2018 Blind Spot Series: Eyes Without a Face

The Girl Week Blogathon: Two Days, One Night

Mommy

Stranger by the Lake

Thursday Movie Picks: Foreign Language Movies - French

Blue is the Warmest Color

Directed by Abdellatif Kechiche.

2013. Rated NC-17, 179 minutes.

Cast:

Adele Exarchopoulos

Lea Seydoux

Salim Kechiouche

Aurelien Recoing

Catherine Salee

Benjamin Siksou

Mona Walravens

Alma Jodorowsky

Anne Loiret

Benoit Pilot

Adele (Exarchopoulos) is your typical high school student. She seems to be a fringe member of the in-crowd. this isn't some all-powerful elite crew like in movies for teenagers. It's just a group of girls who seem like they're the cool kids. They hang out together at school, talk a lot about their sex lives and exert a bit of peer pressure on each other about it. So when they tell her that a cute guy has a crush on her, the news comes with advice on how she should handle the stiuation. She pursues him and sure enough, winds up in bed with him. In the immediate aftermath, we see that something's amiss. She seems conflicted about the event. Her issue isn't whether or not she should've done such a thing. We can presume she was not a virgin before this. It appears she's not sure she really enjoyed it and doesn't know why.

Things would soon change. Adele decides to hang out with a gay male friend from school. He takes her to a nightclub full of guys where she stays for a while. Eventually, she wanders off on her own and finds herself in a lesbian bar. There she meets the blue-haired Emma (Seydoux), a budding artist and college student. The two hit it off right away. Emma pursues our heroine and before you know it, the two are in a committed relationship. We follow them for an unspecified number of years, well into Adele's adult life.

One thing that sets this apart from other movies about same sex relationships is that that is not the focus of the narrative. Early on, there is some hesitance on Adele's part as she comes to grips with her sexuality and a bit of cruelty suffered at the hands of her school friends when they only suspect she's a lesbian. However, that passes quickly. For the rest of the film we focus on fairly universal themes. Adele struggles with her place in Emma's life as Emma advances in her career as an artist, has friends more sophisticated than her, and an uncomfortably chummy relationship with an ex. She fears being left behind as Emma outgrows her. At times, she also feels neglected. On the opposite side of the coin, Emma is driven, climbing the ladder of success, and proud to have Adele in her corner. Unfortunately, she's somewhat oblivious to Adele's concerns. Adele hasn't verbally communicated her feelings and Emma hasn't picked up on them. Both Exarchopoulos and Seydoux give wonderful performances conveying their characters' emotions and motivations.

Normally, watching a three hour movie has me looking for things that should've been cut. I'm speaking to you, Peter Jackson. In this case, I actually found places where things could be added. Most important of these is finding out how Adele's parents feel about her relationship. I've already mentioned that the fact the couple in question is a lesbian one is not the movie's main focus. However, judging by the reaction of Adele's friends, the climate toward homosexuals isn't completely friendly, either. This is confirmed by the fact that Adele hides the fact that she is in a lesbian relationship when she introduces Emma to her parents. She presents it as a platonic friendship between two straight girls. Following this scene, her mom and dad just disappear from the movie. I'm not saying they have to disapprove of their daughter's lifestyle to create some massively melodramatic scene, but they should at least have knowledge of it and acknowledge it in some way. Without their input, there seems to be a gaping hole in the narrative of Adele's life. This is especially true when, just a short while later, we're shown that she has moved in with Emma. We're left to assume her parents are still in the dark about her relationship. This doesn't seem logical unless it were something that was expressly communicated to the viewer.

Delving into the parents' feelings may have placed more emphasis on the fact that our lovebirds are of the same sex than what was wanted. However, that is clearly the visual focus of the film. There are a number of sex scenes and they are almost all lengthy and graphic. It gets dangerously close to all out porn, if it isn't already that. It's hard to believe we aren't seeing actual sex. The way these scenes are shot, I wonder how it's possible that they are not doing what it looks like they are. Even during the one hetero sex scene we're shown something not seen in American movies outside of the adult industry: an erection. Cinematically, if there is a place to shave the runtime, it is here. Most of these scenes can be cut in half, if not reduced by two-thirds and change absolutely nothing about the movie. Of course, my inner-pig won't let me actually suggest that, so deal with it.

When the closing credits roll, we realize we might not be at the end. Ignoring the obvious, that we're told this is chapter one of two, the film concludes in such a way that suggests there could be more. I say could because if this were to be a standalone film then it functions as a fully self-contained unit. We've ridden the roller coaster of a relationship and come to a satisfactory finish. On the other hand, we can see there is possibly lots more to tell. What closes the movie could be interpreted as the chance for a new beginning, or at least a restart. We enjoy the ride we've had up until now and hope there is more to come.

Amour

Directed by Michael Haneke.

2012. Rated PG-13, 127 minutes.

Cast:

Jean-Louis Trintignant

Emmanuelle Riva

Isabelle Huppert

Alexandre Tharaud

Rita Blanco

Ramon Agirre

William Shimell

Carol Franck

Dinara Droukarova

Georges (Trintignant) and Anne (Riva) are one of those great couples who have been together forever and still appear to be in love. They do everything together and life is good. Unfortunately, things change drastically when she has a stroke. To correct the blockage that caused it, she undergoes surgery. However, that goes wrong and leaves her paralyzed on her right side. She returns home from the hospital and the two immediately become more care-giver and patient than husband and wife. The two trying to navigate the suddenly tough waters of their lives ensues.

The entire movie depicts the sad, downward spiral of their lives. It is filled with gut-wrenching emotion and deep devotion. There is really nothing we can do but feel sorry for Georges and Anne. She grows increasingly dependent on him and he gets more and more protective of her. His frustration also grows as his wife’s lucidity fades. As viewers, we become frustrated with him because of how secretive he is about her condition. He does what he can to care for her, employing nurses to aid them and whatever else is necessary. However, he flat refuses any help or suggestions their daughter offers. Through skillful writing and acting the entirety of the pain caused by every aspect of this situation transfers to us. Effectively, it keeps us engaged.

Something else that works to set the mood is the startling quiet of it all. In her younger days, Anne was a respected music instructor. Her prized pupil is now a famous musician. On occasion, there are bursts of classical music. However, much the movie is silent in places other films, particularly American ones, would fill with sound. Rather than artificially manipulate us with a rousing or saddening score, the lack of musical accompaniment adds to both the realism and the bleakness of that reality. Within the realm of this film, the take away is simple. Where there is music, there is hope; where there is none, there is not.

As in all situations such as this, decisions must constantly be made. Ultimately, the point is reached where that decision is the hardest one possible. Once Georges makes it, we immediately have one to make, ourselves. We begin to decide if we think he’s right or wrong, selfish or selfless. Then, how do we feel about what happens next? There are deep, philosophical conversations to be had about what transpires here. This is what gives Amour a lasting effect. It elevates itself from being a typical love story to one not only worthy of our viewing, but our contemplation.

Rust and Bone

Directed by Jacques Audiard.

2012. Rated R, 120 minutes.

Cast:

Matthias Schoenaerts

Marion Cotillard

Armand Verdure

Corinne Masiero

Bouli Lanners

Jean-Michel Correia

Mourad Frarema

Yannick Choirat

We first meet Ali (Schoenaerts) while he’s traveling to his sister’s house with his five year old son Sam (Verdure) in tow. We quickly realize he’s a hard luck case. Sis is none too pleased to see him, but takes the pair in for Sam’s sake. Soon, he gets a job as a bouncer at a nightclub. While working one night, he meets Stephanie (Cotillard) when he comes to her rescue, even drives her home, after she has a run-in with some jerk. Nothing more happens as she has a boyfriend. The two go their separate ways: Ali back to bouncing, Stephanie back to her job training killer whales at Marine Land. Unfortunately, an out-of-control whale causes all sorts of damage. Stephanie wakes up in the hospital only to discover that both of her legs have been amputated just above the knee. A few months pass, and feeling lonely because her boyfriend has disappeared, she gives Ali a call. From there, the two begin sort of a one-sided romance. It’s not because she’s lost her legs. It’s that Ali is a tough one to pin down.

As with many other movies of its ilk, Rust and Bone is only as good as the chemistry between, and performances by, its two leads. Matthias Schoenaerts and Marion Cotillard make a believable pair. As simple and off-handed as it sounds, that’s a compliment of the highest order. Schoenaerts’ Ali displays a perfectly cavalier attitude about everything, including his son. This would seem an impediment to true romance because the other person probably wants to be taken seriously. In fact, it is. However, it also enables him look past her condition and treat it as a mere fact of life and not something he has to talk about while obsessing over the difficulties it may cause. Sure, it’s a topic of conversation, but not the deciding factor in how much, or little, he values her as a person.

Early on, Stephanie is simply grateful for Ali’s kindness. As the movie persists, she begins to feel like a real woman again. She remembers how to assert herself, perhaps even better than she did before. She learns to enjoy life, escaping the bottomless abyss of self-pity with a helping hand from Ali. Through her initial leaning on him, she learns independence. Each actor portrays their half of the relationship as genuinely as possible. We fully get why things develop as they do.

Subplots are handled solidly, for the most part. Ali’s ever-changing job status informs whatever it is he has with Stephanie. Chief among his string of occupations is the most illegal one. He soon starts fighting on the streets for money. Strangely, this is the setting in which the two grow closest. As far as his son is concerned we see time and again how much of a struggle it is for him to take care of Sam. Though Sam is clearly a plot device more than anything, a cog in the machine of a love story, he’s still an intriguing part of our tale.

The one thing I take umbridge with is Stephanie’s rehab. Essentially, this is a movie about a woman overcoming serious obstacles to reclaim her sense of self-worth. Dealing with her new physicality is part of this. We see the shame she feels when out in public, or even in private when doing things supposedly “normal” people don’t have to do. Eventually, we see her gain some sort of confidence thanks, in no small part, to a set of prosthetic legs. What we don’t see is any part of the process that doesn’t deal with Ali. It’s understandable that the filmmakers didn’t want to take too much time away from the couple in question, but it feels too easy. One moment, she’s being shown the prosthetics for the very first time. The next, she’s walking around on them amidst a throng of strangers with no qualms about jostling her as if she’s been doing it for years.

Perhaps, I’m being lazy, asking for too many things to be spelled out for me. With that in mind, I have to say that Rust and Bone is still a very enjoyable, if clichéd love story. Aside from our heroine losing her legs, there’s not much here that marks this as a unique movie experience. However, our two stars turn in excellent work. We believe in their relationship and ride the roller coaster with them.

The Intouchables

A Cat in Paris

Directed by Jean-Loup Felicioli.

2012. Rated PG, 70 minutes.

Cast:

Marcia Gay Harden

Steven Blum

JD Blanc

Anjelica Huston

Phillippe Hartmann

Matthew Modine

Gregory Cupoli

Lauren Weintraub

Dino is a cat that lives in Paris, hence the title. During the day he is under the care of Zoe (Weintraub), a little mute girl that that loves him deeply. Dino brings Zoe any dead creatures he can carry as a token of his appreciation. Zoe lives with her recently widowed mother Jeanne (Harden), a police officer specializing in catching bad guys and absentee parenting. Therefore most of her daughter’s time is spent with Claudine (Huston), the nanny. Oddly, the cat sneaks out of the house every evening and returns in the morning. The others know she leaves but haven’t a clue where she goes. We know that she goes across town to hang out with Nico (Blum) and accompanies him on his nightly burglaries. Eventually in the picture is Costa (Blanc), a ruthless art thief. We’re told he’s the one who killed Zoe’s father. The girl has not spoken a word since.

The seemingly separate strands of our plot are quickly established and work toward each other at a wonderful pace. The early scenes don’t dawdle endlessly, they make their point in a concise manner and provide us with neat foreshadowing. The whole thing is barely an hour long, a testament to its efficiency.

Efficiency without heart is a death knell for a movie. Luckily, this one does indeed have both. We can’t help but feel sorry for Zoe. Her mom is incessantly pre-occupied and her nanny seems well-meaning but can’t take the place of a child’s mother. Other than Dino, she has no friends and is having major trouble coping with her father’s death. Later, we project ourselves onto Nico and the relationship she develops with him.

Of course, with a cop and a bunch of criminals around, there’s bound to be some action. Most of it is back-loaded into the final act. Before this, an intriguing police procedural is well-mixed into a story that’s full, but not cluttered. Each section of the tale feels to be an organic part of the whole. There is some contrivance to get Costa into the story, but once in he’s so much fun we’re okay with it.

Another interesting aspect is the animation. Hand drawn, it’s less concerned with being a photo-realistic representation than it is with conveying feelings. For instance, Nico is a burglar and has to be sneaky therefore, he moves fluidly, snake-like. Costa, on the other hand, is a brute with a gang of henchmen. He moves accordingly. It may sound strange to say this about such an old style of storytelling but it’s a breath of fresh air among all the computer animated fare out there. Likewise for the storytelling on display. It sets a brisk pace and doesn’t pad its runtime with extraneous exposition and over-manipulation. It doesn’t beg you to keep up because it’s secure enough to know that you will. The ending leaves some loose ends but we’ve had such fun watching, we don’t really mind.

The Artist

The 400 Blows

Directed by Francois Truffaut.
1959. Not Rated, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Jean-Pierre Leaud
Claire Maurier
Albert Remy
Guy Decomble

Young Antoine Doinel (Leaud) navigates his tough childhood without much guidance from his largely apathetic parents. Part of appreciating this movie is understanding why it was made. This is the directorial debut of Truffaut. Prior to getting behing the camera, he was one of France's top movie critics and had become increasingly disappointed with the way movies were being made. Instead of continuing to complain about the matter, he simply made a movie himself, setting out to do something different than what he'd been seeing. On top of that, its largely autobiographical as well. In the process, he helped kick off what became known as the French New Wave. Read more about it, here. It is a real slice of life, feeling like you're simply spending time with our young hero, not necessarily watching a movie with a traditional plot and conflict, though both eventually become apparent. Nor is it manipulative melodrama, intent on getting you to cry as it so easily could've been. That its unobtrusively shot without a ton of fancy editing tricks helps foster the illusion. The natural feel of the writing and acting work heavily in its favor, also. Though each performance is effortlessly realistic, including that of our child star Leaud, the actors never seem to preen for the camera. Finally, in true slice of life fashion we get a stopping point moreso than an ending. The possibilities of what could happen next are endless, both good and bad. This gives the movie more resonance than your typical happy ending does. If you're an artsy-fartsy film buff, you must see this movie. If the sight of a black-and-white movie instantly puts you to sleep and the thought of reading subtitles turns your stomach stop reading this review now and forget I ever mentioned this flick. Yup subtitleophobes, we're speaking French.

MY SCORE: 10/10

35 Shots of Rum

Directed by Claire Denis.
2009. Not Rated, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Alex Descas
Mati Diop
Nicole Dogue
Grégoire Colin
Jean-Christophe Folly
Djédjé Apali
Eriq Ebouaney
Julieth Mars Toussaint

You know what they say about us Americans who like watching foreign films? We think we’re smarter and more sophisticated than the rest of you. Along comes a movie like 35 Shots of Rum to remind me I might not be as artsy-fartsy as I’d like to think. I’ll explain.

It’s subtly written and filmed likewise. Of the movie’s 102 minutes of runtime, roughly 100 of them are very quiet. It’s beautifully acted, also subtly. It is so subtle the characters really do feel like actual people. There really is no plot to speak of so it plays like a true slice of life type of film. It’s even in French. It’s arthouse in every sense of the word. Yet, I was bored to tears and pissed off about the ambiguous ending. That last bit is most surprising. If you’ve been paying attention, you know I generally love those types of endings. Usually, the more questions I’m left with, the better. Here, not so much.

What is 35 Shots about? To be honest, I’m still not sure. We spend lots of time with Lionel (Descas) and Joséphine (Diop), a father and daughter who share an apartment. He works as a train conductor and goes out drinking with his buddies from work every now and then. She goes to college, does housework and occasionally works at a Virgin music store. I didn’t know they still had those. No, it’s not set in the past, either. I know this because the very whiny René is given an I-Pod as a retirement gift. Anyhoo, Joséphine seems to have a thing for Noé (Colin), the guy who lives in the apartment upstairs. There is also Gabrielle (Dogue), the cab driver who lives in the apartment next door. She seems to have been carrying a torch for Lionel since she learned to walk. The feeling isn’t really mutual. He likes her, he just doesn’t like like her. Oh, and there’s whiny René. He pops up every five or ten minutes to…um…whine…until he eventually does what I knew he would the first time he opened mouth.

Why was I bored? It was far too realistic. I realize that’s an odd complaint to make, but hear me out. If someone stuck a camera in most of our homes and just observed our true dailyu lives without forcing us to vote someone out, compete for a prize or give us random tasks and jobs to prove our worth, most of the viewing public would be hard-pressed to be entertained. In movies about families, dramatic devices occur at fairly regular intervals to advance the plot and/or add intrigue. Personalities are exaggerated to create sympathy, empathy, heroes and villains. In 35 Shots, it feels as if we’re watching reality without the TV. There are no votes, hypersexual tension or grand prize. These people go through their mundane existence in a mundane manner.

It takes courage and patience to make a movie like this but it lacks the magic to make its players transcend the screen. What passes for a romance feels disjointed and barren of hope until it is hastily resolved. The resolution, however, feels unreal and out of very deep left field. For all of the movie, we’re watching what seems to be everyday of their lives from the time we meet them and then, we suddenly fast-forward to a conclusion.

The 35 shots in the title is perhaps most perplexing. About midway through, we learn that Lionel either celebrates or rues a major event in his life, we’re not sure which, by downing 35 consecutive shots of rum. If he’s able to walk the next day I’d be shocked, but I digress. We’re told there is a story behind this ritual that he won’t tell at this time. This comes up again at the end of the film. Sadly, without having seen it you know as much as I about the significance of this practice. Justifying alcoholism? Probably not. If any of you brainiacs has happened to watch this movie, feel free to enlighten me.

This is a difficult film for me, if you couldn’t already tell. The writing is lyrical and sparse. People have conversations without saying a whole lot. Their pauses aren’t pregnant with the possibility of an earth-shattering revelation in the next sentence. They’re just pauses. There are no complaints to be made about any performance here. Many of the elements critics are thrilled by are present. Still, it doesn’t add up to winning cinema, for me. In my eyes, the whole equals much less than the sum of its parts.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Coco Before Chanel

Directed by Anne Fontaine.
2009. Rated PG-13, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Audrey Tatou
Benoît Poelvoorde
Alessandro Nivola
Marie Gillain
Emmanuelle Devos
Etienne Bartholomeus
Lisa Cohen

Fashion icon Coco Chanel (Tatou) was not born a famous fashion designer. Before she helped usher everyday women’s attire out of constrictive corsets, hats that could double as gardens and elaborate dresses that took teamwork to get into, she took the hard steps that led to her success. This is what Coco Before Chanel is about, sort of.

Chanel is an important figure because she helped change the world. She built an empire at a time when women either weren’t allowed to or thought incapable. She was a huge influence to the generations of women that followed. This is the movie I wanted to see. I wanted to see her raging against the machine or taking the world by storm. This is not the movie I saw.

The movie I saw focuses on yet another lame cinematic love triangle. At least, the latter half does. The two men vying for her hand feel more like benefactors than lovers. In fact, that’s exactly what the older one of them is. Though she sleeps with him, she doesn’t love him. She appreciates him and tolerates him for his wealth but seems to harbor no passion for him. On the other hand, she’s totally ga-ga over the younger, more handsome fellow, imagine that. Though he’s not quite as rich, his main draw seems to be he's well connected and willing to use those connections to help her. The dilemma isn’t nearly as perplexing as it is made out to be. By the way, the first half of the movie just sets all this up.

Eventually, Coco does move to Paris and is very shortly a fashion mogul. All that stuff about taking the world by storm, becoming a success in what was then a male dominated profession and helping to change the perception of women is given to us in a couple brief paragraphs at the very end. Shame.

That said, if you’re looking for artsy-fartsy this is a beautiful film to look at. It’s shot wonderfully and Tatou gives an excellent performance in the lead role. She’s most famous for playing the title role in the acclaimed Amelie. Coco is a far different woman. Where Amelie was quirky and naïve, Coco is cold, calculated and headstrong. To her credit, Tatou is no less believable as either. If you must watch this movie, do so for that reason. Oh, and beware if you’re a subtitleophobe. The movie is in French.

Also in 2009, Hilary Swank played Amelia Earhart in a biopic about the legendary aviator who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean trying to circumnavigate the globe on a solo flight. That movie also concentrates on the love triangle she spent a good deal of time embroiled in. How sad is it that two movies made during this supposedly enlightened era, even directed by women, choose to simplify their subjects to the lowest common demoninator between two men?