesty to the period it is dealing with – which is used in the film as a kind of picturesque background. I was so sick of the trio that I was really hoping for their suicidal demise and wishing they would take the film with them. But if you still love the film, what does it matter what others think?
Films like this are why we have words like Eurotrash.
I do not love the film because of a hot naked girl. If that was the case, then I might as well just list a ton of porn in my favorites. However I do like the film because how Bertolucci uses the hot naked girl. And with this I will also defend myself against Law and David E.
I may be repeating myself, but I think Bertolucci put me in Matthew’s position. Matthew is seduced by Isabelle. She is attractive, loves movies, has great taste in music, etc. etc. However what prevents her perfection is that she has an incestual and codependent relationship with her brother. Am I not thinking the same thing? Perfect girl, with one tiny hiccup? I was hoping their “date” would work just as much as Matthew was. If it was just a tale of a cinephile that looked like Eva Green who liked Janis Joplin then I would be in absolute love with the character. However her sibling relationships stops this, just as it does with Matthew. I can only be seduced by Theo to a point, because I myself (my selfish little self who wants all movies to be directed at ME ) am not gay. So if their relationship was made more explicit I would lose some of that connection with Matthew. Sorry if that comes out offensive or homophobic, because I really don’t mean it to be.
Honestly I only consider this to be one aspect of the film’s greatness, even if it is what we have mainly talked about.
Well, all films would sure be more relatable for me if their protagonists were Chinese, interested in cinema and about 170cm. Why argue that explicity homosexuality should be removed from films because they do not suit you as a viewer?
I have not seen The Dreamers, but If Bertolucci is using sexual politics to seduce the viewer into the film, while simulatenously making everyone go crazy over a woman’s body, it is a film I regard lowly. I would rather have normal women in my films than sexualised objects. But once again, it would suit me better as a viewer. So I do not have any real answer, I would just advise everyone to be more open to sexuality.
I am happy Truffaut chose to make Antoine Doinel a boy instead of a girl, because it allows me to relate to him more.
If I said that statement would you call me sexist? I don’t think so. I’m not saying all films should be made for me, and me only, but if I feel a film is than what harm am I causing? Oh and I have no clue how I would relate to Annie Doinel, maybe I would relate just as much. Just how I do not know my reaction to a explicit homosexual relationship in The Dreamers. Maybe I would connect with it just as much. And one thing is for certain: I would still think it was a fantastic film. Is there anyway I can say this where I’m not labeled as a homophobe or douchebag or whatever?
(if I sound mean that is only because I am a half hour into Benny’s Video and not feeling too well….notice I had to take a breather)
Law, I can only say that I do not think that Eva Green is used primarily for her body; it is the character she is playing, a well-written, smart woman, who happens to be beautiful at the same time. In countless films there is the beautiful girl, but here it is just so different. I advise you to watch it, because it’ great.
Savvy
I have not seen the film, but this thread touches on two important issues to me, the portray of sexuality in media and effect of media on gender roles, hence my intrustion. I will report back after I see the film.
One last thing before I go back to my movie from hell. Zach is correct. Do really think its her body that seduces me? Its her double interest of Godard and Joplin!
I’ll respond to your responses at my next break or at the end of the movie if I make it through.
its the double interest plus her body. she really is the perfect girl…with that one fatal flaw that all “perfect” girls have. nobodys perfect.
i like the film, and i dont see why any cinephile shouldnt like it. it speaks our language, and it does so fluently. and arent all those who love films, or art, dreamers?
Bertolucci was in Italy during May ‘68 — a "revolution’ he longed to join. But he missed the boat. Gilbert’s novel gave him a way back in. It’s his re-engagement with May ’68 through characters he might well have thought of himself — pampered bourgeois youth.
There has been much discussion in here of Eva Green’s body i general and her tits in particular. But the film gores to considerable lengths to make her a three-dimensional character, and the trigger of much of the action. Those wishing to contemplate the wonders of Eva Green’s balcomy are free to do so. Me, im disappointed that Bertolucci doesn’t have the lushly appointed Louis Garrel and the sublimely sympa Michael Pitt get it on.
In the book they did, but as I’ve said earleir Gilbert decided to take it back.
Interesting there are gay characters in “Regular Lovers.” Their roles are small but quite interesting. One of them feaks out on drugs and the rejection of his boyfriend in a climactic scene.
Grey Daisies
No, the best film ever made about Paris ‘68 was Pierre Clémenti’s La Révolution n’est qu’un Début. Continuons Le Combat.