Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 17, Week 4

A cinephilic confession: I have never been able to warm to Eric Rohmer. My friends have always been dumbfounded by that fact, but it's something I just can't shake. I picked up a second-hand copy of Conte d'été (A Summer's Tale) for the quiz, a film I hadn't seen since its theatrical release in the late 90s. As I watched it again, I found myself experiencing the same sense of frustration with his characters that I get every time I watch one of his films. He's a wonderful director of actors, but I find his dialog so clinical and cold. The bulk of the first forty-five minutes of A Summer's Tale consists of a dialectic on friendship, relationships, and love between Melvil Poupard and Amanda Langlet (pictured in last week's quiz) that, while intellectually satisfying, is so far removed from how I imagine two flirty twenty-somethings would talk while taking walks in the French countryside. (Dare I utter the word pretentious?) It's not that I crave realism -- it's a film after all -- but perhaps this is taking it too far in the opposite direction? 

The argument I hear most often is, "But how can you love the films of Hong Sang-soo and not like Rohmer?" The quick and dirty answer (which I should probably expound on in a separate post) is this: Hong's characters are continually exposing their all-too-human traits -- weakness, denial, jealousy, insecurity, etc. They get drunk and make asses of themselves. They lie to themselves and each other to get what they want. Rohmer's characters, while beautiful to look at, seem more like vessels for Rohmer's personal philosophy than an actual attempt at sculpting characters.

Before the hate mails commence, let me say that I'm not proud of this position. I want to love Rohmer, and perhaps one day I'll see the light. Or maybe I just need to meet a 25 year-old ethnologist who also happens to work as a waitress in a crêperie. Until then, I remain a shamed philistine.   

Now that the IFP is over, I can focus most of my energy on the New York Film Festival press screenings. I've been impressed with all but one film (the painfully unsubtle mess that is Afterschool) and hope to post several more reviews in the coming days.

This week: not what usually comes to mind when you think of a French postcard. (Ooh la la!) This one's too easy, I'm afraid. Name the film. Submit your answers to this address. Good luck!

Comments

[Sergio]

Ouch first time I leave a comment here (even though I’ve been reading your blog for a long long time) and it’s to give you an advice, well let it for just a small clue for further viewings...I’m afraid you’re gonna call me pretentious too, poor boy me! Let’s go anyway, do not bit the bait… Rohmer’s characters do exactly the opposite to what they say. And that’s what’s really represents (representation, mind this word) his (let’s go pretentious again) short of philosophy of life.

[cinetrix]

Surely you're not making French letter jokes?

[Tom Russell]

I've never really liked Rohmer, for much the same reason-- cold, clinical, and somewhat otherwordly in the sense that his characters seldom resemble what we know and love as human beings.

I think part of it, in my case, also has to do with the fact that I don't speak French. Now, I have nothing against French films-- give me Truffaut or Rivette any day-- or watching films with subtitles. But so much of the *meaning* of Rohmer films is dialogue-based, which means that, no matter how perfect and accurate the translation may be, so much of what the film is and what the film is about is being delivered in tiny white (or yellow) letters at the bottom of the frame.

I have nothing against dialogue-heavy films-- in languages I can understand (that is, English). It's a terrible standard to hold foreign-language films against, and it probably marks me as a much bigger philistine, but I tend to enjoy foreign-language films more if they put more emphasis on the visual aspects of film language.

Which probably explains why I'm a ginormous Hulot/Tati fan, and why, despite hating pretty much all the other Rohmer films I've seen, I adore Perceval beyond all porportions. (Just curious: what do you think of Perceval, Filmbrain?)

Not that, I'd like to note, that I'd inordinantly fond of eye candy or that I'm a particularly big fan of Cinema du Look; I think Truffaut and Godard (in some films) also fall in this category of directors who express themselves more through the special langauge of film than through reams of witty and intellectual dialogue, and they're all the better for it.

(Here's hoping all of the above made sense, and that I don't seem to be one of those completely hopeless people who harrangue on and on about how much they hate having to "read a movie". Gah.)

[colinr]

Can I warn you away from making La Collectioneuse your next Rohmer then! Though the other moral tales are perhaps more accessible.

I usually think of Rohmer's characters as being little more than cyphers for the exploration of the themes (or of showing different facets of those themes, which makes the Six Moral Tales or the Four Seasons films even more powerful when viewed together) than fully rounded characters particularly. In fact the characters that people find they have much more affinity with, such as the protagonists of Claire's Knee or Love In The Afternoon, might suggest more about the viewer in the questioning of what may makes us accept them as more approachable characters than those in La Collectioneuse?

[Israel Vonseeger]

His films are usually pretty boring. They lack that spark that his New Wave counterparts had in bulk. The main problem I think is that his films are so dependent on the characters' charm so if you find them annoying then that's that. My favorite Rohmer film is "Autumn Tale," it has a certain languor to it that's very pleasant. Also, I don't know why "My Night at Mauds" is so celebrated, it was pretty dull.

[Filmbrain]

Sergio -- That's an interesting comment, and something I'll keep in mind. But what exactly does that say about his characters? Are they hypocrites, or simply self-delusional?

Tom -- I love Eustache, who's certainly no stranger to dialog heavy films. Why do I loveThe Mother and the Whore so much, but not Rohmer's similar films? Closer inspection is required.

It's interesting that you mention Perceval, for that and The Marquise of O (made back to back, by the way) are the two best films that I've seen by him.

Colin -- Of course you're suggestion to avoid La Collectioneuse is going to drive me right to it. I like the idea of characters as cyphers, but again I think there's a way to achieve the same effect which allows for a greater balance of the human along with being manifestations of the theme(s).

Israel -- I disagree about the boredom, but am with you on the charm front -- I've yet to be charmed by any of his characters.

[Glenn Kenny]

I think part of the problem, dahling, is that you're proceeding from a fallacious presumption. That is, the idea that Rohmer's characters are always supposed to be charming, or smart. Not so. The theological discussions in "My Night At Maud's" are one thing, but Gilbert Adair is right on the money when he points out that much of what the New York cinephiles of the '70s and '80s cited as Rohmer's "delightful," "sophisticated" dialogue was just a lot of dippy twaddle. Of particular note are the narcissistic ravings of Arielle Dombassle's Marian in Rohmer's "Pauline at the Beach"—she's even more insufferable than Diane Keaton's Mary Wilkie in "Manhattan"...and she stays that way. Rohmer's characters, in expressing their philosophies—regardless of whether those philosophies are inane, banal, or profoundly nuanced—almost invariably talk themselves into corners, which is where the dramtaic conflict, such as it is, comes in. It should also be noted that not all Rohmer is created equal. "Summer's Tale" isn't "Pauline" isn't "Maud's". And Rohmer's irony can be so delicate that even HE misses it, as it were—which happens quite a bit in the later films. I think he must have sensed that, since after the seasonal tales he radically changed modes and didn't look back—see his last three films.

One of the great vindications of the idea of Rohmer as a remarkable VISUAL storyteller is, of course, "L'Amour L'Apres-midi," which I think we've discussed before. "La Collectioneuse" is pretty funny when considered a borderline reactionary rejoinder to the '60s counterculture.

[Filmbrain]

Glenn -- Yet unlike Keaton in Manhattan, there's nothing in Rohmer's films that would indicate that what his characters are going on (and on) about is twaddle. If you were taking a walk with a friend, and (s)he started pontificating in Rohmeresque fashion, you'd no doubt utter a "what you say?" or at least raise an eyebrow. Yet his characters seem to feed off each other in this regard. (All your irony are belong to us?) What I like so much about Hong Sang-soo's films is that his characters usually end up quite a few notches below where they began -- they get called out on their bullshit, and usually suffer as a result.

While it's true that Poupard's over-thinking in Summer's Tale results in him (nearly) screwing up three relationships, I fail to see any response (or change) in the characters themselves. I'll admit that the punchline in Summer's Tale is amusing (to hell with these women, I'm getting a new tape recorder!), the journey there hardly seems worth it.

What is wrong with me?

[colinr]

It could also be that we get so closely tied in to the worldview of the main characters that events get blown out of proportion by that perspective. Perhaps the anti-climactic aspect of many of the endings in the Moral Tales is a case of the less overblown 'reality' asserting itself, or of the protagonist's worldview being shown to be a little extreme. Mostly in the Moral Tales this is showing women through our main man's eyes, projected onto both positively and negatively, variously described as everything from angelic and pure to sluttish and manipulating.

I like to think that the Moral Tales (sorry to keep talking just about this series, it is only because they are fresher in my mind having seen them more recently) are showing the benefits of a moral code (either religious, practical or a more philosophical approach to life) for organising individual's lives, yet is also suggesting that it is dangerous to go around applying your morals onto other people's actions to idolise/demonise them. In that sense La Collectioneuse and Suzanne's Career are the films in that series which provide the bitter edge to the lighter and more audience-friendly films like Claire's Knee or My Night At Mauds.

[wells]

I'm with Glenn on this one. I think part of what makes Rohmer's films so astonishing is their subtlety. Don't get me wrong: I love Hong's (and Eustache's) willingness to, as you say, "[call] characters out on their bullshit." But Rohmer typically leaves this next step up to the viewer, a far more delicate and complex (and, I'd say, rewarding) move, and the one that creates such widespread misunderstanding of his work. (I maintain he's one of the most misunderstood of all filmmakers.) In Renoirian fashion, he clearly both feels affection for his young lovers AND passes judgment on them, but refuses to make any definitive conclusions. Have you seen FULL MOON IN PARIS, FB? Because while Rohmer obviously sympathizes with the romantic plight of Pascale Ogier's Louise, he exposes plenty of that weakness, denial, jealousy, and insecurity you (and I!) crave.

[J. Gibbs]

I think Glenn made some very important points concerning Rohmer. The common characterization of a Rohmer film, as Glenn makes clear (and accurately), is quite different from the films themselves. This idea of "charm" or how someone above said if you find the characters annoying, that's that, seems to overlook much of what Rohmer is doing in his films. It is not as if he is out to make films with characters people fall in love with, or that he himself is in love with (this is not to say his characters are abhorant or any opposite view). This has much to do with the irony present in his films and corresponds as well to your comparison with Hong Sang-soo. There is a very strong level or irony in Rohmer's films but it is not a cruel, mocking or condescending irony. It is not one in which the director at the end proves his point in the machinations of the characters or in a sense stands above them pointing out their delusions through a heavy handed irony. I would argue his characters remain human always and this is a fundamental point. Perhaps it is more W.M. Spackman (or maybe even something of some Queneau novels) irony than that of Flaubert.

There is a similar argument often offered as well, as Tom does above, "directors who express themselves more through the special langauge of film than through reams of witty and intellectual dialogue..." I have always found Rohmer to be an exceptional director, and while his films are not f the same style as Godard or Truffaut's, he certainly expresses himself "through the special anguage of film." His use of the sound and image tracks is exemplary and his shots and editing (and he has had excellent editors on many of his films), while perhaps appearing "simple", are very much "filmic" in their elaboration and expression of ideas, emotions, etc. They may not have the "flash" of Truffaut or 60's Godard, to use two examples you cite, but I would hesitate to say they are any less cinematic in their expression.

The similarities between The Mother and the Whore (Eustache being another favorite of mine) and Rohmer are pretty slight outside of all the talking. Perhaps Mes Petites Amoureuses or Santa Clause Has Blue Eyes veer slightly more towards Rohmer, but still not much. Rivette's L'Amour Fou seems to be more of an influence.

There is a difference between The Moral Tales and The Comedies and Proverbs in their use of narrative point of view, amongst other things, and the way he utilizes irony in these series is different, yet it remains of a similar type.

Perhaps Rohmer himself knows better than any of us, as what is the proverb of Pauline a la Plage? "He who talks too much will damage himself"

[Tom Russell]

Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Wells, you both make very good points, and between the two of you, I just might have been persuaded to give M. Rohmer another look-see myself...

And I don't mean to imply that directors who are less flashy are any less filmic (indeed, excessive flash often turns me off completely); a number of my favourite filmmakers eschew any sort of flash-- Ozu, of course, leaps immediately to mind. And I'm not saying, necessarily, that directors who are more "filmic" are necessarily better than those whose films are more dialogue-driven; only that, when it comes to foreign language films, I tend to be drawn to and get more out of the former.

As for the other pointI'm all for subtlety and for not having judgements beaten into my brain during the final reel-- but, insofar, with the Rohmer I have experienced (Perceval aside), I find myself completely missing the irony. Colincr says above that he finds Rohmer's characters as little more than ciphers with which to explore themes-- and that very quality is something that's always turned me off personally. (One reason why I hated Kiarostami's "Taste of Cherry"; that's probably more than enough to get me kicked off the island on Survivor: Arthouse Moviegoer, isn't it?)

But. As I said three paragraphs ago, I am persuaded to give Rohmer's work another look and may do so soon...

(Filmbrain-- don't suppose you'd like to do a blogpost/start a discussion thread/meme/whatever about "Great Directors You've Never Really 'Got'"? Could be fun.)

[sergio]

Both, like everybody else. It’s no that simple, be this or that, and so tell us Rohmer’s films where in the big theatrum mundi subjective conditions imposed are objectively impossible to reach. So lots of blah blah blat but at the end they’re just puppets. In the hands of destiny? I shouldn’t say so. For an accurate illustration on this point look the historical movies. There are not the one character’s pretensions or the game (at the end all relationships are a mere game, a masks one) started by one of them (usually the engine of all of his stories) who puts everyone (of course in a moral sense) in its place. History does. But I'm getting to a conclusion when at first i just wanted to make a suggestion for further viewings. Your fault man!

[jake]

the painfully unsubtle mess that is Afterschool...

I have an inkling that Afterschool isn't the incisive state of the union address some viewers make it out to be (how can any high school drama that touches on their era's worries like a Lifetime channel movie be such a thing?). I haven't seen it (and should reserve my judgment instead of basing it on the trailers and clips) but I look forward to your take (if you plan on giving one.)

[PaulJBis]

Sergio, wells and Mr. Kenny have already made pretty much the same points I was going to make (i.e., don't confuse the characters' "philosophies" with Rohmer's; don't trust what they say, but what they *do*, etc.), so I'll instead get to another of your comments, which is the idea that two twentysomethings chatting about intellectual subjects (or in an intellectual way) is unrealistic. I couldn't disagree more: in fact, when I first discovered Rohmer, one of my favorite things about him was the fact that his dialogues weren't "movie-like": the characters talk in the same style than in real life, including the overly intellectual parts (the ones which would have been cut in a Hollywood screenplay for being "pretentious"). In the real world people talk about all kinds of subjects, deep and banal, and Rohmer shows us both. And I've certainly had my share of serious intellectual conversations with my friends in my 20s.

Of course, perhaps (smugness from here on; sorry) this is just an european thing. If american 20-somethings are like the ones I see in "MTV Spring Break", then I can certainly understand why you'd find it unrealistic to have them having any deep conversations about... well, anything. (At least you'll notice that I haven't used the name "Bush" anywhere in this comment).

[Antonio]

Regarding "intellectual" conversation, take a look at the characters played Marie Riviere, particularly in The Green Ray and The Aviators Wife. They are hardly such a thing.

[MovieMan0283]

Filmbrain, what's your take on the Six Moral Tales? I haven't seen any of Rohmer's other movies, but these films - particularly My Night at Maude's and Claire's Knee are among my all-time favorites. Not movies I merely respect and admire, but movies I adore. And both are gorgeous to look at, too.

I concur with Glenn though I don't think it's just a matter of separating the character's philosophies from the director's. Oftentimes, the character's philosophies are at odds with their own actions, as someone else suggested. And the films not only have an intellectual aura, but a sensual one, which thickens the subtle tension Rohmer has already been building up through the dialogue, action, and story structure.

I have to say that personally I actually prefer Rohmer to Truffaut - along with Godard and Rivette he is probably one of my three favorite French directors.

Also, on another note, I have compiled a list of all the Holy Grail films, including your own, with links to all the blogs that participated, including your own. It's worth checking out; it introduced me to a lot of other blogs (not to mention movies) I probably wouldn't have discovered otherwise.

You can see it here:

http://thedancingimage.blogspot.com/2008/09/finding-holy-grail.html

[burritoboy]

"I concur with Glenn though I don't think it's just a matter of separating the character's philosophies from the director's. Oftentimes, the character's philosophies are at odds with their own actions, as someone else suggested. And the films not only have an intellectual aura, but a sensual one, which thickens the subtle tension Rohmer has already been building up through the dialogue, action, and story structure."

I would argue that Rohmer could possibly be approached as something analogous to a Socratic dialogue. Of course, not only do Rohmer's characters talk philosophy and about major philosophers (and sometimes are professional or amateur scholars of philosophy), Rohmer himself was a philosophy teacher. More importantly, many symbols and themes of Platonic / Socratic philosophy are referred to within Rohmer's movies: the importance of the dialogue in the enclosed garden (the setting of many Platonic dialogues, Thomas More's Utopia and Machiavelli's The Art of War), the theme of the wise man advising the foolish statesman in Triple Agent, some of the movies are structured somewhat like the longer Platonic dialogues, the theme of Ibn Bajjah's wise man in the unwise city in Triple Agent, the alcohol fueled dialogues becoming erotically charged late into the night a la Plato's Symposium and so on.

[Gomez]

Hi..
He one that creates such widespread misunderstanding of his work.In Renoirian fashion, he clearly both feels affection for his young lovers AND passes judgment on them,This idea of "charm" or how someone above said if you find the characters annoying,finally they say there are any less cinematic in their expression.
----------------------------
Gomez
Sreevys corp