When I first saw Claude Sautet’s Max et les ferrailleurs, Max’s climactic act of self-destruction
seemed to me successful as a shocking narrative coup, but not entirely
convincing as character development. On subsequent reflection, I’m still not
sure, but one wouldn’t bother to ponder the matter as much if not for the
surprising richness of what leads up to it. Max (Michel Piccoli) is a policeman
who runs briefly into Abel, an old army friend, a man laboring on the margins
of the scrap metal business (a pretty marginal business in the first place, no
doubt), subsisting mostly on petty theft. Frustrated with a recent spate of
unsolved bank robbers, Max discerns that Abel and his cohorts might be ready to
move up in the crime leagues, and then surreptitiously sets out to help them get
there, working through Abel’s prostitute girlfriend (Romy Schneider). The
scheme works, and Max is credited with an easy score, but then the wheels of
the law move on more heavily and efficiently than he wants them to, prompting
that final outburst. Sautet certainly seems here like an under-appreciated
genre master, pacing events perfectly, and sustaining an intriguing contrast
between Max’s cold, isolated machinations and the rambunctious camaraderie of
the scrap merchants. Of course, cops who exercise blurred ethics in the name of
ultimate order are a genre staple, but Max
et les ferrailleurs finds a particularly compelling, class-conscious way of
interrogating that murky territory. The ferrailluers, it suggests, are really
no more lawless than they need to be to sustain a workable existence, and
perhaps no richer (several characters cast suspicion on Max’s private wealth as
a distorting factor); if they have to be destroyed, it’s primarily in the
interest of warped governing interests. Looked at in that ominous,
politically-charged way, it’s perhaps fitting after all that the ending goes
beyond mere irony, into utter breakdown.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Lulu on the Bridge (Paul Auster, 1997)
For all its preoccupation with art and creativity, Paul Auster’s
Lulu on the Bridge doesn’t constitute a great example of either: it feels more arbitrary than instinctive, more clunkily
calculated than deeply felt, and barely relevant to anything beyond its own
peculiar boundaries. Auster (whose solo directorial debut this was) doesn’t
seem like a director of any particular finesse, whether in matters of framing
and blocking or in coaxing his actors into interesting territory (not that the likes
of Keitel, Dafoe and Redgrave can’t mostly take care of themselves). Even so, I
find the movie tends to resurface in my mind from time to time – if nothing
else, for its pleasure with the idea of filmmaking both in itself (drawing
prominently on Pandora’s Box and Singin’ in the Rain and engaging in
brief pastiches of various genres, in one of which Lou Reed pops up to play - as
the credits put it - Not Lou Reed), and as a means of unlocking something formative
and fundamental. The sense of discovery encompasses language (the repeated use
of binary questions – is one an ocean or a river; an owl or a hummingbird, etc.);
dredging up of childhood memories and traumas; unexplained magic (a stone which
emits a mysterious blue light and levitates, conveying a deep feeling of
possibility and connection to those who come into its orbit); and even the
formative relationship between man and turd (evoked in one of the weirder blocks
of dialogue ever given to Mandy Patinkin). The evocation of the Berlin Wall and
a few scenes set in Ireland provide the faintest of political seasonings. It’s disappointing
at the end when all of this is revealed as an apparent deathbed fantasy and/or transmigration of souls, pushing the movie’s resonances inward when they needed (in
the way of Jacques Rivette’s Celine and
Julie go Boating, a vastly superior film that nevertheless may provide a sporadic reference
point here) to push outward. Still, if only all cinematic failures were as
intriguing…
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Pravda (Dziga Vertov Group, 1970)
It's easy now to regard the Dziga Vertov Group’s Pravda as a mere relic, a compendium of
somewhat randomly unglamorous images set under a somewhat scattershot and
didactic commentary, in which such terminology as “bourgeois imperialism” and
“dictatorship of the proletariat” hardly resonates now. The film focuses on
denouncing and dissecting the “revisionist” forces which slammed down on
Czechoslovakian democracy in 1968, identifying them as concerned with
preserving essentially exploitative governing interests rather than with the good
of the working class, and often carries a rather stubbornly humorless air. It
evidences some of Godard’s recurring preoccupation with images and their
placement – for example citing ones that can’t be shown because they’ve been
sold for corporate use, and decrying “popular” cinema that’s imposed on the
people rather than arising from them – but overall appears less interested in
this project than in asserting the dignity of labour and in musing on its
powerlessness. As such, watching it now at a time of brutally ascendant
capitalism and inequality, it takes on new energy. “Flunky” intellectuals play
a large part in this analysis, for their role in buffeting the stifling
bourgeois wisdom – in contrast, the film focuses on a worker who can’t even
identify the purpose or utility of the industrial component he spends his days
manufacturing, an obvious pawn for malevolently manipulative interests. The
movie’s prescriptions are certainly limited to their (racially heterogeneous,
among other things) time and place – illustrations based on wooden versus iron
ploughs are hard to relate to our current technological circumstances (in
advocating for continual scientific experimentation, the movie could hardly
have foreseen the complex legacy of the advancements we’ve reaped) - but the
broad concern with the systematic suppression of working class interest and
power only becomes more urgent. As such, the movie’s raggedness – for example
the occasional stumbling on the commentary – feels now like a guarantee of
authenticity, allowing it a renewed plaintive urgency.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Mascara (Patrick Conrad, 1987)
Patrick Conrad’s Mascara
surely warrants some consideration for its contribution to queer cinema,
although the value of that contribution may be rather hard to assess. If
measured just by a simple metric of how many of its characters demonstrate some
kind of fluid sexuality, it scores highly, and it must have rightly irked Conrad
to watch The Crying Game get so much
attention in 1992 for its famous “reveal,” when he’d staged something extremely
similar (and possibly even more effective) five years earlier. The film may
score further progressive points for its fascination with transgender performance;
and for its strangifying of its setting (as far as one can figure out, it’s set
in an unprepossessing Belgian coastal town which nevertheless houses an opera
house and an extensive high-end underground scene). But at the same time, its narrative
is essentially that of a lurid mad killer film, even though there’s some mythological
resonance to the way it turns around three ceremonial-like visits to the
underworld. Most disappointingly, the guilty man (Michael Sarrazin) initially
seems like an accomplished instance of someone holding conflicting lives and
desires in balance, but ultimately undergoes a complete unraveling. Still, the
points of interest are real. Along the way, it also draws in notes of voyeurism
and incest, and has Charlotte Rampling at the transitional point of her career,
still embodying an allure that makes men lose their heads, but starting to look
distinctly weary from the effort. All in all, the film can hardly be considered
a serious investigation or illumination of the lives it depicts, much less a
celebration of them, and it’s not hard to see how it’s often categorized (to
the extent anyone thinks about it at all) as period Eurotrash. But even if that’s
fair (which I doubt), there’s a lot of alluring detritus staring out from the
garbage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)