aFrenchparadox Reviews

Don't Worry, I'm Fine (2006)

Emotional in the good sense

[10/10 · 22 September 2010]

Wow, how do you review this film without spoiling has to be magic to me? For a non-suspense film, it is tremendously relying on surprise and the unexpected end is key. However this film also succeeds to remain interesting at the second viewing, despite not having anything to learn at the end. Once you know the truth, you look very differently at the secondary roles, especially the father (Kad Merad). From jerk, he becomes a loving father doing what he thinks the best and/or what he can. This is overall magnificent, emotional without being soapy and the main track of the soundtrack is also wonderful. I cannot stress enough that you should watch it a minimum of twice.

Kes (1969)

Pretty boring. Or me not seeing what I should see in it.

[4/10 · 22 September 2010]

As much as I am willing to trust my favourite critics when they see Ken Loach as a great contemporary director, I have to admit that I had to give up on "Kes" because it was really too boring. I cannot see anything social, any big issue in it. Obviously as I did not finish, I might have just as well been not patient enough. This film has a really slow start. Or, as I tend to think that your movie reading depends on your mental state, I imagine that I was not that interested by the potential issues considered in "Kes" at the time of the viewing. It is not a bad film however, for the little I saw. You do not stop watching it shouting at the screen because it is horrendous, and I think I am likely to try it again one day. So don't get scared by my review, make your own opinion.

Marie Antoinette (2006)

Just a (nice) shell

[8/10 · 22 September 2010]

It's luxuriant, colourful, bright. It's a visual delight. A musical feast too. That's it. The story doesn't speak to me. Or almost not. I should not have tenderness for those two young persons who were not fit for governance but had to embrace the role. I am reluctant to this. But I do have. I guess it's Sofia Coppola's talent striking again. The story is still though too far from me for this film to become my favourite Sofia Coppola. So I will remember "Marie-Antoinette" as "just" an aesthetic orgasm. A cinematographic sweet: leaves you a nice taste but does not fulfil your emotional needs nor feed your mind. I know it is not very nice from me to expect a director to go on with the kind of films s/he used us to, but really, Sofia, if you could keep it up with the sad and the bittersweet, that would be amazing.

Waltz with Bashir (2008)

There's no way to stay indifferent to this film

[10/10 · 22 September 2010]

One of the very rare films (I believe actually the only one) where I had to close my eyes for certain scenes and one of these where you need some minutes and some beers afterwards to cope. But extremely informative and aesthetically wonderful. Aesthetically Ari Folman chose a drawing style that is beautiful while staying sober and dark. Obviously exuberance would have been inappropriate but the choice of animation over filming was necessary. People cannot stand the five last minutes, so imagine trying to watch the same kind of images, on a film-length. We are not just talking about soldiers dying and killing enemy soldiers. We are talking about a butchery. So this choice was necessary, but it remains that the style is great and the mixing of techniques gives enough realism for people not to forget we are on the documentary territory, not in the fiction one. One friend said a few years ago that only the Isareli cinema was producing quality nowadays. I just cannot do otherwise than agreeing. The 2000 years in cinema are the years of the Middle-East.

Games of Love and Chance (2003)

Rhythmic

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

See my review of "Ve'lakhta lehe isha". Leaves you more or less with the same feeling at the end of both: I couldn't stand to live in such a communautarian culture/group, where I would really feel like my personal freedom is hindered. Two more things particular to this movie: because it's about teenagers playing a Marivaux's play, I would say that at least a third of the film is fulfilled by this play's dialogues, and therefore benefits from his rhythm. Not sure how well it translates to English and other languages though. Secondly, I don't like the end, where finally the police presence spoils all the good that had been built until then; I know it's quite true that the police in this type of poor French neighbourhoods is a watchdog as powerful as the community (though driven by different goals/intentions), but I guess I would have liked a bit of optimism for once.

Ve'Lakhta Lehe Isha (2004)

Your community, you love it or you live it

[10/10 · 22 September 2010]

I think somewhat what we see in movies depends on what we want to see and on what concerns us at the particular moment of our lives we see them. In the case of "To take a wife", I remember particularly having been struck by how social pressure can be high on how you live your private life, depending on the culture in which you live. I cannot remember if I saw "L'esquive" right before or right after this one, but it is definitely the combination of both which left me with this feeling, and helped me to define a bit more what I want for my private life, or in this case, what I don't want for it (i.e. that my community has anything to say about it). This thematic makes this film particularly universal for a very culturally contextualized one.

Shiva (2008)

Social claustrophobia

[8/10 · 22 September 2010]

Another movie which echoed in me because of the temporal contiguity with another, here "Waltz with Bachir". Mostly I considered "Shiva" as just another story about a tortuous (thus totally normal...) family. The particular context of the Jew tradition of "Shiva" was just for me the necessary spark to start the family fight, and it could have been Christmas as well, as in "Un conte de Noël" for example; the tensions and their origins would be quite similar (siblings jealousy and trahison, and other delicacies on the same mode). But the first scene was another story. The characters were at a funeral, burying their relative, when an war alarm resounded. And then they just put gas masks and went on with the funeral. The incongruity of this gas-masked funeral added to the vision of "Waltz with Bachir" the night before left me with this absolute feeling that nobody, today in the XXI° century, should live under bomb threats, whichever is your nationality, your religion, your color, as much as nobody should go to war on behalf of his/her country.

Three Colors: White (1994)

Reviews the three parts of "Three colours"

[10/10 · 22 September 2010]

Apparently most people prefer Blue, I don't (I can see you coming and saying that's it's just my contradictory mind). Really, I found it beautiful, aesthetically and on the acting level (yes, I agree with everybody on the fact that Binoche is wonderful). But it was quite boring; especially it was so long to really start, but I guess it's how grieving is, long and boring. So people die, survivors survive: OK, life goes on, we know that. Therefore I started White with a bit of apprehension, and finally was really caught quickly. I will even dare saying it's somewhat Kusturician. Is it because it's mainly base in Eastern Europe that I have this feeling, or is Eastern European genuinely crazier and more surreal than us? I guess the fact that Eastern Europe had a lot to catch up with Western Europe at the time of the film allowed to use crazy ideas as importing a dead body from Russia to fake your own death. Apart that, I was really interested by this man who couldn't satisfy his wife as long as they were married, and could start doing it again as soon as he was supposed to be dead, meaning as soon as any commitment was impossible. Power, commitment and sexuality: such a millenary-old story. After this Red could have been a bit boring too, but it was very intriguing so it compensated the absence of surrealism. I just had a real difficulty to like Irène Jacob's character (Valentine): she's so naive and full of guilt, it's annoying, please shake her a bit! Which reminds me that I deny that any woman can be as Dominique (played by Julie Delpy) in White. Seriously, yes some divorces can be ugly, but it's rarely that intensely ugly. But I guess it's part of the surrealism of White. I think in fact which annoys me more in White is not in White but in Red. When you end up seeing the link between the three movies, you discover that Karol (the ex-impotent ex-husband of White) is finally back with her, and I find this so improbable: first she was in prison, and unless he reported himself as having faked his own death (in which case he would be now the one in prison, not on this boat), I can't see how she would have been released; second, even if she had been released otherwise, how could she be willing to go back to him after he planned a so big revenge? And more globally, what is this stupid link between the three films? The three couples (or will-be couples) happened to take the same boat, and worse, to be the only survivors of this boat's sinking. This is so happy-ended and unnecessary: I don't think the three stories needed to be linked more than by a random and meaningless meeting (when Julie in Blue steps into the courtroom where Karol and Dominique are divorcing for example, it's enough). Which by the way leads their meeting's number to twice: what is the probability of that, people not knowing each other encountering, and then when not living in the same country anymore, meeting again on the way to a third country? And plus what is the probability that they survive all together? In fact I was expecting them to die when they started speaking about the sinking on TV: I guess the probability that they die all together is not better, so maybe Kieslowski should have given up on linking them at the end. Because the link is already elsewhere: loneliness and death are all along the three movies. People die, people survive, people fake their death, people stop loving after the death of a loved one... People are in love but lonely: Julie is in love with a dead husband, Karol is in love with his ex-wife, Valentine is in love with a jealous long-distance boyfriend. People are together but lonely, more or less haunted by death. This is how I see the big theme. I can't see the meant-to-be "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity". OK, not really fair in fact: I can see some freedom in Blue, in how Julie chooses to deal her own way with her grief; I can see some fraternity in Red, in how Valentine and the old judge learn from each other; but I can't see any equality, neither in White, nor in the others (because I guess this three themes are not that simply distributed between the three movies). Anyway, I am sure this trilogy is far richer than this and that anybody would find something different in it.

Three Colors: Red (1994)

Reviews the three parts of "Three colours"

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

Apparently most people prefer Blue, I don't (I can see you coming and saying that's it's just my contradictory mind). Really, I found it beautiful, aesthetically and on the acting level (yes, I agree with everybody on the fact that Binoche is wonderful). But it was quite boring; especially it was so long to really start, but I guess it's how grieving is, long and boring. So people die, survivors survive: OK, life goes on, we know that. Therefore I started White with a bit of apprehension, and finally was really caught quickly. I will even dare saying it's somewhat Kusturician. Is it because it's mainly base in Eastern Europe that I have this feeling, or is Eastern European genuinely crazier and more surreal than us? I guess the fact that Eastern Europe had a lot to catch up with Western Europe at the time of the film allowed to use crazy ideas as importing a dead body from Russia to fake your own death. Apart that, I was really interested by this man who couldn't satisfy his wife as long as they were married, and could start doing it again as soon as he was supposed to be dead, meaning as soon as any commitment was impossible. Power, commitment and sexuality: such a millenary-old story. After this Red could have been a bit boring too, but it was very intriguing so it compensated the absence of surrealism. I just had a real difficulty to like Irène Jacob's character (Valentine): she's so naive and full of guilt, it's annoying, please shake her a bit! Which reminds me that I deny that any woman can be as Dominique (played by Julie Delpy) in White. Seriously, yes some divorces can be ugly, but it's rarely that intensely ugly. But I guess it's part of the surrealism of White. I think in fact which annoys me more in White is not in White but in Red. When you end up seeing the link between the three movies, you discover that Karol (the ex-impotent ex-husband of White) is finally back with her, and I find this so improbable: first she was in prison, and unless he reported himself as having faked his own death (in which case he would be now the one in prison, not on this boat), I can't see how she would have been released; second, even if she had been released otherwise, how could she be willing to go back to him after he planned a so big revenge? And more globally, what is this stupid link between the three films? The three couples (or will-be couples) happened to take the same boat, and worse, to be the only survivors of this boat's sinking. This is so happy-ended and unnecessary: I don't think the three stories needed to be linked more than by a random and meaningless meeting (when Julie in Blue steps into the courtroom where Karol and Dominique are divorcing for example, it's enough). Which by the way leads their meeting's number to twice: what is the probability of that, people not knowing each other encountering, and then when not living in the same country anymore, meeting again on the way to a third country? And plus what is the probability that they survive all together? In fact I was expecting them to die when they started speaking about the sinking on TV: I guess the probability that they die all together is not better, so maybe Kieslowski should have given up on linking them at the end. Because the link is already elsewhere: loneliness and death are all along the three movies. People die, people survive, people fake their death, people stop loving after the death of a loved one... People are in love but lonely: Julie is in love with a dead husband, Karol is in love with his ex-wife, Valentine is in love with a jealous long-distance boyfriend. People are together but lonely, more or less haunted by death. This is how I see the big theme. I can't see the meant-to-be "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity". OK, not really fair in fact: I can see some freedom in Blue, in how Julie chooses to deal her own way with her grief; I can see some fraternity in Red, in how Valentine and the old judge learn from each other; but I can't see any equality, neither in White, nor in the others (because I guess this three themes are not that simply distributed between the three movies). Anyway, I am sure this trilogy is far richer than this and that anybody would find something different in it.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

Reviews the three parts of "Three colours"

[8/10 · 22 September 2010]

Apparently most people prefer Blue, I don't (I can see you coming and saying that's it's just my contradictory mind). Really, I found it beautiful, aesthetically and on the acting level (yes, I agree with everybody on the fact that Binoche is wonderful). But it was quite boring; especially it was so long to really start, but I guess it's how grieving is, long and boring. So people die, survivors survive: OK, life goes on, we know that. Therefore I started White with a bit of apprehension, and finally was really caught quickly. I will even dare saying it's somewhat Kusturician. Is it because it's mainly base in Eastern Europe that I have this feeling, or is Eastern European genuinely crazier and more surreal than us? I guess the fact that Eastern Europe had a lot to catch up with Western Europe at the time of the film allowed to use crazy ideas as importing a dead body from Russia to fake your own death. Apart that, I was really interested by this man who couldn't satisfy his wife as long as they were married, and could start doing it again as soon as he was supposed to be dead, meaning as soon as any commitment was impossible. Power, commitment and sexuality: such a millenary-old story. After this Red could have been a bit boring too, but it was very intriguing so it compensated the absence of surrealism. I just had a real difficulty to like Irène Jacob's character (Valentine): she's so naive and full of guilt, it's annoying, please shake her a bit! Which reminds me that I deny that any woman can be as Dominique (played by Julie Delpy) in White. Seriously, yes some divorces can be ugly, but it's rarely that intensely ugly. But I guess it's part of the surrealism of White. I think in fact which annoys me more in White is not in White but in Red. When you end up seeing the link between the three movies, you discover that Karol (the ex-impotent ex-husband of White) is finally back with her, and I find this so improbable: first she was in prison, and unless he reported himself as having faked his own death (in which case he would be now the one in prison, not on this boat), I can't see how she would have been released; second, even if she had been released otherwise, how could she be willing to go back to him after he planned a so big revenge? And more globally, what is this stupid link between the three films? The three couples (or will-be couples) happened to take the same boat, and worse, to be the only survivors of this boat's sinking. This is so happy-ended and unnecessary: I don't think the three stories needed to be linked more than by a random and meaningless meeting (when Julie in Blue steps into the courtroom where Karol and Dominique are divorcing for example, it's enough). Which by the way leads their meeting's number to twice: what is the probability of that, people not knowing each other encountering, and then when not living in the same country anymore, meeting again on the way to a third country? And plus what is the probability that they survive all together? In fact I was expecting them to die when they started speaking about the sinking on TV: I guess the probability that they die all together is not better, so maybe Kieslowski should have given up on linking them at the end. Because the link is already elsewhere: loneliness and death are all along the three movies. People die, people survive, people fake their death, people stop loving after the death of a loved one... People are in love but lonely: Julie is in love with a dead husband, Karol is in love with his ex-wife, Valentine is in love with a jealous long-distance boyfriend. People are together but lonely, more or less haunted by death. This is how I see the big theme. I can't see the meant-to-be "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity". OK, not really fair in fact: I can see some freedom in Blue, in how Julie chooses to deal her own way with her grief; I can see some fraternity in Red, in how Valentine and the old judge learn from each other; but I can't see any equality, neither in White, nor in the others (because I guess this three themes are not that simply distributed between the three movies). Anyway, I am sure this trilogy is far richer than this and that anybody would find something different in it.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Overrated

[2/10 · 22 September 2010]

I am sorry but I am going to be offensive and provocative towards a cornerstone of British culture. I only gave time to this opus because Mathieu Amalric was playing in it and because I convinced myself that as someone living in UK I should see it. But I didn't like Amalric in it, and it didn't change my idea that it's just some spectacular scenes wrapped in the same old story. Always the same structure, the only difference being that the bad guy is no longer a communist but some king of venture capitalist. It doesn't bring me anything more than 24, except that with 24, there is at least some thrill, enhanced by the series format. So I still think James Bond is overrated.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Sweet bittersweetness

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

Bittersweet. This is the word I would use to summarize "Lost in translation". The cultural differences scenes are sometimes funny, sometimes just painful (the TV show scene and, even if it's not really about cultural differences, the shooting scene, highly improbable for me). Otherwise, it's beautiful, melancholic, accompanied by a as much beautiful and melancholic soundtrack. But never really happy, hence the bittersweet qualification. They won't see each other again, I am sure of that. They're way too much locked in their marriage by the guilt. Bill Murray's character particularly, choosing to have a one-night-stand rather than sleeping with a woman he knows he could fall for. Therefore not taking any risk to endanger his marriage. Her, I am sure she would go further if he was not resisting. Somewhat logical: I guess giving up a 2-years-old marriage is easier than giving up a 25-years-old one. Plus because his work takes him away often, he doesn't really have to face his failing marriage. She has, because so far she hasn't a life of her own: no work, no idea of what she could do, she gave up her hometown for her husband. And she's younger, she certainly thinks she can still save her life, while he certainly thinks it's too late anyway. But this chosen impossibility of their story is what makes the film beautiful and melancholic. "Love" scenes are platonic and bring you back straight to adolescence. But hey guys, let's face it! We are not teenagers anymore and such a platonic love would be unrealistic at our age and wouldn't fit our needs and desires. Finally one comment on some reviews talking about a beautiful friendship. I truly believe in the possibility of man/woman friendship, but I also believe this can occur only if there is no seduction between the two (either one way or two ways). As long as you don't get over it, this is not friendship, this is still possible love. It's the case here: there's too much seduction going on to talk about friendship. But this possible love will never occur, neither will become a friendship: seeing each other again would be too risky, especially for him. Plus (and this is the real cynical touch here), they would never have been interested in each other if they had met in their usual cultural environment; failing marriage or not, it's the cultural difference which makes their loneliness so obvious. Once back in the USA, I don't think it would stand as intense between them.

Paris (I) (2008)

Ordinary France

[8/10 · 22 September 2010]

I din't love it, but I liked it for sure. Typical French movie showing no exceptional events, just ordinary lives, a lot of ordinary lives to which you finally get attached. Three characters in different scenes, speaking of the fact that they hadn't had sex or had been single for a long time: "During Middle-Age. I will need to check my dick with carbon 14 to be sure"; "I think even my cat would like to dump me"; "My legs aren't waxed..." "...Don't worry, at this stage I can't care". This summarizes all the topic: ordinary lives are lonely, all lives are lonely. At last a so realistic ignorant racist baker wonderfully played by Karine Viard: the France I hate, but who exists whatever I think and want; just wanted to slap her.

Days of Glory (2006)

Necessary but not as good as what Rachid Bouchareb used us to

[7/10 · 22 September 2010]

It's good, well filmed, well played (casts two actors I have been appreciating for a long time, so maybe I am biased...). Though, no enthusiasm, no projection here at we are almost in a fictional documentary and/or an homage. Necessary still. The real question is why I am not as disturbed by this as by "Waltz with Bachir": different places, different times, same absurdity of war, same manipulation of governments. Is it just because I was already aware of the treatment this soldiers received, or, more interestingly maybe, is it because it's too hard for us to admit guilt of your own country? Or could it also be that these events are not fresh enough anymore to disturb us and that the time serves as a defence tool? This explanation is actually making sense today, as Rachid Bouchareb's new film on the common history of France and Algeria is coming out. It is about the period when Algeria was seeking independence and France denying it, i.e. the 60s. And more importantly it is making much more controversy, as you would expect if the recency hypothesis is correct.

The Bubble (2006)

Delicate

[10/10 · 22 September 2010]

It's fresh and pessimist in the meantime. Fresh for the hope this people have in peace. Fresh for their lifestyle denying the fear of the conflict any power on their life. Fresh in the sense it often makes you smile. Fresh because some people can stand up to avoid more sorrow to others. Pessimist because you will be reminded you that the conflict is blind, and doesn't select its victims. Pessimist because one person is not enough to change the situation. So if you need films to make you feel good, avoid. But if you like to come out of a film with a taste of bittersweet and some material for thinking, this film is totally for you.

Transylvania (2006)

Music, dance, surrealism

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

I cannot be objective with Tony Gatlif's films. Omnipresence of my favourite types of music, omnipresence of dance. His stories could be rubbish every time, I wouldn't mind. In the case of "Transylvania" you can add the surreal craziness of Eastern Europe (craziness only because it doesn't fit our cultural schemas) and the mental character played by an amazing Asia Argento which both make of this particular Gatlif's opus something very "Emir-Kusturician". So though the story by itself is not fundamentally good (or at least is just another love story), "Transylvania" is a great piece of surrealism and Eastern European music.

Tekkonkinkreet (2006)

Rich

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

I absolutely loved the aesthetics, it's as rich as looking at some Bruegel the Elder's paints. In fact it's even so rich it would need a life watching it to see everything. And it's sometimes so realistic you wonder if they used inlaying of photos. As for the story I was about to say it is a bit too Manichean to my taste but in fact I am a bit harsh here. As highlighted a friend, some characters are not. It's just that one of the two principal characters is shifting from his dark side to a better one, without giving you the feeling the reality is more complex than this. And above all this kind of story where the hero is fighting himself to become better has something of religiously moral annoying me. Though here he managed to do it thanks to brotherhood, which is a nice reminder that the self and ethics are both something highly socially constructed.

Sagan (2008)

Above average for a biopic

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

It leaves you a weird feeling afterwards, if, like me, you enjoy and believe in free life-styles. Because she was really free, in advance on her time, never cared about other's opinions... which is something I entirely admire and quite try to do. But she ended up alone, pathetically alone. And this makes you wonder if this life-style you aim to reach is a good choice. Strangely I am convinced it wasn't the aim of the movie, to make you wonder about the emptiness of her life. So maybe it's me again who is projecting (some worries nowadays about where my Independence drives me?). Or maybe, as we say in French, you can't have the butter and the money for the butter, meaning, every life-style choice has negative consequences: chose freedom, you will end up alone; chose love and commitment to others, you will end up feeling coerced. In any case, happiness is not at the end, so enjoy the moment...

The Lovers on the Bridge (1991)

Magnificently desperate

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

Magnifiscent film for the movements. I saw just after this a short by Leos Carax ("Merde", segment of "Tokyo", 2008), with the same Denis Lavant, and the same thing caught my attention. Denis Lavant must have been a dancer and/or a circus artist before acting (I would bet on the second one and that he's doing fire-eating scenes and acrobatics by himself in "Les amants du Pont-Neuf"). And Carax has really a thing for filming movements, as in this scene when Michelle lays on the floor to watch at feet moving on a dance floor. But as much as this love story is intense, especially because of their despair (homeless, they won't find anybody else to share their loneliness with), it's really not plausible to me that this love survives his prison time and her return to normal life; when people loving each other take so different paths, I can't see how they could catch up. There is however another wonderful thing in this film, i.e. how Carax questions without ever saying it the French utopia (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). I think the beginning is really accurate in showing the reality of being homeless in Paris and of meant to be shelters (but being more something between mental institution and prison). And above all, placing the movie around the 14th of July 1989, i.e. around the bicentenary celebration of the French Revolution, underlines, without a word, the paradox of the French society, advocating inside and outside its boundaries for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, but unable to provide it to all its citizens. I finally found here what I was expecting in "Three colours", maybe because it's more subtle.

Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1 (2008)

Some modern French mythology (reviews the two parts)

[10/10 · 22 September 2010]

This two-part film is good in the way it doesn't only show the charisma of Mesrine (which is the main cause of his myth in France I think), but also his extreme violence and how he was just a "rabid dog" taking political causes to satisfy this violence. Still Mesrine remains fascinating by his level of boldness and how he just failed French and Canadian states in dealing with him. This is maybe a part of my punkness which appreciates this boldness but I think this is why people found him charismatic: he was defying institution and was quite efficient doing it. An anthropological insight in the French mind somewhat!

Mesrine: Killer Instinct (2008)

Some French modern mythology (reviews the two parts)

[10/10 · 22 September 2010]

This two-part film is good in the way it doesn't only show the charisma of Mesrine (which is the main cause of his myth in France I think), but also his extreme violence and how he was just a "rabid dog" taking political causes to satisfy this violence. Still Mesrine remains fascinating by his level of boldness and how he just failed French and Canadian states in dealing with him. This is maybe a part of my punkness which appreciates this boldness but I think this is why people found him charismatic: he was defying institution and was quite efficient doing it. An anthropological insight in the French mind somewhat!

A Summer's Tale (1996)

Of indecision

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

One word: indecision. At the end, Gaspard sounded to me like Meursault in "The stranger" (Albert Camus): he's not proactive, letting events decide for him. Except that Gaspard is young, and I guess this indecision is part of growing. Wasn't so different myself not so long ago, I am even still somewhat when it comes to relationships. Except that this indecision doesn't lead him to murder of course, just to maybe miss something and prepare ground for potential regrets. But for Meursault's defence, the last exception is that Gaspard is far more pretentious, trying to justify his attitude and doing so fooling himself about his free-will. Meursault is an idiot, yes, but he never tries to pretend he's clever. Gaspard is an idiot, plus he's scamming himself. Writing this I realize it's even more hopeless: he made this incredibly bold move to go where she will be on holidays, just like this (OK, he did it because an opportunity happened) to try to force his luck. And finally managed to back out while giving the impression he wasn't doing so. He made a move, got scared she might back out, thus took the opportunity of messing things. Gosh, I am such a Gaspard myself sometimes...

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

Efficient but a bit simplistic

[8/10 · 22 September 2010]

Give me Barcelona and especially Gaudi's architecture as a set for a film and I will be happy (and given how Woody Allen filmed it I guess he loves it as much as I do). Give me some Spanish dialogues to hear and try to understand and I will be happy. Give me Scarlett Johansson as one of the main actresses and I will be happy. Is it still necessary to say I am happy with Vicky Christina Barcelona, where indeed Barcelona is the third character rather than Maria Elena? More deeply, give me some young women questioning their own definition of love and I will be happy, as (sadly?) I am still looking for it and questioning the reality of a good balance between stability and passion (yes emotionally I am mature as a teenager, I know). But make them go back to their life without having progressed from an inch and I am not happy anymore. I wasn't asking for Vicky to jump from a stable husband to a crazy artist, but scared people can't stay scared. I wasn't asking for Christina to find her definition of what she wants from love, but running away people can't go on running-away. In fact people can't stay how they are, whoever they are; personal development IS lifespan for god sake! OK, maybe I am harsh and I could think their Spanish interlude will influence them at some point. But this is really not the feeling I have; especially when Judy appears, walking with the husband she doesn't love anymore, I don't really take this as a clue of evolution. Hence there is a more global feeling at the end, where as a European I feel like Americans consider the old continent (and especially the Southern one) as just a playground to test their philosophy of life before going back to it, a place where you can live some craziness before living a serious life in America. Annoying because simplistic and categorical, annoying because this relies on the assumption that you can't have both, some craziness and some seriousness.

La petite Jérusalem (2005)

Of initiation and finding your freedom

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

Laura is a pure young woman searching herself between her very orthodox religious background and Kantian philosophy. Then came the discovery of her own desire and sensuality. Though the man she loves cannot authorize himself to take distance with his own background, and hence Laura has to give up her romantic and high expectations, she goes on accepting her desires and taking distance with religion to find an allayed balance. On this path her sister helps her subtly (half conscious of it and above all, being non judgemental) and doing so finds her own way to live her sensuality within religion. A beautifully filmed initiatory path. Where even ugly Parisian suburbs are full of the light brought by Laura's purity. Where development of one member in a family brings development for everybody, because human beings live in network and there is no way your own inner changes have no impact on, at the very least, your relatives.

Exils (2004)

Of catharsis

[9/10 · 22 September 2010]

If you happen to like Flamenco music and/or North-African music, you will enjoy this film just for this. I happen to like both and found myself watching at 10-minutes-long scenes of just music and dance without being bored and being on the contrary fascinated (the Gnawa trance scene is properly amazing). Some lines of the scenario could have been developed though. The two characters are both going to Algeria looking for their roots. But she's the daughter of an Algerian whereas he's the son of two French who used to live in Algeria when it was still French. And despite this he seems to be the one feeling the most at home when they finally reach Algeria. Highlighting that identity is not about genes, but a social construct emerging from education, familial history and personal history (at the very least). Highlighting also the difficulty of being between two cultures, and the difficulty of being always sent back to a culture people ascribe to you because of your biological roots, putting you in a box doing so. Anyway this is something just showing on the surface briefly. I am not sure Gatlif was intending to explore this, I feel rather that the principal character of the film is music, especially when I remind myself that Gatlif also wrote the soundtrack. However if he wasn't intending it, this would be somewhat more remarkable, because we could assume Gatlif's subconscious is expressing itself here, the director being himself a former French of Algeria. But this would be exactly what is problematic in how the feminine character is welcomed: assigning feelings according to origins, without knowing anything of the person's history. So I won't assume this and will stay on the great feeling left by the trance scene: fascinated. And will consider definitely that music is the hero here, because music originating long ago like Flamenco and Gnawa is far more than entertainment and can even be a catharsis tool.