LA PRISONNIERE (Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1968)

“Perversion exists; and, to describe it in its most crushing and tragic form, I had to go as far as possible without being afraid of traumatizing the audience.” — Henri-Georges Clouzot

Dazzling and overwhelming, somehow both sumptuous and austere, Henri-Georges Clouzot’s last film is among his most intriguing work. La prisonnière—variously called in English The Prisoner, The Female Prisoner and Woman in Chains—is a film about three perverts, only one of whom, self-aware, acknowledges his pervertedness. All three are left more or less destroyed, specifically, by the lack of self-awareness that afflicts the “normal”-seeming couple whose marital status society has coronated and sanctified.

Stanislas Hassler owns and operates an art gallery that specializes in abstract work with maze-like configurations, psychedelic panache or teasing optical illusions. Currently, he is preparing a show that will include new work by Gilbert Moreau, at whom he is cracking a metaphorical whip to complete something that is truly extraordinary. Stan, also, has an off-hours life that Josée, Gilbert’s wife, enters. Stan is an amateur photographer. In his top-floor apartment, which is lush with art, he photographs willing women in erotic get-ups and poses. When Josée asks him whether prettiness is his highest priority in a model, Stan identifies something else: Submission.

One would not expect Josée to be the least bit attracted to the half-world of male dominance and female submissiveness, for which, of course, the male provides remuneration, thus obscuring possession of “the upper hand.” Josée is “her own woman” as much as she is “Gilbert’s wife.” Currently, she is editing a black-and-white documentary film (Clouzot’s film, in contrasting soft, ripe color, was photographed by Andreas Winding, no less), and she professes dismay and incomprehension at the person who is being interviewed in one part of the film: a sadistically dominated, mentally abused woman. What in common could Josée have with this sick, pathetic victim? We see her pouring over the documentary’s relevant passage; she mimics the victim’s gestures and expression, with stunning back-and-forth cutting combining the two women into a single image of a kind of shellshock.

Ironically, this combination of the two women into an image of one battered, defeated soul suggests, contrarily, the fissuring of either woman’s being. Throughout the film, there are similar examples of doubling from which we infer a fissured personality. Both at the gallery and in Stan’s apartment, espying through “see-through” and “see-around” sculptures, paintings and installations suggests that the one being silently, secretly watched is, somehow, a projection of the one who is watching; concomitantly, this visual penetration as a result of either the artwork’s “porousness” or translucency suggests, contrarily, the denseness, even the opaqueness, of much human experience. So much gives the appearance of “being together” that is, actually, falling apart.

Of at least equal interest is the “doubling” that assigns a human appearance, activity or behavior in Clouzot’s film to some other sixties film to which it baldly, unquestionably refers—to which it, therefore, somehow interacts. Where to begin? Joseé’s ambivalent entry into Stan’s obsessive hidden world, especially as it potentially undermines her marriage, conjures some of the aura of Luis Buñuel’s Belle de jour (1967). (Josée is not frigid, however.) Stan’s rapid-fire “shoots”—he keeps clicking his camera as though he knows what he wants and what he is doing—conjures images of David Hemmings’s doubting Thomas at work in Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blowup (1966). The back-and-forth between Josée, whose face is for us a cinematic image, and the documentary image of the interviewee with which she unexpectedly identifies for all her contrary protestation, cannot help but remind us of Anna Karina’s Nana, in Jean-Luc Godard’s Vivre sa vie (1962), transfixed by the on-screen image of Falconetti in Carl Theodor Dreyer’s Passion of Joan of Arc (1928). Employing his own brand of Persona-fication (Ingmar Bergman, 1966), Clouzot combines into a single image half of Stan’s and Gilbert’s faces to suggest the tug of claims on Josée’s heart and, perhaps, some hidden kinship between these two lovers of hers. What might that be? In retrospect, we clarify what has been obvious since our introduction to the Moreaus waking up in bed in their seemingly blissful union. With a however light-handed execution (lots of cover-up joking), Gilbert calls the shots for the couple. Gilbert dominates Josée.

We, Clouzot’s ultimate voyeur, watch Stan falling in love for real with Josée, exposing the sexual hang-ups that his posture of command is intended to hide or deny; but does Gilbert even love his wife? Let us admit that their “open” relationship is unconventional; but positively balmy is Josée’s history of employing her partner as a confidant for her extramarital dallyings. (Hardly irrelevant here is Gilbert’s effeminate nature.) This, also, reminds us of another film: Roger Vadim’s Les liaisons dengereuses (1959), which transforms Pierre Choderlos de Laclos’s sexually sadistic eighteenth-century schemers into present-day husband and wife. Stan, traumatized by the thought that Josée might “betray” him with her spouse by chattering about their affair, extracts from her a promise not to do so—a promise Josée fails to keep. Upon learning of this betrayal while with her on holiday in Brittany, Stan bolts their seaside hotel and embarks on a course that skirts suicide. (Note how the rooftop of Stan’s apartment building, which includes the ledge he crawls onto, suggests some of his gallery’s maze-like artwork.) Both he and Josée thus lose what may be the love of a lifetime.

None of this, of course, resolves the issue of whether Gilbert loves Josée, and neither does the film’s ambiguous finish at hospital, which only gives the appearance of resolving the matter. Josée paralyzed by ambivalence as to which man to commit her heart to, her car has stalled on tracks just as the train is coming hurtling down; disaster. Gilbert is at her bedside, wearing his soul on his face. Her eyes open, otherwise completely bandaged, Josée seems to recognize the visitor who is lovingly squeezing her hand. “Stan,” she mutters right before a nurse ushers Gilbert away. Has Josée expressed her heart’s desire, or is she redressing the imbalance of power between them, perhaps forever? Does Gilbert love his wife, or is he preparing himself for martyrdom as the only means remaining for possessing her? Are we witnessing love, then, or the mask of love hiding perversion? Clouzot won’t tell us.

This extraordinary moment, which shimmers with Clouzot’s celebrated cynicism and a dire dose of ill health, is preceded by his staggering, exhilarating 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) passage: Josée’s rapid-fire, click-clicking mental trip down Memory Lane—700 shots in seven minutes. Integration? Disintegration? We, the voyeur tripping down somebody else’s mind, may be of differing minds ourselves, depending, perhaps, on how much we are hiding about ourselves. Regardless, all the movie references resonate as the bag of pop culture from which we draw our sense of ourselves, weighting our experience with dubious models, sharpening our consciousness to a debilitating selfconsciousness—shadows in the art gallery of our souls.

It is François Truffaut who encouraged Clouzot to pursue the topic of dominance/submission and make La prisonnière. Perhaps Truffaut felt there was no better way than Clouzot’s discoveries for him to learn something more about himself.

 

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB INLONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19

NO LOVE FOR JOHNNIE (Ralph Thomas, 1961)

In a phenomenal performance that brought him best actor prizes at Berlin and from the British Academy, Peter Finch plays 42-year-old Johnnie Byrne, a just-reëlected Labour Party member of Parliament the reason for whose exclusion from his prime minister’s Labour Government takes time in coming to light. When he is finally told, it seems as though the explanation should have been obvious from the start—one of the few head-scratchers in an otherwise absolutely brilliant script. Mordecai Richler and Nicholas Phipps adapted the 1958 novel by former MP Wilfred Fienburgh. There isn’t a political moment in this film that fails to either absorb the viewer’s interest or convince. One isn’t left to wonder why the New York Daily News named No Love for Johnnie one of 1961’s ten best films.

There are two dovetailing main strands to the narrative, one political, the other romantic. Byrne considers publicly opposing his  prime minister regarding a rumored intention of foreign adventurism, on the grounds that the outcome might betray Labour principles; in this, the film’s most remarkable aspect, we “see” something of the mental process by which Byrne, who is ambitious in his career, convinces himself (and perhaps us) he is proceeding on the basis of principle. It is a nebulous and gray area in a black-and-white film which, keyed also to London weather, appropriately favors light gray tonalities.

Once his wife walks out on him, Byrne advances on a neighbor (played by a younger, more vulnerable Billie Whitelaw than we are used to seeing) and then a lovely model half his age, with whom he has a passionate affair and seems genuinely to fall in love. But each in turn is sacrificed to his career ambition, for the sake of which he plans on reconciling with his estranged wife—that is, until a blow of irony makes her, too, an impediment to his ambition. The title of the film is ironic; Byrne may bemoan that there’s “no love for Johnnie,” but it is Johnnie, himself, who ruins or chucks every opportunity for love in his life.

There is a sex scene between Byrne and Pauline West, the young model, that is wildly unconvincing owing to its satin-smooth body movements and camera movements which take into account none of the gap in the pair’s ages and contrasting levels of experience. One, especially today, cringes at the hokiness.

Ralph Thomas directed—the same Ralph Thomas responsible for those Doctor comedies in the fifties starring Dirk Bogarde.

 

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB INLONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19

THE SUN IN A NET (Štefan Uher, 1962)

Voted by critics in the 1990s as one of the ten best films from the former Czechoslovakia, Slnko v sieti—alternately translated as The Sun in a Net or Sunshine Caught in a Net—derives from three short stories by Alfonz Bednár, which he himself adapted. Brilliantly directed by Štefan Uher (like Bednár, a Slovak), the film may be considered, depending on one’s point of view, as either an immediate antecedent of the Czech New Wave or, itself, the launch of the movement. Reflecting a loosening of the Communist grip on the country’s cultural and artistic expression, it departs from officially mandated “socialist realism,” both in its fluid, radical, associative style and its scathingly honest, unblinking social amd political content. Call it cinema’s first hurled hunk of spit of the gathering Czech New Wave.

The black-and-white film, consisting mostly of monotonous light grays, opens outdoors in a drab urban setting with abrasive sounds, including those of a screeching bird and demolishing equipment; cut from the same aural cloth, “Bullshit” is the first word we hear—spoken, aloud to himself, by student Oldrich “Fajolo” Fajták in response to what he hears said on the radio. Fajolo thus expresses his attitude towards the conformist, restrictive state in which he finds himself in the prime of his youth.

His utterance “Bullshit” also opposes state hypocrisy, which under penalty of official reprisals he must bend to, thereby becoming a hypocrite himself. Fajolo thus leaves his girlfriend Bela Blažejová to work in a summer “volunteer” farm camp; the tension achieved between the sheer, abundant beauty of the country and, essentially, the disdained forced labor accounts for striking passages. (One also takes in how poorly functioning the collectivized farm is—a strike at the heart of Soviet- and Soviet-satellite mythology.) During their separation, both Bela and Fajolo, moreover, couple with new partners.

This is a film ripe with surprising, inventive camera angles and dazzling imagery. Perhaps the centrifugal image—I confess: I wept—positions the camera to give the appearance that the sun itself has been caught in a fisherman’s wide net. The shattering effect, a commentary on the unnaturalness of repressive states, is cumulative; throughout the film there have been glimpses of people shot through “the net” and net-like structures. The entrapment of the sun is, of course, a metaphor for the entrapment of people; but more: it represents the light, enlightenment and freedom, obstructed by the state, from which human beings are being cut off.

Another theme pertains to the contagious nature of the lies of the state. Both a beclouded solar eclipse and a dropped water level, leaving behind only dry land, lead Bela and younger brother Milo to lie to their blind mother about these, presumably for the sake of the woman’s own delight and happiness.

Regrettably, the sure, tough poetry of this remarkable film is eventually defeated by an exposure of the material’s literary mechanics; but, until that relatively late point, how the film soars.

 

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB INLONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19

EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE (Stephen Daldrey, 2011)

Excruciating, farfetched sentimental melodrama, closer to Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird than to Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying, about a child’s traumatic response to his father’s death in the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The funeral, where an empty coffin is buried because his father’s body was never recovered, encapsulates how little sense the whole event of his irrevocable loss strikes Oskar Schell. A year later, the precocious 9-year-old schoolboy begins an odyssey to find the lock opened by a key that he has found in a blue vase he discovered in his father’s closet. Oskar is convinced that his father has left him a final message, and he is determined to learn what it is to regain their spiritual connection. Only then, he feels, “The Worst Day” will be redeemed.

Stephen Daldrey directed from a stupid script that Eric Roth based on Safran Foer’s novel, where, I understand, Oskar is a gentle innocent. In the film, Oskar is a nasty know-it-all who runs roughshod over everyone else’s feelings, including those of his mother. Thomas Horn, who plays Oskar (Oskar, to emphasize the odyssey that gives shape to his ordeal, his instrumental security blanket a tambourine rather than a tin drum), is insipid, but he sufficiently resembles Jamie Bell, Daldrey’s Billy Eliot (2001), that we keep hoping for superlative acting. Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock are no better as the idealized parents, although Max von Sydow and Zoe Caldwell do much better as Oskar’s paternal grandparents, and Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright—remember Robert Altman’s Streamers (1983)?—are wonderful as a couple whom Oskar meets along the way of his search, right at the moment that their marriage ends amidst ambiguous commotion. Wright convinces as an anomaly: a humane businessman. Von Sydow was Oscar-nominated; Wright should also have been nominated.

But, apart from these fine performances, this is a terrible movie—a heartless tearjerker that exploits the heartache of countless real people.

ASHES (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2012)

Advertising their 35mm camera, the LomoKino website invites potential customers to “go back to the early days of motion picture” while awakening their own “analogue cinematic fantasies”—as Thailand’s reigning auteur, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, has done (except for a digital finale) with his exquisite, haunting “Ashes.” This short work—since its premiere at Cannes last Friday it has been available for free viewing on the MUBI website (http://mubi.com/)—weaves together surrealism and (at least seemingly) ordinary reality, dream and waking political protest and dark prophecy. Thailand’s fate hangs in the balance.

In a rural setting, a scene of tranquility: a man walks his dog down an unpaved path down which, also, a boy—perhaps an earlier version of the man—bicycles, the camera at their backs. With visual wit, the film thus introduces the concept of the backward glance, that is to say, memory. (The staccato presentation of much of the film, shutter to shutter, suggests snapshots of memory.) Closeups of a confined oinking pig nudge memory, that is, a dream, in the direction of particularity and immediacy. Now the man is resting on the ground, the dog close by, and the entire passage, reddish, resembles hand-tinted frames in certain black-and-white silent films: part of our collective memory: the magic of cinema. A contrasting bluish passage of highway traffic cancels much of the memory and the magic.

Signs and posters of protest appear; we catch on these repeated views of the number 112. In the Law of Thailand, Article 112 of the Criminal Code articulates the offense of Lèse majesté: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King . . . shall be punished [with] imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” This prohibition, all the more frightening for remaining largely undefined, has been in effect since 1908; not even the 1932 replacement of Thailand’s absolute monarchy with a constitution, and the series of revised constitutions since, has derailed the prohibition. Since the military coup in 2006, in fact, prosecutions under Article 112 have increased, from a handful a year, by 1500%. The vague language has helped make possible a widened application that has stricken the heart of freedom and assumed the form of a waking political nightmare.

Apichatpong presents this brilliant film as a looking back; the man with the dog, a filmmaker, has turned his attention to drawing buildings from his home town, Khon Kaen, as he remembers them. (This character and Apichatpong share the same home town.) He tells us, “I kept drawing and looking back.” He also tells us we are watching a dream—if you will, a dream of the past. But how can this be? The point of reconciliation, of course, is that the die has been cast on Thailand’s political future, which in fact Apichatpong has imagined, has dreamt, as having already occurred. The finale, an outdoor scene of intense celebration, with spinning wheels of fireworks and other fireworks in the nighttime sky, is more beautiful than one can even imagine. The beauty is devastatingly ironic. In the throes of expiring glitter, ashes descend: by metaphorical extension, the ashes of the celebrants themselves. Into twenty minutes of screen time, a master filmmaker has compressed his monumental concern for the fate of the country he cherishes.

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB INLONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19