Cinematheque
aug 2009
Rohmer
1968
One of the moral tales – and again , the message is indistinct. I think it may be Rohmer’s intension to bring out subtle, ambiguopus moral situations in contrast to the typical moral situation which involves and unambiguopus rule and a simple, applicable situation. In this case, it is the question of young, unmarried French persons, in 1968, over the age of 30 (at least some of them) – and catholic. As the lead character himself says – he treats his persaonl life and his religious morality entirely separately.
It is a movie of clever talking people, and romantic and sexual tension. Our hero is caught between his ‘morality’ and the opportunities before him. But it is difficult to tell – it appears his concern to remain true to his own feelings of love and romantic affection have more sway than his religious background, when it comes to the offer of a night of pleasure.
So a delicate little film, and very nice to watch.
La boulangère de Monceau. 1962, Rohmer, first of the 6 moral tales. Cinematheque, July 2009, at the the end of sign of Leo – a short.
Nice little film. The moral issue is a bit tough to figure out. He claims to be true to himself, in being unfair to another. It’s French, I’d say; an Englishman would put the societal norm first, and find pride in doing it the right way, right down the line. But the Frenchman is more cavalier; his pride is in defying the norm, even if it means being brusque, to prove (or make) the right of their own independent judgment.
So it’s clever. Makes you think, if you want, and of course is very nice to watch. Little romance. Paris, and cookies.
1959. Rohmer. An Early one, with less polish, and not very light. Very sad. Saw by myself, July 2009, Cinematheque.
It was so sad that it was hard to watch. A saxophonist has great hopes – not for merit, but for luck, but he is still a likable fellow. But they are dashed, and he falls into real, full-on poverty. It’s aweful to watch. Rohmer really takes us down.
Right at the low point, our financially devistated protagonist becomes ridiculous – opera for money with another bum – and it really is funny. And then the ending, surprise, pulls your right up. And after being taken down so low, so that you almost just wanted to leave and go home, it’s a memorable experience. 5/5. Why be stingy.
Dir E Rohmer
1967
IMDB 7.2
4th (?) of the six moral tales
Terrible film. I guess early Rohmer.
Talking head moving. Annoying characters are ‘justified’ by overlay dialogue of their explaining how their lame actions are the result of their profound sensibility/ Yuk.
However the young girl is lovely. It is three people at a country house belonging to a mutual friend – the young girl, and the two annoying gentlemen. The protagonist spends the movie telling us how he does not want the girl, and how they are playing some sort of social game, but clearly he just wants her and she does not know what she wants. But she’s great to look at.
dir. Eric Rohmer
France, 2002
See also: Claire’s knee, 1970
IMDB 6.8
Viewed at Carleton Cinemas July/Aug 2002, on a date, finally, with Stephanie Swatkow, first date after meeting at Jamie’s party. Drinks first at the Courtyard hotel and later on a lovely patio on Yonge St. Kissed by the trees outside subway station further north, sent her home by taxi.
—-
A period film about the French revolution. Over 2 hours, subtitles. Effective use of computer generated graphics in a way to make them tasteful and unrecognizable. Colored etchings from the time period are shown on screen and then begin to move, starting the scene. Long-distance “mise-en-scene” is established with these moving plates, interspersed between the regular scenes and dialogue.
As Stephanie said, “I’ve never seen the French revolution from the side of the aristocracy.”
And thank goodness that is the approach (i.e. no bleeding hearts). A young woman is being hidden by her friend from the revolutionists, who search the house daily and run madcap through the streets, in a terror. Hiding between mattresses, and a plot I cannot remember. Like the other Rohmer film I saw, too much relies on dialogue, and it is slow (and very long), but very good. Stephanie liked it which was impressive, with the subtitles, small theater and dry content.
—-
Having written all of the above a while ago, I’d like to say a little more about the film. First of all, it’s 2002. It could be from 1971. Or 1959. Except that it attempted, and succeeded marvously at, an integration of computer CGI graphics into a beautifully shot film – into a period historical film, no less. More wonderful, he did so by having ink and watercolor drawings open the scenes, and then ahving them ‘come to life’ and turn into moving, live actiors, in a quick transition. This means that the CGI was being used to fuse the ’scene-set-up’ – the mise-en-scene – with the regular flow of the film. We’re so used to seeing how CGI is over-extended, so that the ability to have an entirely synthetic (and impossible) camera angles ends up overwhelming any gain from the CGI. In addition, it makes the CGI so blindingly synthetic that it ruins continuity. So continuity with regular film is lost, and mise-en-scene is pretty much abolished through the use of absurd close-ups, impossible camera angles, and the general mayham of the ‘camera without a cameraman’.
But Rohmer – uses the CGI to bridge the ’scene set’ (the watercolour) to the flow of action. Therefore the CGI becomes the enabler of mise-en-scene. He’s not only used CGI well, and made it look nice, but also made it into the very device which enables that valuable artistic element which – apparently – CGI has been destroying for all these years. It turns out it was not the CGI, but the directors, or the lack thereof. One need only glance at Lucas’ digital additions to Star Wars to see how CGI can be used to utterly demolish established camera work procedured (particularly in the cantina band sequence). Then one can luxuriate back in the Rohmer film, marvel again that it was filmed in 2002, and go home happy.
****
BBC says “distilled from Grace Elliott’s autobiographical account ‘Ma Vie Sous La Révolution’.”
Claire’s Knee
(Le Genou de Claire)
Eric Rohmer
France, 1970
Cinematheque, 2002, July 25
LOOK FOR: The girl at the Monceau Bakery, Suzanne’s Career, La Collectioneuse, My night at Maud’s, Chloe in the Afternoon.
Also saw: The Lady and the Duke, 2002
IMDB
—————————–
Man on vacation in French countryside falls for the companion of his friend’s daughter. Very young, very attractive in a bikini. The daughter herself is more thoughtful and has a crush on the bearded man; there is also conversational flirting between the man and his friend, the mother. It seems this man must be having a very pleasant vacation. He becomes fascinated with Claire’s knee (Claire is the young girl whom is the object of his affections).
He gives her a ride in his small motorboat and they are caught in a storm; they take shelter under the porch of a nearby cottage. He tells her of seeing her boyfriend with another girl downtown that day, and she cries. To console, he puts his hand on the coveted knee. It is a fatherly gesture with unfatherly intentions. And that’s all. She is too young, and it’s enough to touch the knee which had caught his attention.
One might suggest that his mind, to keep itself ‘on the level’, choose the most innocent object for its affections. The knee is sometimes hidden, is a promise of calf or thigh, and itself is nothing. What could be better in the attraction of a too young girl in the liberal French countryside.
A very nice movie, despite have too much talk. However it looks very nice, has good conversation and polite manners, and refreshing liberal values of comfortable, modern, good-looking French people who have not outgrown a raised eyebrow or pouting lip.
****
