JEANNETTE: THE CHILDHOOD OF JOAN OF ARC

Somewhere between Camille Claudel, 1915 & Li’l Quinquin is where Bruno Dumont found his (new) stride. I don’t mean to sound condescending as if he’s some up-and-coming filmmaker that’s “finding himself”. I’ve been a Dumont fan since day one (The Life Of Jesus). But these last few years have been exceptional. His style has always been an acquired taste but in recent years he’s added a few ingredients to his work that might make him slightly more appealing to others. Dumont’s mixture of established actors (most notably Juliette Binoche) alongside unpolished/non-professional child actors seems to be a working formula for the French director (Dumont worked with primarily all non-professional actors for the first half of his career). I used to think Binoche was his key winning ingredient in recent years but Jeannette, The Childhood Of Joan Of Arc disproves that theory. Dumont’s latest film, about the early years of Joan Of Arc, works without the presence of recent Bruno Dumont regular; Binoche. Jeannette works - and forgive me for sounding so cliché – because it breaks a lot of conventions that come along with a “biopic”. Those of you familiar with Bruno Dumont should know that rule breaking comes with the territory. In both Slack Bay & L’Humanite we see our respective protagonists levitate for no reason. At the end of Towards Satan, we witness an unexpected resurrection. And the entire Li’l Quinquin series comes off like an even more random (French) version of Twin Peaks. Randomness & surreality are nothing new within the cinematic universe of Dumont. But this young Joan Of Arc movie is a musical. A period musical with modern songs. At random moments our characters break out in to aggressive heavy metal & punk rock-inspired melodies accompanied with interpretive dance moves (there’s even some head-banging). Then suddenly the music transitions to a more classical/folk genre (and in between the song & dance we have moments of traditional dialogue. But not much). That may sound a little bonkers to some of you (and it kind of is), but it’s the good kind of bonkers.

After two decades of strange/surreal/unconventional filmmaking - what else was there for Bruno Dumont to do? A lot of directors with distinct styles start to imitate themselves after a while and I get the feeling that Dumont didn’t want to fall in to that trap. He stepped outside of his comfort zone with this one. Not only is the singing sometimes off key but it is occasionally off beat. But that’s kind of the point. The approach is raw much like the spirit & performances of our young actresses who portray young Jeannette.


The physicality in Jeannette is reminiscent of The Exorcist...

to The Devils...

and even Wayne's World...

How many films do we already have about Joan Of Arc? Quite a few. How many known/legendary filmmakers have touched this subject matter? Carl Theodore Dreyer, Robert Bresson, Luc Besson, etc. Do we need another take on Joan Of Arc? Or rather - do we need another “traditional” take on Joan Of Arc? Nope.

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc / Jeannette
(a possible reference?)

Actually, the entire film has a Carl Theodore Dreyer vibe...

Ordet / Jeannette...

Jeannette, The Childhood Of Joan Of Arc is far from traditional. This film follows down the same path as works like Walker, Marie Antoinette (2006), Zama & Swoon in that the story mixes modern elements with dated/historic elements and has an overall (intentionally) “off” feel. In Walker, we see helicopters and automatic assault rifles. Zama looks fairly traditional but the warped ambient electronic score gives it a modern touch. And both Swoon & Marie Antoinette feature lots of modern elements like rotary phones & basketball sneakers long before any of those items would have been invented.

In Jeannette, The Childhood Of Joan Of Arc, we follow our future heroine (at two different early stages/chapters in life) as she contemplates everything from her existence on earth to the necessity of war (part of this film’s charm is watching children/youth talk about subject matter that most people would associate with adults).


At this point we know the popular story of Joan Of Arc (maybe not her youth so much but still). If you’re going to approach her life on film at this point in the game you’d better put a fresh spin on it. And given that this is essentially an “origin story”, you’d better put an even bigger spin on this as to not blend in with a million other movies. Ever since Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins, origin stories have been all the craze in cinema for well over a decade. And this branches off beyond superhero/comic book-based films. A few years ago, Terrence Malick protégé; AJ Edwards made an Abraham Lincoln origin story (The Better Angels) while just last year Terence Davies showed us the early part of Emily Dickinson’s life in the first 1/4 of A Quiet Passion (Jeannette kind of borrows a bit of its approach from A Quite Passion in that it's told in two different sections). Rather than follow down the same lane as the aforementioned period dramas (which are both good/solid in their own right), Bruno Dumont went completely out of the box (and out of his comfort zone) and made an unconventional biopic that may not be for everyone (I’m sure some history buffs will consider this to be silly and possibly blasphemous), but I’m sure cinephiles with a taste for all things odd/different will enjoy it very much.

Bruno Dumont saved us years of re-hashed subject matter & redundant biopics and got right down to the deconstruction of what a biopic/origin story can be. This is one of those films that I cant exactly defend if one were to express their distaste. I get it. But Bruno Dumont swung for the fences, and, in my opinion, he pretty much hit a homerun as far as I’m concerned. Jeannette is a breath of fresh air in a sea of run of the mill biopics.

MY EDITORIAL ON STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON FOR CUTPRINTFILM

Check out my latest editorial on F. Gary Gray's Straight Outta Compton for Cutprintfilm or read the text below. Enjoy...

It’s the opening weekend for F. Gary Gray’s Straight Outta Compton, and I have a lot of mixed feelings swirling around in my head after watching it. I’m reading all these in-depth reviews written by critics with little-to-no basic knowledge of hip-hop culture and that bothers me. Don’t get me wrong – anyone should be able to write about and have an opinion on any movie. But to a guy like me (a film critic with an extensive knowledge of hip-hop history) it’s a little strange reading a review written by a guy who probably never owned an actual NWA album or truly knows the impact that hip-hop’s first true “super group” had on not only west coast rap music, but hip-hop culture as a whole (whether you’re a fan or not this fact is undeniable). I also envision quite a few critics watching this with ironic smirks on their faces, as the subject matter in Straight Outta Compton is so far removed from anything they know that it comes off more like a really long SNL sketch instead of an actual movie. So how can these critics truly understand and appreciate a movie like this? I know there’s more that goes into critiquing a musical than just knowledge of the particular music scene at hand, but it still counts for something and makes for a better understanding. I also need to accept the fact that not all hip-hop films are made for people like me but rather casual viewers who don’t have all the nerdy inside knowledge that I do.


But at the same time, Straight Outta Compton isn’t a movie I really want to defend that much or go to bat for too hard, plus it’s doing just fine at the box office so it doesn’t need my defense. I’m a hip-hop nerd but I’ve never been a die-hard NWA fan. I certainly recognize and respect their iconic status and the artistry that went into their overall sound, but I also believe they’re heavily responsible for certain negative stereotypes that still plague some rappers today.

Straight Outta Compton chronicles the history of legendary rap group NWA along with the solo careers of Dr. Dre, Ice Cube and Eazy-E (NWA members MC Ren and DJ Yella kind of play the background for the most part). Straight Outta Compton is energetic, Oshea Jackson Jr. does a fine job portraying his father Ice Cube (not since Geraldine Chaplin played her grandmother in Chaplin have I seen an actor portray a direct family member so well in a movie), Jason Mitchell shines as Eazy-E, Paul Giamatti does his best Paul Giamatti impression, and F. Gary Gray tips his hat to the next generation of rap music that came after NWA (Straight Outta Compton makes it a point to show a young Warren G and Snoop Doggy Dog as key background players).

The representation of west coast hip-hop in Straight Outta Compton is very important, as most prominent hip-hop films focus on legendary east coast/NYC figures like Nas (Time Is Illmatic), Grandmaster Flash (Wild Style), Rock Steady Crew (Style Wars), A Tribe Called Quest (Beats, Rhymes and Life) and The Notorious B.I.G. (Notorious). It’s cool that audiences are getting a light history lesson on the west coast hip-hop scene whether they realize it or not. I only hope people go home and google other west coast legends like Arabian Prince, Egyptian Lover, Joe Cooley, DJ Quik and Aladdin after watching this.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – I’m glad hip-hop on the big screen has finally started to push forward and move beyond subjects like Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G. (although the history of NWA does tie in to Tupac as Death Row records, Tupac’s former record label, kind of came about from NWA’s demise). Straight Outta Compton whets the appetite of a guy like me. Having watched it I now want films about Public Enemy, Wu-Tang, De La Soul and more. These things all seem a little more attainable now thanks to Straight Outta Compton, Time Is Illmatic, Beats Rhymes and Life and even Top Five (say what you want but Chris Rock really went out of his way to incorporate classic hip-hop into the fabric of that movie). And I’d be remiss not to mention my friend Mtume Gant’s short film S.P.I.T. as an even more ambitious example of good hip-hop on the big screen due to the fact that it takes a more abstract stance on the subject.

On a side note - I always found it strange that Penelope Spheris never tried to make a hip-hop chapter in her Decline Of The Western Civilization series. West coast hip-hop was just as prevalent in Los Angeles during the time she was documenting all those other LA-based music scenes. I’m not saying she would have made a great film or anything like that but it would have certainly been ahead of its time...

It’s also nice to see F. Gary Gray in the spotlight again, this being his first film in six years. His presence in the movie industry has always been hard to pin down. Although his work chronicles Los Angeles, he’s never mentioned alongside other LA-based filmmakers like Tarantino, PT Anderson and Robert Altman. He’s a prominent black filmmaker yet he’s never been grouped in with the likes of Spike Lee, John Singleton, Ernest Dickerson, Robert Townsend, Bill Duke or The Hudlin Brothers. He’s always had to make his own path. Given Gray’s filmography and preexisting relationships with Dr. Dre, Ice Cube and Paul Giamatti, I honestly can’t think of anyone else that could’ve pull off something like Straight Outta Compton.

It takes a lot for me to give Straight Outta Compton any credit as I wasn’t expecting much. I had no immediate plans to see this until I was tapped to write an editorial for CutPrintFilm. I just didn’t think the story of NWA could fit the mold of a studio film. I still don’t think this was a completely successful movie but I was pleasantly surprised at how entertained I was. I’m also glad this clocked in at almost 2-1/2 hours. NWA’s story is too layered for a 105 minute movie (although I will say a lot of the content in this movie can be attained by a quick Wikipedia search and watching the Dr. Dre episode of VH1’s behind the music).

I absolutely prejudged this movie before seeing it and quite honestly a few of my prejudgments were on point. With Ice Cube and Dr. Dre acting as producers, I knew Straight Outta Compton would make them out to be way more awesome than they really are. Again – Dre and Cube are legends but at no point in the 147 minutes of the movie did F. Gary Gray address Ice Cube’s anti-Korean and Black separatist lyrics (he touches on Ice Cube’s anti-Semitic lyrics in one quick scene but that’s about it). And of course we don’t see Dr. Dre’s assault on Dee Barnes. But for some reason the movie had no problem showing Eazy-E as the shady guy he sometimes was.

I’m a little surprised at some of the historical inaccuracies and omissions in this movie given how close Ice Cube and Dr. Dre worked with F. Gary Gray. For example – there’s a scene in the first act where NWA is harassed outside of their studio for no reason. This encounter inspires them to write the famous song “Fuck The Police”. In reality, NWA wrote that song after they were stopped by the police for shooting off paintball guns at innocent bystanders on the street. And I know MC Ren isn’t as popular as some of the other members in NWA but you’d think someone might want to address the fact that he was one of the music artists to go platinum off an EP!
(the film also places the beating of Eazy-E, which ultimately led to the release of Dr. Dre from his ruthless records contract, ALL on Suge Knight as if Dr. Dre had nothing to do with it)

My insecurity does kick in and I get a little weary of large audiences watching a movie like this and getting the wrong idea about rap music and young black men as a whole. Rap music always gets a negative wrap so the last thing we need is to rehash the violent, misogynistic and negative content associated with NWA (I don’t care if I lose cool points for saying that). However, their legacy is based around a lot of positive aspects too (from the song “Express Yourself” to the influence they had on Kendrick Lamar).

At the end of the day Straight Outta Compton was entertaining. There’s no disputing that. But know that this is a movie about NWA, one of the most controversial rap groups of all time, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise to learn that there are some scenes that objectify women — in fact, there isn’t much of a female presence at all besides tour groupies, Eazy-E’s wife and Dr. Dre’s mother. But that was part of their image. I don’t condone any of the negativity associated with NWA but if their legacy bothers you in any way – and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that – stay home.

MR. TURNER

I consider Mike Leigh to be one of the greatest active filmmakers working today (along with Michael Haneke, Claire Denis, Bruno Dumont, Olivier Assayas & Carlos Reygadas) so I had a feeling his latest film Mr. Turner - a bio on the romantic painter JMW Turner, would be great, but I honestly didn’t expect to enjoy it as much as I did. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t really know much about classic art. I was worried I wouldn’t fully appreciate Leigh’s film due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

I remember sitting in a sold out theater at the Film Forum a few years back watching Todd Haynes’ I’m Not There and feeling left out because I knew absolutely nothing about Bob Dylan (I didn't get the humor or any of the inside Dylan references) and I couldn’t fully appreciate a film that was directed by one of my favorite filmmakers (I consider Safe & Poison to be two of the greatest modern films ever made). This bugged me. I knew most of these Bob Dylan fans I was surrounded by weren’t familiar with Safe or Poison. They didn’t earn the right to enjoy Haynes’ work if I couldn’t. I know that sounds elitist & selfish, but that's how cinephiles get sometimes (I'm also an only child, so sharing doesn't always come easy to me).

Ever since Secrets & Lies, Leigh’s work has quietly “crossed over” into mainstream cinema without any compromise of style or subject matter. With the exception of All Or Nothing & Another Year, every post-Naked Mike Leigh film has been nominated for some kind of mainstream/”major” English-speaking movie award (Oscars, Golden Globes, etc). Movie awards mean very little but at the same time they do, to a certain extent, represent the fact that a film has kind of reached a wider audience. These days, by the time most great modern art-house filmmakers gain any kind of mild mainstream attention (Haneke/Amour, Lars Von Trier/Nymphomaniac, Todd Haynes/I’m Not There, Olivier Assayas/Carlos, Leigh/Vera Drake, etc) their earlier work (which is usually better) still goes unseen, which brings on a lot of resentment inside of me because I have to share one of my favorite filmmakers with a bunch of newcomers who not only suddenly think they know something about film simply because they’ve seen Vera Drake (Leigh), but put no effort into seeking out their earlier work.

I didn’t want a repeat of I’m Not There. I wanted to be prepared for Mr. Turner so much that prior to seeing it, courtesy of a sneak preview at The Museum Of The Moving Image, I looked past the simple Wikipedia bio and sought out a book on JMW Turner’s life ("JMW Turner: A Bio") months before seeing Leigh's film. I didn’t doubt that Mike Leigh would leave things out or misrepresent the life of JMW Turner - I just wanted to be a little more knowledgeable on the subject.
Now...did reading the JMW Turner biography enhance my viewing experience of Mr. Turner? Not really. I'm still not even that crazy about classic art (although I've always appreciated & respected the craft). But that's a good thing. It speaks volumes about a period film when you can truly enjoy it without having to know any kind of history or back story.

Like Bird, Ali, Che,& Camille Claudel 1915 (pictured clockwise above) and a small handful of other semi-recent biopics, Mr. Turner is successful because it doesn’t try to cram an entire lifetime into one film (Mr. Turner makes up for the mild disapointment that was Abel Ferrara's Pasolini, which did follow the same format as other good biopics but came out feeling a little flat & underwhelming). To this day, certain specifics are unknown about the early life of JMW Turner. There is no confirmed birthdate listed, his early paintings don't have any specific dates and certain facts about his family are a little cloudy. Delving in to this part of his life would only lead to speculation on Leigh's part. Instead, Leigh focuses on the latter part of Turner’s life where he deals with the death of his father (whom Turner was not only very close too, but also served as his studio assistant). We also see JMW Turner fall in love as well as battle depression and harsh critics of his art (Leigh leaves out his drug use, grazes over/lightly touches on the fact that he probably fathered two daughters that he clearly didn't care about, and does speculate/get liberal with a few small facts here & there).
Mr. Turner is also a success because it paints a complex portrait of the artist. Instead of making him out as this incredibly wonderful human being that's dedicated to his art, the film shows him as a frustrating and kinda grumpy person (Timothy Spall plays the title character with a distinctive grunt). But I think it's been documented at this point that a lot of talented/brilliant/geinous artists, from Miles Davis to John Cassavetes (and everyone in between), straddled the line between pleasant & unpleasant.

Leigh’s exploration of JMW Turner and his art reminded me of Peter Greenaway’s exploration of "the frustrated architect" in The Belly Of An Architect (complicated, angry, happy, sad, frustrated, etc).
And like Greenaway did with the architecture in his films, Leigh represents Turner's art in a respectful & organic way...

However, Mr. Turner is not a reflection of Leigh's own life in the way that The Belly Of An Architect kind of was/is for Greenaway (although there is a scene in Mr. Turner that, just like in Chef, is clearly a jab at critics that has to represent Leigh's own personal view of some critics).

And I know this sounds a little cliché but certain shots in the film (courtesy of Leigh cinematographer Dick Pope) look like the kind of landscape paintings that Turner would paint...

The cinematography in Mr. Turner (which is bound to be downplayed & overshadowed by the bells & whistles of the camerawork in Birdman & Interstellar) is probably my favorite thing about the film next to Spall’s lead performance (probably the best thing he’s done since All Or Nothing). Besides Vera Drake & Topsy-Turvy (which Mr. Turner is closest too in terms of tone), Leigh has never done a period movie. Mr. Turner is, in my opinion, the first Leigh film to be shot the way it was (rich colors, beautiful landscapes, etc). It’s pretty great to see a veteran like Mike Leigh step outside of his comfort zone and try something new (…and succeed at it).
The film is unique in that it's bound to attract post-Vera Drake Leigh fans (who for whatever reason feel as if they're aficionados of his work because they've seen that & Happy-Go Lucky), but it'll also please all the diehard fans as the film fits in perfectly with the rest of Leigh's work and features plenty of his regulars (in front of & behind the camera) like Timothy Spall, Shirley Manville, Ruth Sheen & Dick Pope.

TIFF '14 HIGHLIGHT #2: PASOLINI

Not many cinephiles had the same level of anticipation as I did for Abel Ferrara's latest film on the final 24 hours in the life of Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini. I say this because over four years ago I happened to be in Ferrara's presence (at an intimate Q&A at Anthology Film Archives) when he announced that he was going to make this, so it's kind of cool to finally see it come to life after hearing about it in it's infancy stage so long ago. I'm not even that big a fan of Pasolini's work to be honest (although I do recognize his iconic status and I can hold a conversation about his movies beyond how disturbing Salo is).

I also bumped in to Pasolini star Willem Dafoe at the movies earlier this year just days after blogging about the first set of stills that emerged from the film...

For years I've been a huge cheerleader for biopics/true stories that only cover a short specific time period, rather than an entire life span. It's too much to try and cover someones life & accomplishments in +/- two hours. When Ferrara first spoke about doing this, he was very vague. "I'm doin' a movie on Pasolini next" he said to us, which did sound intriguing. Pasolini was an interesting character (he was openly gay during a time when it was still considered a lot more "controversial" to be openly gay, and his strong left-leaning political views got him in to trouble from time to time) and the circumstances surrounding his death (he was run over with his own car) are pretty shady to this day. Some believe he was killed because he made the controversial film; Salo (a pretty disturbing movie, based on a book, concerning religious figures who torture young children), while others think his death had to do with his ties to the communist party (none of these theories are speculated or hinted at in this film). But once I discovered Ferrara was only going to focus on his last 24 hours I was super stoked. Not only do I dislike most biopics that cover someones entire life, but I also dislike films that always focus on the same three or four people (again - how many more movies can directors honestly make on Muhammad Ali and/or Bob Dylan?).

Dafoe as Pier Pasolini / Pasolini in real life

It makes sense that Abel Ferrara would do a movie on Pasolini. Both filmmakers were/are tortured artists to a certain degree; they both have roots in Italian culture (Pasolini being from Italy while Ferrara is Italian American with a body of work that often explores both Italian & Italian-American culture). Catholicism also plays a major role in their work.
This isn't the first time Abel has done a film about "the tortured director" either. Dangerous Game & Mary, where Harvey Keitel & Mathew Modine play eccentric directors/semi-autobiographical on-screen personas of Ferrara respectively, explored a lot of the same themes as Pasolini.
Unfortunately, Pasolini just isn't as good as the aforementioned films. This was yet another case of me setting my expectations way too high for something that turned out to be just "ok" (if you're expectations aren't that high to begin with, you'll probably enjoy this a little more than I did).

Please understand that this movie is by no means "bad". It just could have been a lot better. Pasolini is definitely this years' The Place Beyond The Pines in that it's a good disappointing movie. It's still fresh in my mind and I'm a little clouded by the unexpected disappointment of it all so it's hard to focus on the good qualities like: Pasolini's death scene and certain isolated shots of Rome that look absolutely beautiful. I also liked that there wasn't a big supporting cast and that the movie was pretty short and didn't try to be some three hour long epic (Pasolini clocks in at around 80-something minutes). It's like Ferrara ignored the few super lengthy modern biopics/true stories that actually worked (Ali, Malcolm X, etc) and he just did his own thing, which is something that "mavericks" like Ferrara often do. Pasolini is also the furthest thing from his more popular/known films like The King Of New York or Ms. 45 which people still almost exclusively mention over his rather large body of work that explores almost every genre ranging from science fiction to melodrama and everything in between.

But there's just as many problematic things to pick at with Pasolini: the storytelling is a little sloppy, some parts are just weirdly chaotic, certain scenes are overly sexualized when they don't need to be and the use of subtitles is inconsistent at best. I mean seriously - it's as if Abel Ferrara assumed at random points that everyone watching the movie suddenly understood Italian and the film went on for minutes at a time without any subtitles so I had no idea what was being said between the supporting actors. I say supporting actors because Willem Dafoe never really needed any subtitles as he spoke English in his normal American voice throughout the large majority of the film (Pier Pasolini was an Italian who spoke Italian as his first language if you haven't picked up on that). I guess I should have expected this. I wouldn't think Willem Dafoe would learn fluent Italian for this one role, but I find it funny how everyone else in this move was Italian yet the main actor (who was portraying an Italian person) sounded American. We gave Kevin Costner shit for not speaking in an English accent for that Robin Hood movie when everyone else did (even Christian Slater) yet Willem Dafoe essentially does the same thing and no one seems to have a problem with it. I love Dafoe to death and he was really good in this (I'm tired of seeing him always play some supporting role in a movie that's beneath him) but maybe it would have made more sense to cast an Italian actor. Unfortunately there are no Italian actors who could draw or get financing like Dafoe.

But that gripe is minor when compared to the other issues I listed (everyone from Polanski to Bertolucci has used multilingual casts in the same fashion so I guess it's not that big of a deal). 

I still recommend that anyone who loves the non-traditional/gangster work of Abel Ferrara (or Pasolini) see this. Just don't expect to be blown away...

CAMILLE CLAUDEL, 1915

Minutes in to Camille Claudel, 1915 - Bruno Dumont's new film about the famous French sculptor's battle with depression & mental illness, we're made to feel uncomfortable & uneasy. The entire film takes place inside of an old asylum and instead of using trained actors to play the residence of the asylum (with the obvious exception of Juliette Binoche & Jean-Luc Vincent) Dumont uses actors with real physical or developmental disabilities. Just about every Bruno Dumont film is made up of non-professional actors but this was a little different. Camille Claudel was almost ruined by the audience I saw it with because they only knew how to express their discomfort towards the scenes that highlight the disabled actors by laughing. I'm still not quite sure what the audience was laughing at. So Bruno Dumont used a lot of continuous polarizing/hypnotic shots that lingered on the faces of the disabled co-stars. And? What exactly was so funny? I immediately felt that same discomfort from when I saw Manderlay in an audience full of laughter (again...not quite sure what was so hilarious with that movie either). Not that Manderlay is worthy of that much defense but still...I'm baffled why so many audience members were laughing at a film rooted in slavery. Bruno Dumont is a provocative (sometimes pretentious) filmmaker but I refuse to believe that part of his goal in making Camille Claudel, 1915 was to have us laugh at disabled people. I can’t believe that. What I can believe is that Dumont was trying to challenge audiences in some way but he took it a little too far without meaning to. Critics felt Bruno Dumont was being exploitative. I understand the need for authenticity in film (especially in a film that's based on a true story). Why hire actors who end up giving a poor & insulting performance as a person with physical or developmental disabilities? Remember how enraged you felt watching Adrien Brody in The Village or Cuba Gooding Jr. in Radio? What's wrong with using an actor whose physically or developmentally disabled? Its been done before by filmmakers like; John Cassavetes (A Child Is Waiting), Harmony Korine (Gummo) & Crispin Glover (What Is It?) yet every time it happens, the subject of exploitation comes up (which is understandable in some cases).

Like any Bruno Dumont film, I'm conflicted. I enjoyed Camille Claudel, 1915 very very much but unfortunately I see where are a lot of critics are coming from when they accuse him of being exploitative. I don't agree with that at all but I kinda understand how someone could feel that way.
This film actually has me rethinking the early work of Harmony Korine now. I think part of the reason some audiences & critics are reacting the way they are to those scenes in Camille Claudel that highlight the cast members with disabilities is because of previous works like Gummo, Julien Donkey-Boy and other various Korine shorts that some people may or may not have seen (I've been told he has a rare short where it's just him videotaping a girl with downs syndrome in a pool). Korine has since moved on from his style of the 90's. Dare I say he's matured as a filmmaker? But he may have burned a bridge for other filmmakers who may want to explore the subject of mental illness and other disabilities in art films. Nowadays, people cant take that subject matter straight on in the way Dumont presents it. There has to be some kind of artsy or ironic statement behind the presence of a disabled person in an art film.

In the case of using real disabled actors, Camille Claudel, 1915 falls somewhere in between the combination of audiences not being mature enough to deal with it and a director going too far by trying to fight a crusade - the misrepresentation of a group of people who are often overlooked. This film does take place in the early 1900's when the handling of folks with disabilities was pretty archaic & dated (I was reminded of Allan King's Warrendale during certain points). Maybe part of what Dumont was trying to do was shed light on how backwards the health system was in the early 1900's but he just took it a little too far.

Michael Pitt as "Blake" in Gus Van Sant's Last Days (L) / Kurt Cobain (R)

If I had to compare Camille Claudel, 1915 to a particular film in order to give you an idea of what it's like, I guess it's similar to Gus Van Sant's Last Days (I know it's not about Kurt Cobain, but it is about Kurt Cobain). Both films are slow, hypnotic, nature-heavy looks at depressed artists, with only a few brief scenes that highlight the art they create. Instead, the films focus more on the depression that's eating away at these artists. Last Days has a couple of scenes where Blake/Cobain retreats to his music studio to play something but for the most part we get scenes of our depressed main character roaming through the woods or wandering aimlessly through his mansion mumbling to himself. In Dumont's film, there's a few brief moments where Camille/Binoche talks about how she misses her art studio. There's even a scene where she picks up a piece of mud off the ground and tries to sculpt something out of it but eventually gives up (the way in which Camille Claudel breaks down in that scene and throws the mud away kinda reminded me of how Blake/Cobain intentionally brakes the strings off his guitar in the final music scene in Last Days). Camille Claudel, 1915 is a pretty realistic look at depression, how crippling it can be and how it can be triggered from the most unexpected things. Usually in a movie when someone goes in to a depressed mood, they see something obvious that reminds them of a dead relative or some past failure in life. True, these are legitimate reasons for someone to fall in to a depression but sometimes cinema would have you believe those are the only worthy reasons to be depressed. In one scene, Camille/Binoche watches a play rehearsal and as the scene goes on, she slowly breaks down and falls in to a depression. One minute she's smiling and the next minute she's having a crying fit. We later learn that the dialogue in the scene of the play that she was watching triggered memories of a failed relationship she once had. But we don't know that right away. Bruno Dumont wanted to show that depression can be triggered from the most unexpected places.

This is a very drab & depressing film from the subject matter right down to the atmosphere...

I don't know if I'm capable of writing about a modern French film (especially one by Bruno Dumont) without mentioning Robert Bresson's obvious influence. I guess it’s a testament to the fact that he's one of the greatest filmmakers to ever live. It goes without saying that most filmmakers are influenced by each other but in the case of modern European filmmakers like; Bertrand Bonello, Eugene Green, Miguel Gomes, Manuel De Oliviero and Bruno Dumont, the Bresson influence is so strong that you have to mention it. The dry tone and cinematography of Camille Claudel reminded me of a slightly more modern Diary Of Country Priest (with a touch of Maurice Pialat's Under The Sun Of Satan). The nuns who work at the asylum where Camille stays come right out of a Bresson film. 

Performance-wise, there isn’t much Bresson to be found this time around. Because of Dumont's use of non-professional actors, the performances in his films are usually dry, rough and scaled back. There's always the occasional outburst but for the most part, the characters in his films are monotone. But in Camille Claudel there's a lot of emotion in the performances of the actors. Binoche is great as is Jean-Luc Vincent who plays her brother; Paul Claudel. A separate film could have been made about Paul Claudel. There's a section in the film that focuses only on him and we don’t see Camille/Binoche for a good 10-15 minutes. We learn that Paul is not only dangerously religious but he's just as unstable as his sister (he just knows how to hide his madness better). It's good that Bruno Dumont chose to use trained actors for the two main roles this time. He's usually able to get great performances out of people who have never acted in their life before (both lead actors in L'Humanite won best actor & actress at Cannes in 1999 and had no previous acting experience) but I'm pretty sure Dumont knew that an untrained person couldn’t handle the kind of emotions that were required to play Claudel. He still incorporates non-professional actors but only as supporting & background players. 

The last time Bruno Dumont used professional actors was a decade ago in Twenty-nine Palms which was indeed a train-wreck (but the kind of train wreck that should still be seen at least once or twice in your life). But Camille Claudel is nothing like Twenty-nine Palms. Bruno Dumont continues his fascination with isolation, loneliness, religion & characters giving their life to god. The one thing that makes Camille Claudel, 1915 stand out from the other films in his catalogue is that Dumont doesn't explore sex and/or violence this time.
It may take more than one viewing for this film's subtle brilliance to sink in. If you have that kind of patience (the movie is only 97 minutes) then I say give Camille Claudel, 1915 a chance (bear in mind that it's not only very depressing but pretty slow). If you aren't familiar with Bruno Dumont's work, I wouldn't recommend this as an introduction.

Jean- Luc Vincent in a creepily intense performance as Paul Claudel (L) / Camille Claudel Sculpting of Paul Claudel, 1905 (R)

In his own unique way, Bruno Dumont crafts his own Dancer In The Dark-style ending with Camille Claudel. For a moment he gives the audience a glimpse of hope then he quickly takes that it away and the film just ends. Its subtly powerful and a bit of a punch in the gut. Camille Claudel’s history is no secret. All you have to do is google her. Her time spent battling depression & mental illness is documented just as much as her time as a sculptor. But she also isn’t the most world renowned artist either so there’s a chance that audiences (especially American audiences) don’t know how the rest of her life played out (like me) which makes the ending that much more depressing because I had no clue she lived out the rest of her life in asylum.
You can never just simply like a Bruno Dumont film (refer to my write-ups on L'Humanite & Hors Satan). There's always a struggle or some frustration. I'm a fan of his but there's a few films of his that even I don't like (Flanders & Hadewijch). But that's what I love about him. I'm becoming bored with (new) cinema more & more these days. Slightly pretentious or not, Dumont's work is still challenging and often leaves me intrigued, pleasantly confused & wanting to talk. Carlos Reygadas & Claire Denis are the only other filmmakers to consistently get those types of reactions out of me (maybe Apichatpong Weerasethakul but that's it). The only other film this year I found to be as thought provoking as Camille Claudel, 1915 was Hors Satan (also directed by Dumont, but not released in the U.S. until  this year) which makes Bruno Dumont the most intriguing and most frustrating filmmaker of 2013 in my opinion.

12 YEARS A SLAVE

After Hunger & Shame, Steve McQueen became one of my new favorite filmmakers. And I'd be lying if I said a very small part of that had nothing to do with him being black. I don't care, I admit that. But that's something very minor. Steve McQueen could be of any ethnicity and I'd still love his films as long as they continue to come out the way they do (I actually thought he was an Irish guy before I saw a picture of him given his last name and the subject matter of his first film; Hunger - the story of an IRA hunger strike). And I feel I'm allowed that small bit of racial fanboyishness given how much I dismiss the large majority of modern black films & filmmakers these days. But 12 Years A Slave is hardly a "black film". It's an American film. Slavery is a piece of American history (I don't care if the director, along with half the cast, is based out of the UK).
My reaction to most recent films concerning black people is somewhere between a yawn and cynicism that borders on mean spiritedness. Thankfully I've come across so many other people who feel the same way as me so I don't feel so bad. You'd think I'd want nothing to do with a film about slavery because it's such a typical subject. But when you stop and think for a second - there really hasn't been a recent film, good or bad, on the subject of slavery to come out until late last year (please don’t say Manderlay or Confederate States Of America to counter that). I know at first glance a movie about slavery doesn’t exactly sound “new” or progressive but what sets 12 Years A Slave apart from something like Glory or Manderlay is that it’s a personal story. 12 Years A Slave certainly sheds light on slavery as a whole but for the most part it doesn’t try to take on the whole subject in 133 minutes. That’s impossible. This is only about one man which makes McQueen’s take on the subject of slavery slightly different. True, Roots, probably the most iconic representation of Slavery on the small screen, had a central character (“Kunta Kinte”) but the series featured tons of characters that branched off of him and got their own story. McQueen only focuses on Solomon Northup. As long as it's done right, I hope there's more films about slavery made as it can't all be dealt with (and still hasn't been) in one or two movies. It's the recent high profile stories of servitude (The Help & The Butler), the first black person to do something among a sea of evil white people (42 & Red Tails) or the microcosm of the ghetto (Precious) that I feel we've had enough of.

But lemme not get sidetracked. We're supposed to be talking about 12 Years A Slave, right?

In the film, based on the book of the same, Chewital Ejiofor plays "Solomon Northup" - A free black man living in upstate New York whose drugged and eventually kidnapped in to slavery leaving behind his wife & family. 

There seems to be a sudden interest in slavery in cinema all of a sudden. The Rza had a nice little connection/subplot about slavery in The Man With The Iron Fists, I've been told the beginning of The Butler takes place on a plantation, Steven Spielberg recently gave us Lincoln and Quentin Tarantino made Django Unchained which 12 Years A Slave keeps getting compared too. While Django Unchained is a well made movie (minus the two endings and the unnecessary wordiness at times) it's still entertainment. It's cool, fun & action-packed (nothing I associate slavery with, but that's just me). 12 Years A Slave is obviously a movie but it's so far from "entertainment" it's not even funny. Like Abdellatif Kechiche's Black Venus (another recent film with a loose connection to slavery), 12 Years A Slave is great but it's filled with scenes that you just want to end and/or go away because they're so long and tough to sit through. Early on in 12 Years A Slave when Solomon Northup (Chewital Ejiofor) is captured and sold in to slavery, he’s beaten repeatedly with a paddle until it breaks. ...But the scene isn't over (the camera doesn't even cut). The man beating Northrup gets a whip and continues to beat him until you find yourself going; "ENOUGH! OK!" Later on in the film one of the slave owners (played amazingly by Michael Fassbender) has his way with one of the female slaves (once again the scene also has no cuts) and it just becomes beyond uncomfortable and I found myself squirming in my seat. Yes, the reason behind those scenes are to make us feel uncomfortable and horrified (and it certainly succeeded in doing that) but still - that doesn't sound like entertainment, does it?

I remember my anticipation for 12 Years A Slave being indescribable. "This will be Steve McQueen's masterwork" I thought. Then I saw the trailer earlier in the year and I thought "...oh. this isn't exactly what I had in mind." It looked "Hollywood" (sorry to sound like the cliche movie snob). Nowhere in the trailer did I see signs of McQueen's modern style that I love so much. But I quickly remembered that this isn't a modern story so a modern style of filmmaking wasn’t needed. To my surprise, the film is still filled with tons of unconventional shots and strange moments that you wouldn't find in an average historical film/period piece. 12 Years A Slave opens bluntly & abruptly without any grand introduction. And throughout the film theres a few eerie wordless moments of our protagonist (portrayed masterfully by Ejiofor) looking off in to space or intensely zoning out without saying anything. There's also tons of darkly lit shots with minimal movement from the actors in frame which seemed cool & unconventional too (McQueen definitely drew from his photography background for this). So although I didn't get everything I personally wanted in terms of style, McQueen still threw in little things here & there to satisfy. My "favorite" part of the film is the 10-15 minute period from the moment when Solomon Northrup is first loaded on to the slave ship until he reaches his first plantation. It's easily the most (purposely) disorienting experience you'll find in any movie this year outside of Leviathan & Gravity which is a testament to McQueen's directing and the film's editing. Steve McQueen's direction in 12 Years A Slave made me we think of what other modern directors would do with source material set in the 18th or 19th century. Now that Michael Mann has found his groove with new technology & digital filmmaking I'd like him to revisit the time period of The Last Of The Mohicans (not necessarily the same story) to see what that world would look like now. What would a Lodge Kerrigan period drama look like or a Gaspar Noe film set in the 1800's be?

As most of you know, 12 Years A Slave features an all-star cast but in reality a lot of the big names in the film really only have "extended cameos" which I found to be a little distracting at times (especially in the case of Brad Pitt & Michael K Williams). We get this introduction of a particular character played by a familiar face and then minutes later we never see them again. That was just odd to me. But at the same time, this is a sad, dark & horrific film. It may not feature the cinema verite style of a John Cassavetes film but its still real enough (it was real enough that I found myself hating Paul Dano & Michael Fassbender outside of the evil characters they played in the film). Maybe we needed the occasional extended cameo from Paul Giamatti or Brad Pitt to make us all feel safe and to remind us that 12 Years A Slave is just a movie. 

I’m apprehensive to give ANY criticism of 12 Years A Slave. Much like Gravity, people are treating it like it’s beyond criticism but there are a few things that could have been done a little better. I don’t mean to harp on the bad stuff so much because at the end of the day 12 Years A Slave is pretty exceptional. But I really found Brad Pitt’s presence to be strange. It’s like he was just playing himself. *SPOILER* And Brad Pitt’s character really can’t be distracting or take you out of the story at all because he’s a crucial element in Solomon’s freedom *SPOILER END* I also found the score to be a little unnecessary in some parts. Its good overall but a lot of the scenes spoke for themselves without the music and I already knew what to feel without the added presence of heavy stringed instruments. Some scenes would have been absolutely incredible had there been no music because everything would have felt even colder & darker.

Outside of Chewital Ejiofor & Michael Fassbender, the supporting cast of Paul Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch and newcomer; Lupita Nyong’o are also great (Lupita Nyong’o being the standout, delivering a heartbreaking performance that’s bound to make you tear up). What's kinda cool is that 12 Years A Slave is somewhat of an amalgam of modern black film in that it features actors & actresses like Michael K. Williams & Alfree Woodward (both very briefly) as well as Quvenzhane Wallis & Dwight Henry (Beats Of The Southern Wild) and Adepero Oduye (Pariah).
This is an American film about slavery & racism so naturally there’s plenty of typical evil white characters (Michael Fassbender takes it to another level) but unlike the prototypical characters found in something like 42 (a movie I wish I never watched, but I saw it on a plane so it’s almost like it never happened) McQueen crafts more complicated characters, specifically the slave owner William Ford - played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Ford is a Baptist preacher, he’s “kind” to Solomon and there’s even one scene where he tries to buy an entire family as to not separate them from each other. Early on when his character was introduced I thought to myself; “oh no, one of these characters?” (the racist white person who eventually changes his evil ways and we’re supposed to feel good about it or the white character whose racist but only under the circumstances. It's not really his fault). But by the time his character is out of the story, it’s made clear that no matter how “nice” he may be to the slaves, he’s still businessman and a slave owner first.
And speaking of 42 (if I can just divert for a moment) cinema really has yet to the scratch the surface of the psychological pressure & depression that comes along with being the first black person to do something. Specifically the post-stress. There are plenty of films like 42, but the really sad story behind Jackie Robinson’s life is the fact that he died at the age of 53. No professional athlete should die that young. There have been four movies made about Jackie Robinson’s years in major league baseball and they're all pretty much the same. Haven’t we had enough? Will someone make a film about his life after baseball? That’d be the real unique story...

It's not saying much, but 12 Years A Slave is definitely one of the best films of the year (this year has been fairly weak) even with my little criticisms. But if it means anything I'd probably be saying the same thing had it been released in 2010, 2011 or 2012. This has been stuck in my head since I've seen it and hardly any movie has been able to do that this year which makes it a success in my book.

THE ELEPHANT MAN: DAVID LYNCH'S TRANSITION FROM MIDNIGHT MADNESS TO MAINSTREAM SUCCESS

The Elephant Man is tough to place among the other movies in David Lynch's filmography because even though it’s really good, it doesn’t really feature his trademark quirky surreal/neo-noir style as prominently as his other work. Over the years there's been some odd choices in directors to make films outside of their comfort zone (most notably David Cronenberg's offer to direct Ferris Bueller's Day Off). This isn't the strangest example but at the time it was a bit strange for David Lynch to be making this. Before The Elephant Man went in to production, the higher-ups at Paramount must have been asking themselves what the hell they were doing putting out a biopic on John Merrick Directed by an experimental, up & coming director (Lynch) produced by (comedian) Mel Brooks. Say what you want about movie studios but this was actually a case of "mainstream cinema" taking a gamble on a young progressive director. You have to remember that in 1980 David Lynch wasn’t the Twin Peaks creating, pop culture oddity that we know now. At that point he was a new director responsible for a handful of experimental shorts and one feature-length film that was embraced more by the cultish midnight movie crowd. And Mel Brooks' career speaks for itself. Dramatic biopics weren't exactly his thing which is why he downplayed his involvement in the film until after it was complete.

I guess If you absolutely had to categorize David Lynch at that point in his career he'd be considered a horror director...? Obviously we aren’t talking about the traditional horror directors of the time like Carpenter or Hopper but Eraserhead (one of my favorite films) and The Grandmother (one of my favorite Lynch shorts) haunt my dreams more than Michael Meyers or Leatherface. I get the idea of hiring a “horror director” to do a movie like The Elephant Man as it involves startling scenes and extensive make-up that would transform someone in to an “oddity” but that’s a touchy subject because it poses the question: Is John Merrick a "oddity"? Of course he's not. To quote John Hurt in The Elephant Man: "He's a human being!” But when you associate him with the baby from Eraserhead and use the term; "horror" in the advertisements, you're not only asking for trouble but you're obviously giving off the wrong impression of what the movie is going to be. Every once in a while I come across reviews that make comparisons between Elephant Man & Todd Browning's Freaks and although there are a few legitimate comparisons between both films it still bothers me to associate the term "freak" with John Merrick...

David Lynch, 1980

At first glance one would think the only thing The Elephant Man has in common with Lynch's other work is the black & white cinematography and its use of make-up & prosthetics. But the more you watch the more you may come to realize that from the film's surreal opening sequence (which also has some seriously disturbing sexual undertones), to all the surreal "interlude" shots of factories, pipes & industrial noises (all key elements in the world of David Lynch), The Elephant Man is just as much a David Lynch film as Blue Velvet or Lost Highway. Actually, the dream sequences from The Elephant Man went on to influence parts of Blue Velvet (specifically Jeffery Beaumont's first dream after witnessing Frank Booth for the first time).

overlapping imagery & experimentation in The Elephant Man...

In The Elephant Man we follow the final days of John Merrick (John Hurt) through the eyes of Dr. Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins) form an abused circus sideshow freak to a medical anomaly. After seeing Merrick ("The Elephant Man") at a circus, Treves takes it upon himself to try and help Merrick by looking after and studying him. The film's most interesting angle is Dr. Treves' early treatment of John Merrick. Although his intentions are good, he's no different than Merrick's previous owner who paraded him around as a sideshow attraction. Only Instead of the circus, Treves parades him around and shows him off to the medical/scientific community almost as a found object instead of a person. After a reality check from one of his nurses, Treves’ treatment of Merrick changes.

The Elephant Man isn’t exactly a horror movie but it certainly has its share of startling and/or shocking moments. For the first quarter of the film Lynch intentionally keeps Hurt/Merrick under wraps or in the shadows. We only get quick glimpses of his deformities or see the terrified facial expressions of those who look at him for the first time...

The Elephant Man went on to compete against Raging Bull at the academy awards which is probably the only time two filmmakers like David Lynch & Martin Scorsese would draw so many parallels between one another. Obviously The Elephant Man & Raging Bull don't have the same spiritual connection as stuff like Blue Velvet & Something Wild or Lost Highway & Crash (1996) but both films are artistic, black & white biopics (both featuring crucial scenes shot similarly in slow motion) that represent high points in both filmmakers' careers released in the same year.

Lynch's history as an academy award nominated director is quite similar to Scorsese's. Prior to The Departed & Hugo, much fuss was made about the number of times Scorsese had been nominated yet never won but Lynch was only one winless nomination behind Scorsese for quite some time.

Raging Bull

I know this may seem like an odd choice for my first official Lynch review but this is one of those films that grew on me the older I got (it's also technically the first David Lynch movie I saw). The Elephant Man is proof that David Lynch can straight up direct a film without relying on his surreal quirkiness. And that’s not too say I don’t love Lynch's quirky style. Eraserhead & Blue Velvet are two of my all time favorite films, I think Mulholland Drive is one of the five best films of the last decade, and his last film inspired the name of this very site. But the surreal randomness in his work can sometimes work against him and distract viewers who may not necessarily like that kind stuff. No matter how great a film Mulholland Drive is, people get way too caught up in how weird and strangely humorous it can be at times to realize that not only is it a tragic story on multiple levels (broken dreams & a failed relationship) but its inspired by real events. Same goes for Twin Peaks - sure it’s odd and has humor (although the movie prequel is damn near completely the opposite of that) but it’s also a story about incest & sexual abuse. 

The Elephant Man isn’t a fluke/one-time occurrence either. The Straight Story, a film that even some Lynch fans forget exists, is another example of his ability to tell a straightforward story without imposing his style all over the film when it isn’t needed. The Straight Story wasn’t even stylized like The Elephant Man. With the exception of Harry Dean Stanton's presence and a re-occurring shot we commonly see in all of Lynch's work (a first person perspective shot of a road at night) you'd have no idea it was directed by Lynch. 

As a David Lynch fan who sees beyond all the dark quirkiness hes known for, I find myself openly praising his work less & less due to the large majority of so-called David Lynch fans who cant hold a conversation about his work beyond how "TOTALLY WEIRD" it is. I just don't wanna be grouped in with people like that. I'm not so pigheaded that I don't see his main appeal is how odd his films are, but he brings a little more to the table than dancing midgets and log ladies. I am more a fan of the Lost Highway/Mulholland Drive David Lynch but the over-analysis of those films by bloggers & critics has gotten to the point where I role my eyes at most new reviews & write-ups of those films.

The Elephant Man wouldn't be my #1 suggestion as an introduction to the world of David Lynch but it should be seen at some point on life.

MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE: MARIE ANTOINETTE (*SPECIAL GUEST WRITER: LEANNE KUBICZ*)

Truth be told - THIS was one of the three films I've always had in mind when I started the misunderstood masterpiece series (Trouble Every Day & Solaris being the other two). After revisiting rule breaking/time-period bending works like Swoon (a film set in the 1920's yet features modern appliances), Walker (an overall awful movie but still strangely relevant) & Jubilee (a film that I'm convinced directly inspired Sofia Coppola's third feature) I gave Marie Antoinette a 2nd chance and came to the conclusion that it’s not the disaster I once thought it was. But for some reason I could never get past a few sentences when writing about it. 

So I gave Leanne Kubicz the task of writing about Sofia Coppola's flawed masterpiece here on PINNLAND EMPIRE.

Enjoy...

Sophia Coppola’s 2006 film, Marie Antoinette, about the most famous Queen of France has enchanted and conversely frustrated audiences due to the eponymous character’s portrayal and her misunderstood history. Many viewers perceive this film to be a flimsy trifle, due to the aesthetic opulence and caressing light with which Coppola aims to humanize this oft maligned woman. Yet one should consider that this is Coppola’s second film adapted from text, therefore she is following the thesis which the author laid out. The biography Marie Antoinette: The Journey (2001) by Antonia Fraser is a hefty book which offers one of the most accurate descriptions of the monarch’s life and the political environment that doomed her. Though the audience is not required to read the source text before viewing the film, Coppola assumes that the audience will have a sufficient prior knowledge of the history of Marie Antoinette, and this may be why many are left unimpressed by the airy treatment that follows.

Marie Antoinette is another Coppola film in which place weighs heavily on the narrative. The four feature films which Coppola has directed integrate a location as a main character: the Lisbon house in The Virgin Suicides is a malignant force of suffocation, the Park Hyatt Hotel Tokyo from Lost in Translation serves to shield and mollify the guests from their real desires, the Chateau Marmont from Somewhere offers easy leisure at the expense of a truly lived life. The Palace of Versailles in Marie Antoinette is the ultimate place as character, as it represents French cultural domination and the crushing force of that society upon the young monarch.

The Palace of Versailles: We Live in Public – 18th Century version

Much has been made by critics of the anachronisms present in the film; often times the inclusion of two pairs of modern shoes in the “I Want Candy” montage. Manolo Blahnik and Converse shoes did not exist at that time obviously, but is that an adequate reason to discount the rest of the affair? Strict historical accuracy in a biographical film is not requisite. The cast alone blows the idea of historical accuracy out the window. Marianne Faithful as Empress Maria Theresa alone should have irked the dissenting critics, yet no mention of the fact that the Empress did not have a British accent. The same could be said of the inclusion of a good deal of the cast. British and American accents mingle freely; the only true French accent or French words spoken are by the young girl who portrays Madame Royale. The ages of the actors are also not congruent to their historical counterparts. Kirsten Dunst was 24 years old during filming and plays a role spanning from the ages of 14 to 37. Does she look like a young teenager? Not quite, and neither does Jason Schwartzman playing a teen King while in his mid-twenties. Such is the suspension of reality one has to make while viewing a period piece, as has been done with previous Marie Antoinette bio-pics. Think about Norma Shearer in the 1938 film of the same name; she’s glamorous and regal, but by no means teenage in appearance.

Eek! Sneakers!!

One aspect of the film that is as accurate as can be, yet did not seem to satisfy the majority of critics, is the set. Filming at the Palace of Versailles is about as authentic as a director can get when portraying the life of Marie Antoinette. The magnificent size of the palace and its grounds envelop Marie and the rest of the royals in an alternate reality. The strict rituals that Marie must learn are a reflection of this imposing structure. Living amongst such opulence and curious conventions skews how the inhabitants conduct themselves, yet act as if their lifestyle is entirely normal. For example, near to the end of the film, after Marie and Louis have sent their entourage away forever to safety from the looming mob, a rather peculiar event takes place the next morning. Louis is seen hunting for pleasure that dawn, despite the fact that the majority of his family and friends are in mortal peril. He does not even understand that he is in the same danger, because he cannot. His cloistered life has lead him to feel he is always protected, which illustrates what a fool palace life has made him.

The foolishness of Louis XVI is subtly but glaringly apparent in this film. History has heaped a good deal of blame on Marie Antoinette for her apparent transgressions as Queen, but history is incorrect. The Queen of France never had any political power; her job was to produce children and “look the part” by outfitting herself in rich fabrics and jewels. Louis XVI was the monarch with actual political powers which he entirely neglected due to his disinterest in the position of king. A key scene which illustrates this point occurs when Louis XVI is speaking to his advisors about possibly funding the American patriots. Louis thinks supporting revolutionaries would give the wrong idea to the French people about what he sees as the rightful position of monarchy. His advisors quickly rebuff his protest and explain that funding the Americans will hurt England, which is the ultimate goal. Louis easily acquiesces to their suggestions and then picks up a rolled map, holds it to his eye and pretends it is a telescope; not exactly kingly or adult behavior. The flippancy which Marie displays when Ambassador Mercy (Steve Coogan) tries to have her read and discuss a political matter about Austria is understandable in comparison. She was only semi- literate and due to having no real political influence, why bother with taking the time out? Louis XVI on the other hand, was better educated and had real powers which he did not utilize; hunting and tinkering with locks was much more important to him than the well-being of his country. Unfortunately, history has blamed a woman for grievous ineptitude when in actuality it was her husband who was beyond remiss. In the end both their heads were chopped off, but the symbol of selfishness has been borne by Marie Antoinette throughout history and not Louis XVI, who should be the symbol of obliviousness instead.

The continued celebrity status of Marie Antoinette through centuries can be attributed to her economic waste precipitating a revolution, but also her fashionable attire. Coppola utilizes the clothing of Marie to implicitly reflect her emotions. Though the costumes are not exact replicas (most of the Queen’s clothing was destroyed during the Reign of Terror; only a few tattered pieces remaining) they are accurate enough to the time period to have won a Costume Design Oscar. When we first meet fourteen year old Marie Antoine in Austria she is wearing a light blue dress, which is formal but age-appropriate; her long hair tied with a simple velvet ribbon. She is free of makeup, other than a youthful flush, which will soon change. The ease of Austrian court dress and custom are juxtaposed radically with what she encounters when transported to France for her marriage. Gone is subtlety, replaced with ornate, stiff French clothes that will define the person that young Marie Antoine becomes.

The stages of Marie’s turbulent life are mirrored in her sartorial and hairdressing choices throughout the film. When she is a fledgling to life at Versailles she wears French dress, but in light pastel colors. As her position becomes shaky (due to being both an Austrian foreigner to the French court and her inability to become pregnant) the colors of her clothes become louder. One outfit is of hot pink fabric, accented with small white feathers. This dress suggests that she is blushing wildly from the embarrassment of an unconsummated marriage and the shame of not being able to fulfill her duties. The pressure put upon Marie to both produce an heir and to “be French” cause her to go against her nature and capitulate to the demands of her family and others at court. Though she finds the idea of speaking to her Grandfather-in-law, King Louis XV’s (Rip Torn) gaudy mistress Madame du Barry (Asia Argento) morally abhorrent, she finally cedes to the myriad demands. When she speaks her few required words to Madame du Barry, she is clothed in black. Not mourning black, but rich black velvet with ermine trim, which feels as if she is almost wearing a costume. Her innocence to the scheming nature and rigid rules of the court has been weakened, so she wears black to thrown her inner-anger outward.

“There are a lot of people at Versailles today.” Are you not satisfied?

As Marie’s sexless marriage continues and her sister and brother-in-law have a child before her, her outlandish stylings ramp up considerably. She is a teenager who is pretty and jovial, yet cannot get her husband into bed. From her perspective, if he is not interested and everyone in her family and at court continually disapproves of her behavior, she may as well do as she pleases. Time to shop, eat, drink and gamble to forget the cold bed she returns to every night. Due to the Queenly duty of looking sophisticated and fashionable, she throws her energy into that aspect fully. Her hair becomes higher and higher, her clothes more ornate and her parties and friends more lavish. Louis allows Marie her indulgences because he is weak-willed and in the back of his head he knows her reactions are due to his sexual dysfunction.

Cheers to Léonard, the Gravity-Defying Hairdresser

Marie’s approach to her appearance evolves when her marriage is finally consummated. Awkwardly enough, Marie’s brother, Emperor Joseph II (Danny Huston) visits Versailles and has a conversation with his brother-in-law about marriage and sex. He couches his conversation about sex in terms about locks and keys, which is one of the few things which Louis understands well. Through Joseph’s allusions to oiling locks (wink, wink), Louis finally has the gumption and knowledge to accomplish the “great work”. At last, Marie is pregnant and gives birth to a baby girl, which fulfills her requirement as Queen.

With Marie’s new motherhood and active sexual life, she softens her style. Louis presents Marie with her own home, the Petite Trianon, as a refuge away from strict court rules. The chateau is where she can live her own way and can wear less elaborate garb. She commissions “more natural” clothes, with less restrictive bodices and panniers, made of flowing muslin and silk fabrics. She also takes a lover during this time, the handsome Swede Count Fersen (Jamie Dornan), who awakens her lust and allows her to feel passion and longing. She longed for relations with her husband, but with Fersen, she can play and enjoy the lighter side of sex. For a woman who seemingly had everything a love affair helped her to escape the binds of her station, if only for a short while.

As the Queen ages and the French people start to revolt, her attire becomes subdued and deeper. The death of her mother and the passing of her youngest daughter sends her into mourning taffeta. Her face starts to show the worry of the volatile political climate, from which she has no path to safety. The Queen tires to placate the angry mob, which reach the palace walls by bowing to them from the palace balcony, to no avail. She knows the end of her sheltered life is over and strives to keep a noble manner through the crisis.

The end result of the film is a lush and drowsy portrait which endeavors to extricate a misinterpreted woman from the legends of the past. One may not feel particularly compassionate towards a woman who was a queen and lived in great luxury. The oppression and poverty of the French people due to the unwise decisions of the government is not to be forgotten. The case for empathy for Marie Antoinette is realizing she had no choice in the matters of her life. There was no escape from her duties due to her position and gender; she was born to one of the most famous monarchs of all time and her path was set from that point onwards. She had an arranged marriage as a teen, was transferred into an alien environment for the political gain of Austria and France and had to endure years of humiliation for events which were not of her making. She was ultimately executed, which the film completely excises, for living a life she had no true control over. The exclusion of the trials and guillotines befits the tone of the film. Marie says a bittersweet goodbye to Versailles as the family travels to an uncertain future. We are left with a shot of her bedroom torn to shreds; the image suffices to capture the horrors to follow not only for Marie Antoinette but for all of France.