Showing posts with label Adèle Haenel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adèle Haenel. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

2019 Top Ten List #2 Portrait of a Lady On Fire (Portrait de la jeune fille en feu)






Director Céline Sciamma




Director Céline Sciamma with actress Noémie Merlant


Director Céline Sciamma with actress Noémie Merlant (left) and Adèle Haenel (right)





PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE (Portrait de la jeune fille en feu)     A                   
France  (121 mi)  2019 d:  Céline Sciamma

Winner of the Best Screenplay at Cannes, writer/director Céline Sciamma is known for exploring adolescent youth identity and gender issues with earlier films Tomboy (2011) and Girlhood (Bande de Filles) (2014), while she was also a co-writer in André Téchiné’s Being 17 (Quand on a 17 ans) (2016), but this far outshines anything she’s ever done before, easily her most fully mature effort, resembling a performance-driven Jacques Rivette film mixed with the bold feminism of Jane Campion’s The Piano (1993), where the breathtaking beauty of the Brittany seaside coast draws apt comparison, given the painterly detail of cinematographer Claire Mathon.  Unlike Abdellatif Kechiche’s award winning film Blue Is the Warmest Color (La Vie d'Adèle, Chapitres 1 et 2) (2013), the first gay/lesbian themed film to win the Cannes Palme d’Or, Kechiche was criticized for portraying lesbian sex through a male gaze, suggesting it revealed far more about the male director’s desires than how women feel about intimacy, with this film serving as the corrective, nearly entirely eliminating any presence of men from the movie, creating a stunning 18th century historical romance between two women that breathes with life.  Very few films have ever captured female love and desire as potently as this film, and even fewer have been seen through a woman’s viewpoint and perspective, but this film captures the unbridled spirit of first love by unleashing the female gaze, with so much of the film built around that artistic aesthetic, adding so much internalized complexity, with long wordless sequences where the women send long gazes or quick glances at each other, effectively using a naturalistic setting, culminating with a rapturously unedited final shot that may come to define this film for years.  So many gay love stories have felt compromised, as the gay person involved in the project has been overruled by outside forces, leaving certain details suspect, where the intimacy just doesn’t feel authentic.  That simply doesn’t happen here, grounded by the brilliant performances of the two leads, where Marianne (Noémie Merlant) has been commissioned to paint a portrait of Héloïse (Adèle Haenel), a reluctant bride who has been called away from the convent in the wake of her sister’s death, only to learn she’s been promised in marriage to her late sister’s fiancé, with the portrait to be sent to her future husband in Milan, a man she’s never met, as her widowed mother (Valeria Golino), an Italian countess, has made all the marital arrangements in order to return to prominence in Italy.  What makes this more personal than usual is that Haenel and Sciamma are former lovers, where the film was written with Haenel in mind.  As a result, this love story navigates its own way through unchartered territory with an innate sense of familiarity and cinematic gravitas, feeling vibrant and new, where the result is positively jaw-dropping.

While Merlant is a relatively new face, Haenel has been seen before in Katell Quillévéré’s Suzanne (2013), which hasn’t played anywhere in the vicinity since an initial festival screening, Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne’s The Unknown Girl (La Fille Inconnue) (2016), and Robin Campillo’s 2017 Top Ten List #8 BPM (Beats Per Minute (120 battements par minute).  Given a brief classroom introduction with Marianne posing as she instructs her young art students, “Take time to look at me,” which becomes a central theme for the film.  Jumping almost immediately into a flashback, Marianne is seen arriving by boat rowed by men to a small, isolated island, where the rough seas offer a rude awakening, leaving her completely drenched when she arrives on shore, having to hike up a steep cliff carrying her own gear to an isolated chateau of an aristocratic family.  Greeted warmly, given a spacious room, she develops an easy rapport with Héloïse’s servant, Sophie (Luàna Bajrami), before meeting the Countess, explaining the difficulty of the assignment, as her daughter refused to sit for the previous painter, so she instructs Marianne to observe her closely, that her daughter thinks she’s just a walking companion.  Much like Hitchcock’s Gothic Rebecca (1940), where a new wife (Joan Fontaine) is overwhelmed by a potent series of small clues about the previous wife who was beloved by all, the first Mrs. de Winter, the impeccable Rebecca, the introduction to Héloïse is similarly quite clever, moving to the front where she remains concealed behind the hood of her cloak, so all viewers can see is a quick glimpse of her blond hair, or an ear lobe, or the sight of a single eye staring back curiously.  She’s equally adamant about her uncertain future, remaining defiantly aloof, not really invested in the idea of marriage, as it was not her own choice, though it does conform to the custom of the times in aristocratic circles as a way of maintaining noble status.  Marianne, who is all eyes, must study every small detail and commit it to memory before retreating to her chamber room at night to draw and paint in private, given only five days, which are lost in nervous uncertainty.  Preferring to show the final portrait to Héloïse herself, she’s not immediately taken by it, feeling blindsided by an act of sabotage, thinking she’s been tricked.  So Marianne impulsively paints over her face, rejecting it as well, which doesn’t exactly sit well with the Countess who is off on a planned trip to Italy, but will return in five days, offering her another chance, with Héloïse strangely agreeing to sit for the portrait this time.  This puts them on more equal footing, and while Marianne has no noble lineage, she has experience in the world, bringing a well-informed and somewhat modern perspective, so when Héloïse is scrutinized so closely, she responds with equal force, becoming a battle of wits, with both sides equally matched.  The essential historical truths ring true, as in this era women are deprived of choosing who they want to marry, whether or not to bear children, and also what they depict on the canvas, as women were prohibited from using male models, effectively minimizing their artistic reach.  For instance, what 18th century female painters can you name?  Not that there weren’t any, but who’s heard of them?  Their exclusion from the profession was no accident.

Sciamma has the foresight to include the importance of Sophie, who is not overlooked, but is a constant presence in the lives of these two women, viewed as sincere and forthright, but undergoes draconian measures when she has what amounts to a painful abortion, which is given a surreal context, particularly when she is lying on a bed next to a newborn infant, yet the powerful imagery is transformed to an angelic painting where it is given an altogether different meaning.  An historical costume drama accentuating the female form, one interesting facet on display is exposed cleavage, where interestingly the lowest on the economic scale (Sophie) reveals the most, while the most wealthy (Héloïse) reveals the least, though the Countess beats all the young contenders by a mile.  With her mother away, the women exude greater freedom, but spend a great deal of time each day working together, with Héloïse becoming an artistic collaborator, not content to be a passive subject (while Sophie does embroidery), developing a romantic friendship that grows by leaps and bounds, but instead of sex on display, which is what male filmmakers prefer, what matters to these women is establishing trust and understanding, which happens before anything turns physical.  While the Edenesque look of the island takes centerstage, becoming an idyllic and highly romanticized dreamscape, it’s also clear that Sciamma has carefully constructed a dialogue of co-equals, which extends into their relationship, making what might appear to be a highly idealized utopian dream to be an essential core of their existing reality.  That may be the most exquisite feature of the film, but it’s well established before the first kiss and the smoldering emotions erupt onscreen, which only accentuates the heart of the message being sent to viewers, as this is not some artificialized triviality, but the real thing.  Perhaps the scene of the film takes place at night as there is a gathering of many women standing around a fire, perhaps dozens, where the darkness of the night actually creates a background look of Da Vinci, given a painterly look in historical detail, when out of nowhere this women’s a capella chorale, composed for the film by Jean-Baptiste de Laubier and Arthur Simonini, La Jeune Fille en Feu (Bande originale du film) - YouTube (3:03), creates a special excitement, using multiple musical refrains, like singing in rounds, where each of the women in the picture comes alive.  It’s a startling moment, but utterly enthralling, building to a scorching intensity, culminating with Héloïse’s dress catching on fire, which seems to release all the repressed desires.  Another musical motif is heard at the end, connecting to an earlier sequence when Marianne was describing the sound of a symphony, something Héloïse had never heard, using words poetically to emphatically create the rush of exhilaration from the “Summer” Presto section from Vivaldi’s Four Seasons, Antonio Vivaldi - Concerto L'estate RV 315 – YouTube (2:49), which is heard again in a miraculous final shot, the camera fixated on the subject, with a stream of emotions simply cascading through one’s veins, exuding a feeling of utter jubilation, while also punctuating an air of untold tragedy, recalling the ancient legend of Orpheus and Eurydice, where the euphoria simply can’t last.  All in all, this redefining film is truly a majestic experience.   

Monday, January 1, 2018

2017 Top Ten List #8 BPM (Beats Per Minute (120 battements par minute)














BPM (Beats Per Minute) (120 battements par minute)          A-                   
aka:  120 Beats Per Minute
France  (144 mi)  2017  ‘Scope  d:  Robin Campillo              Official Site [France]

Campillo is known for being the writer of Laurent Cantet films, including TIME OUT (2001), HEADING SOUTH (2005), or Cantet’s Palme d’Or winning film The Class (Entre Les Murs) (2008), but BPM (Beats Per Minute) recalls the director’s own experiences in the early 1990’s working alongside other social activists from Act Up-Paris in their attempt to demand public knowledge and awareness about the AIDS epidemic in France, with more new people diagnosed HIV positive in France than any other European nation at the time, fueling anger and personal indignation at the government’s more cautious go slow policy which was allowing too many afflicted people to die.  Very ironic that in Chicago, both BPM and Ruben Östlund’s The Square, two films from Cannes that vied for the top prize, with Östlund’s film winning the coveted Palme d’Or (1st place) and Campillo’s BPM winning the Grand Prix (2nd place), opened in the same theater, with the Palme d’Or winning film screening in the big theater, while Campillo’s film was relegated to the small theater and vanished after one week.  This is the kind of disrespect that will forever accompany this film, unfortunately, all based on a rather arbitrary decision taking place by a Cannes jury headed by Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar, but also including German director Maren Ade (whose 2016 film Toni Erdmann was snubbed the previous year), Chinese actress Fan Bingbing, South Korean film director Park Chan-wook, American actress Jessica Chastain, French actress Agnès Jaoui, American actor Will Smith, Italian film director Paolo Sorrentino, and French-Lebanese musical composer Gabriel Yared.  The decision was no doubt based on a compromise of nine people, with Almodóvar getting choked up at a post awards press conference when asked point blank how he, a champion of LGBT rights, could not award BPM top prize, POST PALMARES - Press Conference - EV - Cannes 2017 - YouTube (25:37, coming at about the 15:50 mark), with Almodóvar in broken English acknowledging, “I loved the movie. I cannot love more.  I was touched since the very beginning till absolutely the end and after the end, but I don’t know.  Tomorrow, perhaps, we will read in the papers what the rest of the audience and journalists think.  This is a very democratic jury.  I am the ninth part of this jury.  So this is the only thing I can tell you.  The huge majority of us loved the movie of Campillo.  I’m sure it’s going to be very successful everywhere.  And I’m sure it’s going to remind this country of something that happened here not so many years ago that, whether you belong to the LGBT, which I am, it was an injustice.  Campillo tells the story of real heroes, that we saved many lives.  We all agree with that.” (Personally, I blame Will Smith and an anti-gay prejudice, as echoed by his opening remarks at that press conference making an ill-advised joke about Almodóvar’s predatory practices.  It was not funny, he did not apologize, and I’m guessing he played a significant role in undermining the film, probably supported by the Chinese, Korean, and Arab contingency, who come from predominately anti-gay cultures.  Very unfortunate.  I’m guessing Almodóvar’s support came from Chastain and Jaoui, with Sorrentino on the fence, and maybe Ade and the others preferring The Square.)

Having seen both films, it’s hard to believe that Cannes, once again, picked the wrong film.  While Östlund’s is the far flashier and more entertaining film, comically absurd and satirically relevant, with larger commercial prospects, it’s a much more overblown effort, using cruelty as comedy, feeling more like a frontal assault on modern practices, accentuating the sheepish behavior of the norm, suggesting complacency leads to an overall cowardice in Western democratic societies to actually stand up for what’s right, forcing others to fight your battles for you.   Campillo’s film, on the other hand, is a more urgent, harrowing tale, bravely confronting life and death issues in a nation that doesn’t want to hear, showcasing a community that was at that time in history largely marginalized and misunderstood, where they literally had no heroes or role models, with news agencies suppressing their message, when there is literally no one else on the front lines offering help and assistance, where it is entirely up to these few.  This is a rare film that remains personal, rising to a level of poignancy but never overreaching into melodrama, where the eye-opening revelation is viewing a crucial part of history through the eyes of gay activists themselves as they are making that history, actually memorializing an era before the advent of protease inhibitor drugs that stopped death from being a foregone conclusion, including the heated discussions of their meetings, which are often bitterly confrontational, pitting activist militancy against more diplomatic measures, where we’re witness to outlandish guerilla tactics against indifferent pharmaceutical companies designed to force them to share the latest scientific research while heightening public awareness, including a festive party atmosphere afterwards to let off steam, dancing in strobe-lit dance clubs to the pulsating techno score of Arnaud Rebotini, where this film is also not afraid to include open displays of affection, including graphic sexual encounters, something that would never happen in American films.  The film is extremely articulate, introducing a host of characters, yet the authenticity of the script is vividly striking, eventually narrowing its scope and focusing on a single love affair, with heartbreaking results.  The French response was about a decade after the American AIDS crisis of the 80’s, where the Reagan administration refused to adequately fund research to stop the epidemic, where there are similarities between this work and American playwright Larry Kramer’s 1985 play The Normal Heart, as Kramer is himself a gay activist and founder of HIV advocacy groups, like Act Up (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power), taking it upon himself to warn society about AIDS even before it had officially been given a name.  The French have more awareness about the disease and model many of their activist ideas from the American model. 

Perhaps nothing has the definitive reach of Tony Kushner’s two-part play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, one of the defining works of American art and culture, which premiered in the early 90’s, with the first part (Millennium Approaches) winning the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1993, dominating the Tony awards for two years in a row, 1993 and 1994, putting gays center stage at a time when they were openly discriminated against and living under siege (has that changed?), literally changing the way gays are perceived around the world.  What Campillo’s film does is also humanize the participants, developing a fictionalized story that finds a gay community in the midst of an identity crisis, with people bewildered by what to do, reading everything they can coming out in medical journals, trying to learn the latest drug strategies, what’s effective, what are the side effects, desperately searching for anything to stop the slow deterioration of healthy T Cells in the human body, all in an attempt to stop the flow of humans dying, where Campillo reminds us what a wrenching experience it is to witness those around you slowly dying.  Unlike the cowardice and timidity of other highly acclaimed gay love stories like Luca Guadagnino’s Call Me By Your Name (2017) that don’t even show any sex scenes for fear of turning off a mainstream audience, this film shows the incredible courage of those gay lovers at the time who remained intimate, graphic sex scenes included, even without knowing the full ramifications of their actions.  The first part shows the collective efforts of those galvanizing forces at work, not just the contentious arguments, but the practice of welcoming new members, where everyone is recognized as HIV positive (even if they’re not), teaching them the rules of discussion (no applause, only the clicking of fingers), figuring out the most effective public strategies, including what’s likely to get television airplay, deciding what words on posters are more effective, what areas of the city to target, what visible actions they should carry out at the Gay Pride Celebration, and most importantly, how to get the Mitterrand government to take their cause more seriously.  At the meetings we are introduced to Sean (Nahuel Pérez Biscayart), one of the radical voices, and Nathan (Arnaud Valois), one of the new members, and one of few who is HIV negative.  The leader of the discussions is Thibault (Antoine Reinartz), always negotiating a balancing act between opposite extremes, while Sophie (Adèle Haenel) seems to lead the street campaigns.  In the latter part of the film an intense relationship develops between Nathan and Sean, as we witness in devastating fashion the deteriorating health of Sean, where one of the saddest scenes ever witnessed is watching sex with a patient who is already so close to death, as if that is his last ounce of strength.  An unstated aspect of the film that seems particularly important to recognize is the degree of affection on display between gay friends, not just in a relationship, but towards others who are experiencing adverse health effects, as the film fully empathizes with them and always recognizes their emotional ups and downs, along with their deflated spirit, exhibiting a tenderness and quiet kindness, as these are truly people in crisis, where their frequent arrests and bold actions at the time opened the door for others to walk through completely unscathed.