I like to think that this movie was made with me in mind. Maybe not me specifically, but someone like me. It's a mix of things. There is the fact the main character and I are alike in so many ways (my life could have turned out like this). The plot is something I understand quite well. More than that even, part of this film is my life perfectly. It has a lot of layers and ideas, I prefer the thinking films. It' not like a song you hear or another movie you watch and then think "this is about me". I would say this movie is more like a song, movie, book or whatever that you just get lost in and love. Something so intoxicating and stimulating that you don't want to look away. I'll say here that this movie is not for everyone, it's NC-17 and I can see why. This kind of movie is made for people like me... Cinephiles, Cinemaholics or most commonly known as film buffs.
I'll start with the plot here and branch out afterwards. Matthew (Michael Pitt) is an american studying in Paris in 1968. He never attends class and instead spends all his time at the Cinematheque Francaise. "Only the French... only the French would house a cinema in a palace". 1968 was a different times in movies but I'll talk about that later. Matthew sits in the theater for movie after movie, with the same people. All of them fixated with what's on screen. They even sit closer to the screen because Matthew thinks they all want to see they movie first (no matter how small the time really is). France was in a violent time as the whole world was. The cinephiles had their own revolution and France was at the heart of it all. The founder of the Cinematheque got into some trouble and the people came out protesting for his rights. Matthew at a rally meets Isabelle (Eva Green) who's chained to a fence at the entrance of the place (chained to the movies? Symbolism alert!). "You're awfully clean for someone who goes to the cinema so much." He's clean cut and cleanly innocent. They begin talking, Matthew a bit shy at first. Soon enter Theo (Louis Garrel), Isabella's twin brother he too hits it off with Matthew. The three leave after things turn violent and wander the city. They talk movies, politics, music and just really enjoy each other's company. Matthew returns to his small hotel room late singing and writes to his mother that he has finally met some really Parisians. I'm not too sure what happens next, but I think he masturbates. The film cuts before your sure and if that's true it's showing how clean he still is. It won't stay that way for long.
Matthew goes to the twins place for dinner in their huge apartment. Their father, a famous author, is a realist. He tells Theo that he can't hide from the world and wonders why Matthew can be so easily distracted. The parents leave for a month to go to the coast. They leave money for the kids and expect them to go to school... yea right. They invite Matthew to stay in the guest room and wall themselves up the apartment. They hardly leave the place and continue to discuss their interests. They talk about Clapton vs Hendrix and Keaton vs Chaplin. I agree with Matthew and his points are exactly what I would say (more reason to like the movie). I mean yes Clapton did change the electric guitar, but Hendrix could have done the same thing if he wanted. Hendrix plays with his teeth and it's incredible. The Keaton and Chaplin is an argument I could only dream of. The answer is Keaton, Chaplin is great, but Keaton is better. Like Matthew says Keaton is funny when he's just standing there and his stunt work is beyond phenomenal. they reenact scenes from famous movies and quote famous lines. Isabelle says she was born not from her parents but was born in 1959 after seeing "Breathless", she then yells the opening of the film and then we see the actual footage. This happens alot. They run through the Louvre trying to beat the record from the film "Band Of Outsiders". It's whimsical and darling. When they first invite Matthew they chant "one of us, one of us" The famous line from "Freaks". We see the actual footage not as a point of reference, but as a homage. They are a tribute to show how in love with the cinema the characters, the director and some members of audience (people like me) truly are. We follow Matthew mostly in these scenes. The director want you to show you his view of the world and the twins.
The apartment games soon take a different note and her comes the NC-17 material. The twins have sort of a... incest thing going. I don't believe they have sex, but they'll watch each do everything. If they can't guess the correct movie title, they pay the price. Isabelle has Theo masturbate to a poster "like no one was around". Theo tells Matthew to have sex with his sister as he watches. It's not cruel to them, Theo says he never feels forced, it's all a game. Matthew is disturbed but he doesn't leave. Part of him is curious. It's almost horrifying to watch Matthew come to terms with it because we are just as startled. However once he accepts it so do we and then the audience can't look away. Matthew describes how he once watched his parents have sex through the keyhole of their door. He was disturbed but couldn't stop. It was like watching the most personal film ever. He leaves a changed person. I think the audience goes through a similar situation. The NC-17 rating after watching it seems too much. It's because we have become so use to the world the characters live as well. There is full frontal male and female nudity and convincingly real sex scenes. Plus some blood from Isabelle's "private place" is pretty present. I feel the NC-17 rating is bullshit personally. Why? It's about sex. "Hostel" and "Saw" are rated R with extreme violence (I've seen worse but those are mainstream high-grossing movies) "Casino" said "fuck" over 300 times and used just about every dirty word in the book, that's R. Then how come nudity and sex is considered too far? "Blue Valentine" had too fight for the R rating because it was originally NC-17. It was never cut for material and I saw it... nothing went even close to "too far". "Antichrist" came close but honestly too far means to me that I can't watch it. People fainted watching "The Exorcist" and "127 Hours", when have you heard of people fainted watching a sex scene in a movie? This whole rant is about what cinephiles and movies and what they mean to us.
I kind of wish I was in 1968 right now. Matthew is a couple of months older than I am so it's about the right time. Film in France at the time was going some radical changes that made what movies are today. It was call the New Wave Era in movies and the things they did were game changes. Movies at this time were different as well. Actually not different, the time was different. People use to crowd into movie theaters and this was the only real way to watch the movies. No DVD, no Netflix and no Redbox. So people were seeing movies that were new every time. Movies weren't just copies of copies like today. Don't get me wrong, I love today's movies. I think the world is too big now, and that changed how cinephiles operate. I can still go to the movies, but it's not like the old day where everything was groundbreaking. Now movie theaters operate more for the occasional movie goer compared to the cinephiles who would do it not because they were looking to watch a big blockbuster, but they didn't know what else to do with their time. Movies are our lives.
So now of the nature of the sexual games and accepting it... that's what cinephiles do. We're probably some of the most tolerate people out there. We watch movies about anything and so nothing seems strange to us. I watch all genres and all plots. Weird sexual games is nothing strange to me. Incest is odd, but like I said, you eventually don't care about it in the film anymore, your too entertained. Cinephiles are romantics and want to see the unknown in the area. A true cinephile will watch anything (if it has potential). We love movies because to us it's magic. The best times of our lives are to movies. It's like a husband and wife who look lovingly upon the movie they saw on their first date. Cinephiles look for this connection in movies.
Some criticized this movie for not having a true plot and just the director reliving his glory days. The movie has a plot, it's just evolving. It moves to new stages as the film progresses. It's very interesting that way, you don't know what will happen next. Then the director issue, I don't see a problem. He's addressing a time period (in one of the best ways I've ever seen) that he lived through. It's not all about him but dealing with a mind frame the whole generation felt.
While the three are locked up inside the world is tearing itself apart outside. After a truly intense scene something bad will happen and only a brick flying through the window will literally and figuratively save their lives. The problems of the outside world can no longer be ignored. They walk out and join a angry mob. Theo and Isabelle join the violent members and pick up a molotov cocktail and look to attack the police riot squad. Matthew yells for them to stop and says this is not them. They are romantics, pacifists and cinephiles. Not anarchists and violent people. Theo and Isabelle are people of the times and can't live a life of their own. They look at Matthew before charging the police. Matthew looks at them one last time before walking into the angry mob and disappearing. Bernardo Bertolucci has captured an entire generation, "The Movie Generation", in a 2 hour film. This is beautiful and magnificent film, a masterpiece.
10/10
Recommendation: You gotta be open minded and have a decent love for film, but you'll be entranced.
PS: Michael Pitt is almost a doppelganger of Leonardo DiCaprio, but at times looks alot like a very young Marlon Brando, star of Bertolucci's masterpiece "Last Tango In Paris" (which Bernardo made when he was only 24). Perfect casting right here (for all the cast too).
No comments:
Post a Comment