I’ve blind bought Two-Lane Blacktop, Thre Films by Hiroshi Teshihagara, and Mishima, and not one disappointed. It was an extraordinary relief and testimony to Criterion, I think. I was also debating this one. So, DID you buy it yet? And Col. Dax, it is a shame those 2 were on TCM and my DVR was not informed prior!
Spielberg – Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Mann – Heat
Gilliam – Brazil or 12 Monkeys
Fincher – SE7EN
Scorsese – Taxi Driver, though something in me wants to say After Hours.
Coppola – The Conversation
De Palma – The Untouchables?
Tarantino – Inglourious Basterds
Coens – Fargo or Lebowski
P.T.Anderson – Punch Drunk Love or TWBB
Demme – Silence of the Lambs
Cassavetes – Shadows
Reiner – This Is Spinal Tap
Penny Marshall – Why is she here? I guess Big, haha.
Eastwood – Mystic River
Cameron – Terminator 2
Wes Anderson – Rushmore or Bottle Rocket
Jarmusch – Dead Man
Bay – The Rock, if I havta.
D.G. Green – ?
Huston – Fat City
Ivan Reitman – Ghostbusters
Lumet – Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead or Dog Day Afternoon
Burton -
The thing about Malle is he never let himself get restricted by a certain formula he may have cultivated over his earlier years as a filmmaker. Each film of his approaches story and characters relatively the same, but the means in which he went about it always varied, and yet, always achieved greatness. His short run as a “New Wave” associated director didn’t last long because while Godard or Truffaut continued to make a long string of great films that followed similar narrative and style as not only the films that preceded them by their respected directors, but also that of peers’, Malle was taking quite different paths. This is an admirable trait, for Malle isn’t alone in the history of cinema to do such a thing. And it seems that more directors now are not keeping to a strict formula, but challenging themselves. I don’t mean to say Godard or Truffaut didn’t, but it certainly took them longer to start branching out of their 60s New Wave aesthetic, while I feel Malle was already differentiating himself with The Fire Within, which was in 1963.
@ Bobby Wise, I should have said it clearer… paths as in during the 60s. Godard’s 60s films for me all had the same atmosphere to them. That whole delirious, pop-art feel.
@ Robert W Peabody III, God’s Country was a great documentary.
I think There Will Be Blood has its influences: Malick, Kubrick, and Huston (mainly because I recall reading that Anderson watched Sierra Madre several times while making it) seem to be key.
But what I love most is that it’s a PTA film, and surely no one knows how Anderson will evolve from here until he releases something else. But I’d like to think he’s going down a more grand, ambitious style rather than his interwoven, Altman-like style. Punch Drunk Love seemed to be an inaugural film in terms of aesthetic choices, and There Will Be Blood only seemed to improve on this slightly new approach. That’s what I see, could be wrong.
How many times do I have to read about whether it’s for kids or not? The bulk of what I’ve read (from interviews with Jonze, Sendak, Eggers, and critics’ reviews) is that it’s ambiguous. It works both ways. It varies from other children’s movies because it’s honest and not candy coated. But shit… wait a second… I still have to see it. But at least I know going into it that Jonze didn’t make the movie that is being marketed, that’s the producer’s movie trying to get as many tickets sold as possible.
“This is something that I dream about: to live films, to arrive at the point at which one can live for films, can think cinematographically, eat cinematographically, sleep cinematographically, as a poet, a painter, lives, eats, sleeps painting.”
-Bernardo Bertolucci
Before he started shooting his 2003 film, The Dreamers, Bernardo Bertolucci asked the seminal New Wave director, Jean-Luc Godard, for permission to include clips from A bout de souffle (Breathless) and Band a part (Band of Outsiders). Naturally, the director approved, and this is evident. If Bertolucci wants to “live cinematographically,” well, The Dreamers is his ode to this desire, and the early films of Godard are certainly the right basis.
The Dreamers takes place during the notorious May of ‘68, in France. While Bertolucci insists that one not attribute this fact to the main plot, it is important not to ignore it. For one, the ousting of Henry Langlois, a catalyst for months of turmoil involving class struggle and anti-de Gaulle attitude, was a perculiar, yet profound, occurrence in political and cinematic circles. It displayed the power of film, the power, more specifically, of cinephiles. Cinephiles, an evergrowing breed to this day, was but a smaller passionate caste of mostly students and other intellectuals. They firmly believed in the importance of 24 frames per second and met often to indulge in all it offered. As Matthew, played by Michael Pitt, claims early on in the film, “I became a member of what in those days was sort of a free masonry, the free masonry of cinephiles,” as his voice narrates over of images of the Cinematheque Francaise’s screening of Fuller’s Shock Corridor. “Only the French would house a cinema inside a palace,” he claims.
Bertolucci shoots Matthew in a dark, large theatre. His camera is at the bottom of the movie screen looking up as Fuller’s images play. He cuts to the projector’s faint ray of light and follows it back to the screen, behind countless heads of twenty-something’s and the likes. An exterior shot of the palace in which this is being shown, and a cut back to the inside of the theatre, now tracking a shot of the audience from the front, faces in awe, mouths half open, eyes glued. This is the free masonry. All the while the strumming of a familiar guitar, that of one Jimi Hendrix, plays faintly on the soundtrack. This is the late 60s, France, the Cinematheque Francaise. Bernardo wants to drill this zeitgeist into your head early. This is where you are.
In many ways, establishing this mood and spirit early, Bertolucci is preparing you for the rest of his film. Splicing scenes and moments of films like A bout de souffle or Bande a part with near reenactments in his own, Bertolucci states in his commentary for The Dreamers that he wanted to present an idea of “one long film.” That although his work is decades after Godard’s early 60s work, or Fred Astaire’s dance scene in Top Hat, they were all part of this spirit: the love of film.
After Fuller’s Shock Corridor scene, we see Matthew heading to the Cinematheque on a separate occasion and he recalls, “there was one evening in the Spring of 1968, when the world finally burst through the screen.” It is here Bertolucci addresses the May of ‘68 riots. He shows archival footage of Henry Langlois leaving the Cinematheque Francaise, while a New Wave icon, Jean-Pierre Leaud, speaks to the crowd. But this isn’t all archival footage of Leaud. Instead Bertolucci mixes clips of present day Leaud, still, in many ways an icon, with footage of him from 1968. He is reading a text written by the likes of Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, and Jacques Rivette, amongst others. It is an odd mixture. In scratchy black and white archival footage, a younger Leaud speaks to a crowd. This is nonfiction, real life. In lush, hypnotic Bertolucci cinematography, he reenacts this moment in his life as an older man, 30 odd years later. So is this fiction? A humble homage? Regardless, Bertolucci, for the first time in many times throughout the film, uses other footage and mixes it with his own. The single “long film” plays on. This time, it is vital to note, he mixes real life events with his film’s events. And again Bertolucci is telling us of his wish to “live for films.”
This mixture of reality and “film reality” is important not only in The Dreamers, but in Godard’s own Bande a part. As James Monaco states in The New Wave, “if anything sets Bande a part apart, it is this joie de film: the characters have it within the structure of the film; Godard shows it outside the structure.” (p. 142) The “joie de film,” or in English, the joy of film. This could explain why Godard’s middle name is ‘cinema’ in the opening credits. Monaco explains that the three main characters, Arthur, Odile, and Franz, decide to commit a robbery not for any particular gain, but for the story it will turn out to be. “Cinema offers the security of known modes of discourse and protection from the emptiness and absurdity of what film people insist on calling ‘real life.’ Like so many of Godard’s people, they gain comfort from seeing the world in terms of metaphor of film, speaking in its language, acting through its formulated gestures.” (Monaco, p. 142) The characters of The Dreamers are very much “Godard’s people.”
As already mentioned, Bertolucci mixes footage from older films in reference to that of his own throughout The Dreamers. His characters, Isabelle, Theo, and Matthew, exert the same richness of Godard’s own, Arthur, Odile, and Franz. No more is this evident than in the Louvre scene. Infamous in cinematic history, the Louvre scene was first created by Godard in Bande a part, where the 3 characters race through the museum in an attempt to beat the record. Before paying homage to this moment, Bertolucci shows his characters lying around in a room, quizzing each other about films, debating who out of Chaplin and Keaton was better. To support each argument of Matthew and Theo, the director includes short, but powerful, clips of each legendary actor. It not only becomes a debate between these two characters, but with the audience as well. He is asking you: Chaplin or Keaton? Just as it seems Theo has convinced Matthew that Chaplin is the better of the 2, Isabelle restarts a finished record, a Janis Joplin record. Annoyed, Theo attempts to break the record in two and immediately Isabelle challenges Matthew to name a film in which someone drives another person crazy by tap dancing. This is not reality. This is “Godard’s people” laboring in their free masonry, cinephilia. After a brief mental struggle, as Theo and Isabelle wrestle on the floor, Matthew replies, “Top Hat!” And again, Bertolucci shows you a film. This time it is Fred Astaire, another cinema icon, tap dancing in his memorable scene. Upon this correct reply, a close-up of Theo and Isabelle stare, almost stunned. “You know what I’m thinking?” asks Isabelle. They’ve found their third person. “Band a part,” she says. It is as if Theo and Isabelle had been conspiring over this for years and had finally found their third person. They’re determined to beat the record, but Matthew has hesitations. For just a moment, one of Bertolucci’s characters leave this cinephilia and thinks of real world consequences. “I’m an American,” he tells them, “if I get caught I get deported.” Isabelle tells him they weren’t caught in Band a part, so if they beat the record they wouldn’t either. The humor of a cinephile’s logic. “This is a test,” she continues. A test to see how dedicated Matthew is to the love of film? Probably. The scene immediately cuts to the three running through the museum, a shot of Eva Green as Isabelle is mixed with Anna Karina’s Odile, and for a moment it is uncanny. The “one long film” continues.
James Monaco points out that there is a danger in “Godard’s people,” in which the mixing of reality with cinema can be “dizzying.” (p. 142) “But for the most part, Bande a part is satisfied to catalogue an ebullient collection of illustrations of this phenomenon.” (p. 142) He supports this by discussing Arthur’s actual death in the film as opposed to his fake one, the latter of which was the most believable. This is a person who knows how to die, as Monaco describes it, “cinematically.” And what about the robbery, Monaco questions. Leading up to this scene, each character is confident. But when it comes down to performing the actual crime, it is nothing like the films they know. “Godard’s people” can’t even break the window of the house they’re robbing.
The critic Robin Wood, in his essay on Band a part, writes, “Godard’s commentary reminds us frequently that the characters are basing their behaviour on pulp fiction and pop films.” (Wood, p. 70) He supports this by mentioning how the characters “wait till night before carrying out the robbery ‘out of respect for second-rate thrillers’” and how “Franz had a premonition of disaster ‘like the hero of an epic.’” Sound familiar? It should. While Godard didn’t splice footage of other films in Band a part, he certainly made it known that his characters were acting out what they had seen. Joshua Clover, in his essay on the film, goes further: “It’s as if they aren’t characters at all—they just think they are, acting out a movie they saw, one Saturday afternoon, called America.”
Wood described how the robbery is “planned out in simple gangster-film terms, the three expecting events to fall neatly into place around them.” (Wood, p. 70) This is much like Isabelle’s cinematic logic concerning the Louvre race. Wood goes on to explore the way in which Godard shows the three, almost bewildered by the difference reality turns out to be from that of their cinematic expectations.
This naivety of both directors’ characters is prominent in each film. The directors present it poignantly and humorously. For instance, when Matthew first meets Isabelle in The Dreamers, she appears to have locked herself to the gates as a protest. The melodramatic effect this has is silly, and when she reveals that she wasn’t actually chained to the gates, her fraudulent protest is not so much damaging to her character as much as it is essential. Bertolucci may have very well been playing with the concept of his characters merely acting out on these misperceptions of what they saw in the films they obsessed upon. Another example is when the three just escape a clash between protesters and police, and Isabelle tells Matthew she was born in 1959. This is impossible, unless Isabelle is merely 9 years old. In his commentary, Bertolucci explains that she says this in reference to A bout de souffle, which the director then juxtaposes footage of with her own reenactment of Jean Seberg’s “New York Herald Tribune” scene. He claims, “there was cinema before Breathless, and there was cinema after Breathless.” And it is in this quote one can see that he channeled this belief in Isabelle, “born” the year A bout de souffle was made.
Is it necessarily wrong to live the way these characters do? Not for film’s sake. It is important to understand characters like Godard’s and Bertolucci’s, who knowingly act as though in a film, are doing so in support of the directors’ goal. Aged old genres and cinematic cliche’s are reoccurring, but mixed with a certain amount of reality. Whether it is the bewildered three of Band a part as they rob a house, or Matthew realizing that running through the a Louvre could get him caught, regardless if they didn’t in Godard’s film. This dichotomy between reality and “film reality” is manipulated in order to give the audience something both nostalgic and fresh. It pleases the cinephiles by showing them themselves. While Bertolucci’s are placed in a more real setting, where it supposedly reality, Godard’s are never quite real. As James Monaco describes Godard’s films, specifically Band a part, it “has the distinct consciousness of itself.” (p. 142) While this may be the self-indulgence of the narrator-director, it also differentiates itself from The Dreamers for that very fact. The Dreamers is almost a testimony to the risks of living “cinematically,” and it proves this point most poignantly when using the reality of riots as a backdrop.
Lynne Ramsay is by far my favorite director. She directs with confidence and is miles apart from most directors. Perfect mix of nostalgia and emotion with a simple, pleasantly meandering, story.
A teaser for Notre Jour Viendra, Romain Gavras’ debut film, hit the web a couple days ago.
http://vimeo.com/11900359
I’m a big fan of Cassel’s and this seemed to come out of left field, either because I was just ignorant to it or that was the intentions. If anyone doesn’t know, the Gavras in Romain’s name is indeed connected to his father, legendary directory Costa Gavras. Romain’s shown some great directing chops with music videos, particularly Justice’s “Stress” and MIA’s (although I can’t claim to be a fan of her) “Born Free.” The teaser is edited nice and simple with startling results, no? The siren, the boobs, cars, flares… etc. But seriously, this looks tasty, anyone else agree?
Interesting sidenote, “Our Day Will Come” is graffiti’d on the wall in his video for MIA’s “Born Free.”
Dennis Hopper, true American character. We all saw it coming but it’s tough nonetheless. I normally don’t think twice about celebrity deaths, but this one hit me somewhat. Maybe it’s the lack of people like him in movies today, and the fact we lost one instead of gained one.
Nolan is a rarity in that he makes great big blockbuster films while using themesthat still appeal to a bit more obscure crowd. Not to say Inception’s theme is largely an obscure one, but it sure is more off kilter than any other summer movie, or better yet, any film with a wide release this year. And for that by default I give Nolan my fullest attention and admiration. What holds Inception back as far as mass positive acclaim (from regular people like ourselves, not paid critics) is the mere fact that it’s hard to recall coherently, but easy enough to understand while watching.
These are all fantastc first features. All were preceded by respectable short films which says something. Practice short format to hone the chops at full length.
To me it seems that masters (and one should never use this term lightly) are born with it, are naturally talented. But it’s their combination of that inherent talent AND hard work that makes them as esteemed as they are. By “hard work” I don’t exclusively mean formal training of any kind, no film school— none of that— simply trial and error on one’s own terms… learning experiences, a certain persistence. Someone who may be naturally talented but scarcely strains their self, intellectually and physically, doesn’t create anything particularly great or of the stature of a “masterpiece.” And someone without that natural talent but who works very hard will create something good, maybe great, but is usually missing that uncanny sense of understanding and execution that makes a “masterpiece.” They will, however, most likely create something more accomplished than the lazy one with all the natural talent.
Masters? Kubrick, Kieslowski, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa… you know, the usual suspects.
As for Parajanov’s opinion, unfortunately in this day and age one doesn’t have to be “born a director.” There are plenty of hacks. But to be a great director, a “master,” yes… he’s absolutely right.
Is this worth a blind buy? about 3 years ago
I’ve blind bought Two-Lane Blacktop, Thre Films by Hiroshi Teshihagara, and Mishima, and not one disappointed. It was an extraordinary relief and testimony to Criterion, I think. I was also debating this one. So, DID you buy it yet? And Col. Dax, it is a shame those 2 were on TCM and my DVR was not informed prior!
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection almost 3 years ago
Tarkovsky’s Stalker and the Spirits of the Dead pieces by Fellini, Vadim, and Malle on one Criterion.
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection almost 3 years ago
Orson Welles’ “The Trial,” the DVD I have has terrible quality. But, oh, what an incredible work.
Go to Comment
Favorite auteurs missing from the profile selection box. almost 3 years ago
MELVILLE!
Go to Comment
Best Film by Each of These Directors: Hollywood Style over 2 years ago
Spielberg – Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Mann – Heat
Gilliam – Brazil or 12 Monkeys
Fincher – SE7EN
Scorsese – Taxi Driver, though something in me wants to say After Hours.
Coppola – The Conversation
De Palma – The Untouchables?
Tarantino – Inglourious Basterds
Coens – Fargo or Lebowski
P.T.Anderson – Punch Drunk Love or TWBB
Demme – Silence of the Lambs
Cassavetes – Shadows
Reiner – This Is Spinal Tap
Penny Marshall – Why is she here? I guess Big, haha.
Eastwood – Mystic River
Cameron – Terminator 2
Wes Anderson – Rushmore or Bottle Rocket
Jarmusch – Dead Man
Bay – The Rock, if I havta.
D.G. Green – ?
Huston – Fat City
Ivan Reitman – Ghostbusters
Lumet – Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead or Dog Day Afternoon
Burton -
Go to Comment
What are Your Thoughts on Louis Malle? over 2 years ago
The thing about Malle is he never let himself get restricted by a certain formula he may have cultivated over his earlier years as a filmmaker. Each film of his approaches story and characters relatively the same, but the means in which he went about it always varied, and yet, always achieved greatness. His short run as a “New Wave” associated director didn’t last long because while Godard or Truffaut continued to make a long string of great films that followed similar narrative and style as not only the films that preceded them by their respected directors, but also that of peers’, Malle was taking quite different paths. This is an admirable trait, for Malle isn’t alone in the history of cinema to do such a thing. And it seems that more directors now are not keeping to a strict formula, but challenging themselves. I don’t mean to say Godard or Truffaut didn’t, but it certainly took them longer to start branching out of their 60s New Wave aesthetic, while I feel Malle was already differentiating himself with The Fire Within, which was in 1963.
Go to Comment
What are Your Thoughts on Louis Malle? over 2 years ago
@ Bobby Wise, I should have said it clearer… paths as in during the 60s. Godard’s 60s films for me all had the same atmosphere to them. That whole delirious, pop-art feel.
@ Robert W Peabody III, God’s Country was a great documentary.
Go to Comment
Underrated Films... over 2 years ago
Gray’s “Two Lovers.”
And I agree with whoever said Chaplin’s “A King In New York.”
Go to Comment
Underrated Films... over 2 years ago
Jan Svankmajer’s “Alice.”
Audiard’s “The Beat That My Heart Skipped.” Just superb acting, great character study.
Go to Comment
YOUR FAVOURITE "ROAD MOVIE" ? over 2 years ago
Two-Lane Blacktop
Badlands
Are these road movies?
Down By Law
The Hit (all that transporting of Terrence Stamp’s character)
Go to Comment
KUBRICK'S INFLUENCE ON "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" over 2 years ago
I think There Will Be Blood has its influences: Malick, Kubrick, and Huston (mainly because I recall reading that Anderson watched Sierra Madre several times while making it) seem to be key.
But what I love most is that it’s a PTA film, and surely no one knows how Anderson will evolve from here until he releases something else. But I’d like to think he’s going down a more grand, ambitious style rather than his interwoven, Altman-like style. Punch Drunk Love seemed to be an inaugural film in terms of aesthetic choices, and There Will Be Blood only seemed to improve on this slightly new approach. That’s what I see, could be wrong.
Go to Comment
Faux Hipster Trash over 2 years ago
How many times do I have to read about whether it’s for kids or not? The bulk of what I’ve read (from interviews with Jonze, Sendak, Eggers, and critics’ reviews) is that it’s ambiguous. It works both ways. It varies from other children’s movies because it’s honest and not candy coated. But shit… wait a second… I still have to see it. But at least I know going into it that Jonze didn’t make the movie that is being marketed, that’s the producer’s movie trying to get as many tickets sold as possible.
Go to Comment
FANTASY ARTHOUSE DOUBLE FEATURE over 2 years ago
La Jetee / 12 Monkeys
The Hit / Sexy Beast
Paris, Texas / My Own Private Idaho
Le Samourai / Taxi Driver
Go to Comment
FANTASY ARTHOUSE DOUBLE FEATURE over 2 years ago
or better yet,
Mishima / Taxi Driver
Go to Comment
Cinephilia in The Dreamers and Bande a part over 2 years ago
“This is something that I dream about: to live films, to arrive at the point at which one can live for films, can think cinematographically, eat cinematographically, sleep cinematographically, as a poet, a painter, lives, eats, sleeps painting.”
-Bernardo Bertolucci
Before he started shooting his 2003 film, The Dreamers, Bernardo Bertolucci asked the seminal New Wave director, Jean-Luc Godard, for permission to include clips from A bout de souffle (Breathless) and Band a part (Band of Outsiders). Naturally, the director approved, and this is evident. If Bertolucci wants to “live cinematographically,” well, The Dreamers is his ode to this desire, and the early films of Godard are certainly the right basis.
The Dreamers takes place during the notorious May of ‘68, in France. While Bertolucci insists that one not attribute this fact to the main plot, it is important not to ignore it. For one, the ousting of Henry Langlois, a catalyst for months of turmoil involving class struggle and anti-de Gaulle attitude, was a perculiar, yet profound, occurrence in political and cinematic circles. It displayed the power of film, the power, more specifically, of cinephiles. Cinephiles, an evergrowing breed to this day, was but a smaller passionate caste of mostly students and other intellectuals. They firmly believed in the importance of 24 frames per second and met often to indulge in all it offered. As Matthew, played by Michael Pitt, claims early on in the film, “I became a member of what in those days was sort of a free masonry, the free masonry of cinephiles,” as his voice narrates over of images of the Cinematheque Francaise’s screening of Fuller’s Shock Corridor. “Only the French would house a cinema inside a palace,” he claims.
Bertolucci shoots Matthew in a dark, large theatre. His camera is at the bottom of the movie screen looking up as Fuller’s images play. He cuts to the projector’s faint ray of light and follows it back to the screen, behind countless heads of twenty-something’s and the likes. An exterior shot of the palace in which this is being shown, and a cut back to the inside of the theatre, now tracking a shot of the audience from the front, faces in awe, mouths half open, eyes glued. This is the free masonry. All the while the strumming of a familiar guitar, that of one Jimi Hendrix, plays faintly on the soundtrack. This is the late 60s, France, the Cinematheque Francaise. Bernardo wants to drill this zeitgeist into your head early. This is where you are.
In many ways, establishing this mood and spirit early, Bertolucci is preparing you for the rest of his film. Splicing scenes and moments of films like A bout de souffle or Bande a part with near reenactments in his own, Bertolucci states in his commentary for The Dreamers that he wanted to present an idea of “one long film.” That although his work is decades after Godard’s early 60s work, or Fred Astaire’s dance scene in Top Hat, they were all part of this spirit: the love of film.
After Fuller’s Shock Corridor scene, we see Matthew heading to the Cinematheque on a separate occasion and he recalls, “there was one evening in the Spring of 1968, when the world finally burst through the screen.” It is here Bertolucci addresses the May of ‘68 riots. He shows archival footage of Henry Langlois leaving the Cinematheque Francaise, while a New Wave icon, Jean-Pierre Leaud, speaks to the crowd. But this isn’t all archival footage of Leaud. Instead Bertolucci mixes clips of present day Leaud, still, in many ways an icon, with footage of him from 1968. He is reading a text written by the likes of Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, and Jacques Rivette, amongst others. It is an odd mixture. In scratchy black and white archival footage, a younger Leaud speaks to a crowd. This is nonfiction, real life. In lush, hypnotic Bertolucci cinematography, he reenacts this moment in his life as an older man, 30 odd years later. So is this fiction? A humble homage? Regardless, Bertolucci, for the first time in many times throughout the film, uses other footage and mixes it with his own. The single “long film” plays on. This time, it is vital to note, he mixes real life events with his film’s events. And again Bertolucci is telling us of his wish to “live for films.”
This mixture of reality and “film reality” is important not only in The Dreamers, but in Godard’s own Bande a part. As James Monaco states in The New Wave, “if anything sets Bande a part apart, it is this joie de film: the characters have it within the structure of the film; Godard shows it outside the structure.” (p. 142) The “joie de film,” or in English, the joy of film. This could explain why Godard’s middle name is ‘cinema’ in the opening credits. Monaco explains that the three main characters, Arthur, Odile, and Franz, decide to commit a robbery not for any particular gain, but for the story it will turn out to be. “Cinema offers the security of known modes of discourse and protection from the emptiness and absurdity of what film people insist on calling ‘real life.’ Like so many of Godard’s people, they gain comfort from seeing the world in terms of metaphor of film, speaking in its language, acting through its formulated gestures.” (Monaco, p. 142) The characters of The Dreamers are very much “Godard’s people.”
As already mentioned, Bertolucci mixes footage from older films in reference to that of his own throughout The Dreamers. His characters, Isabelle, Theo, and Matthew, exert the same richness of Godard’s own, Arthur, Odile, and Franz. No more is this evident than in the Louvre scene. Infamous in cinematic history, the Louvre scene was first created by Godard in Bande a part, where the 3 characters race through the museum in an attempt to beat the record. Before paying homage to this moment, Bertolucci shows his characters lying around in a room, quizzing each other about films, debating who out of Chaplin and Keaton was better. To support each argument of Matthew and Theo, the director includes short, but powerful, clips of each legendary actor. It not only becomes a debate between these two characters, but with the audience as well. He is asking you: Chaplin or Keaton? Just as it seems Theo has convinced Matthew that Chaplin is the better of the 2, Isabelle restarts a finished record, a Janis Joplin record. Annoyed, Theo attempts to break the record in two and immediately Isabelle challenges Matthew to name a film in which someone drives another person crazy by tap dancing. This is not reality. This is “Godard’s people” laboring in their free masonry, cinephilia. After a brief mental struggle, as Theo and Isabelle wrestle on the floor, Matthew replies, “Top Hat!” And again, Bertolucci shows you a film. This time it is Fred Astaire, another cinema icon, tap dancing in his memorable scene. Upon this correct reply, a close-up of Theo and Isabelle stare, almost stunned. “You know what I’m thinking?” asks Isabelle. They’ve found their third person. “Band a part,” she says. It is as if Theo and Isabelle had been conspiring over this for years and had finally found their third person. They’re determined to beat the record, but Matthew has hesitations. For just a moment, one of Bertolucci’s characters leave this cinephilia and thinks of real world consequences. “I’m an American,” he tells them, “if I get caught I get deported.” Isabelle tells him they weren’t caught in Band a part, so if they beat the record they wouldn’t either. The humor of a cinephile’s logic. “This is a test,” she continues. A test to see how dedicated Matthew is to the love of film? Probably. The scene immediately cuts to the three running through the museum, a shot of Eva Green as Isabelle is mixed with Anna Karina’s Odile, and for a moment it is uncanny. The “one long film” continues.
James Monaco points out that there is a danger in “Godard’s people,” in which the mixing of reality with cinema can be “dizzying.” (p. 142) “But for the most part, Bande a part is satisfied to catalogue an ebullient collection of illustrations of this phenomenon.” (p. 142) He supports this by discussing Arthur’s actual death in the film as opposed to his fake one, the latter of which was the most believable. This is a person who knows how to die, as Monaco describes it, “cinematically.” And what about the robbery, Monaco questions. Leading up to this scene, each character is confident. But when it comes down to performing the actual crime, it is nothing like the films they know. “Godard’s people” can’t even break the window of the house they’re robbing.
The critic Robin Wood, in his essay on Band a part, writes, “Godard’s commentary reminds us frequently that the characters are basing their behaviour on pulp fiction and pop films.” (Wood, p. 70) He supports this by mentioning how the characters “wait till night before carrying out the robbery ‘out of respect for second-rate thrillers’” and how “Franz had a premonition of disaster ‘like the hero of an epic.’” Sound familiar? It should. While Godard didn’t splice footage of other films in Band a part, he certainly made it known that his characters were acting out what they had seen. Joshua Clover, in his essay on the film, goes further: “It’s as if they aren’t characters at all—they just think they are, acting out a movie they saw, one Saturday afternoon, called America.”
Wood described how the robbery is “planned out in simple gangster-film terms, the three expecting events to fall neatly into place around them.” (Wood, p. 70) This is much like Isabelle’s cinematic logic concerning the Louvre race. Wood goes on to explore the way in which Godard shows the three, almost bewildered by the difference reality turns out to be from that of their cinematic expectations.
This naivety of both directors’ characters is prominent in each film. The directors present it poignantly and humorously. For instance, when Matthew first meets Isabelle in The Dreamers, she appears to have locked herself to the gates as a protest. The melodramatic effect this has is silly, and when she reveals that she wasn’t actually chained to the gates, her fraudulent protest is not so much damaging to her character as much as it is essential. Bertolucci may have very well been playing with the concept of his characters merely acting out on these misperceptions of what they saw in the films they obsessed upon. Another example is when the three just escape a clash between protesters and police, and Isabelle tells Matthew she was born in 1959. This is impossible, unless Isabelle is merely 9 years old. In his commentary, Bertolucci explains that she says this in reference to A bout de souffle, which the director then juxtaposes footage of with her own reenactment of Jean Seberg’s “New York Herald Tribune” scene. He claims, “there was cinema before Breathless, and there was cinema after Breathless.” And it is in this quote one can see that he channeled this belief in Isabelle, “born” the year A bout de souffle was made.
Is it necessarily wrong to live the way these characters do? Not for film’s sake. It is important to understand characters like Godard’s and Bertolucci’s, who knowingly act as though in a film, are doing so in support of the directors’ goal. Aged old genres and cinematic cliche’s are reoccurring, but mixed with a certain amount of reality. Whether it is the bewildered three of Band a part as they rob a house, or Matthew realizing that running through the a Louvre could get him caught, regardless if they didn’t in Godard’s film. This dichotomy between reality and “film reality” is manipulated in order to give the audience something both nostalgic and fresh. It pleases the cinephiles by showing them themselves. While Bertolucci’s are placed in a more real setting, where it supposedly reality, Godard’s are never quite real. As James Monaco describes Godard’s films, specifically Band a part, it “has the distinct consciousness of itself.” (p. 142) While this may be the self-indulgence of the narrator-director, it also differentiates itself from The Dreamers for that very fact. The Dreamers is almost a testimony to the risks of living “cinematically,” and it proves this point most poignantly when using the reality of riots as a backdrop.
Go to Comment
Cinephilia in The Dreamers and Bande a part over 2 years ago
I see what you mean Gringo Tex.
Thanks for the input guys.
Go to Comment
Morvern Callar - Lynne Ramsay over 2 years ago
Lynne Ramsay is by far my favorite director. She directs with confidence and is miles apart from most directors. Perfect mix of nostalgia and emotion with a simple, pleasantly meandering, story.
Go to Comment
Notre Jour Viendra (Our Day Will Come) about 2 years ago
A teaser for Notre Jour Viendra, Romain Gavras’ debut film, hit the web a couple days ago.
http://vimeo.com/11900359
I’m a big fan of Cassel’s and this seemed to come out of left field, either because I was just ignorant to it or that was the intentions. If anyone doesn’t know, the Gavras in Romain’s name is indeed connected to his father, legendary directory Costa Gavras. Romain’s shown some great directing chops with music videos, particularly Justice’s “Stress” and MIA’s (although I can’t claim to be a fan of her) “Born Free.” The teaser is edited nice and simple with startling results, no? The siren, the boobs, cars, flares… etc. But seriously, this looks tasty, anyone else agree?
Interesting sidenote, “Our Day Will Come” is graffiti’d on the wall in his video for MIA’s “Born Free.”
Go to Comment
DENNIS HOPPER HAS DIED about 2 years ago
Dennis Hopper, true American character. We all saw it coming but it’s tough nonetheless. I normally don’t think twice about celebrity deaths, but this one hit me somewhat. Maybe it’s the lack of people like him in movies today, and the fact we lost one instead of gained one.
Go to Comment
DENNIS HOPPER HAS DIED almost 2 years ago
http://thomasmikos.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/the-american-dreamer-one-more-for-dennis/
Go to Comment
Notre Jour Viendra (Our Day Will Come) almost 2 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s1I_IiVhww
Go to Comment
Notre Jour Viendra (Our Day Will Come) almost 2 years ago
I included the vimeo link in the first post.
Go to Comment
Inception: a truly great film? almost 2 years ago
Nolan is a rarity in that he makes great big blockbuster films while using themesthat still appeal to a bit more obscure crowd. Not to say Inception’s theme is largely an obscure one, but it sure is more off kilter than any other summer movie, or better yet, any film with a wide release this year. And for that by default I give Nolan my fullest attention and admiration. What holds Inception back as far as mass positive acclaim (from regular people like ourselves, not paid critics) is the mere fact that it’s hard to recall coherently, but easy enough to understand while watching.
Go to Comment
favourite drectorial debut? almost 2 years ago
Knife in the Water
Hunger
In Bruges
Ratcatcher
These are all fantastc first features. All were preceded by respectable short films which says something. Practice short format to hone the chops at full length.
Go to Comment
favourite drectorial debut? almost 2 years ago
And Alan Arkin’s Little Murders… having seen it recently and being totally delighted.
Go to Comment
ENTER THE VOID over 1 year ago
http://thomasmikos.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/enter-the-void/
Go to Comment
ENTER THE VOID over 1 year ago
I had it already written there. I also wish to promote my site, but I understand for next time.
Go to Comment
ENTER THE VOID over 1 year ago
I caught it at the IFC center. I also have IFC On Deman but I’d recommend seeing it on a big screen first, as with any film really.
Go to Comment
ENTER THE VOID over 1 year ago
There was only 2 “walk-out’s” from what I remember, literally 15 minutes or so before the end.
Go to Comment
does natural talent exist? 10 months ago
To me it seems that masters (and one should never use this term lightly) are born with it, are naturally talented. But it’s their combination of that inherent talent AND hard work that makes them as esteemed as they are. By “hard work” I don’t exclusively mean formal training of any kind, no film school— none of that— simply trial and error on one’s own terms… learning experiences, a certain persistence. Someone who may be naturally talented but scarcely strains their self, intellectually and physically, doesn’t create anything particularly great or of the stature of a “masterpiece.” And someone without that natural talent but who works very hard will create something good, maybe great, but is usually missing that uncanny sense of understanding and execution that makes a “masterpiece.” They will, however, most likely create something more accomplished than the lazy one with all the natural talent.
Masters? Kubrick, Kieslowski, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa… you know, the usual suspects.
As for Parajanov’s opinion, unfortunately in this day and age one doesn’t have to be “born a director.” There are plenty of hacks. But to be a great director, a “master,” yes… he’s absolutely right.
Go to Comment