73-74, 418-420 4 by Agnès Varda

[domino harvey]

I love Mfunk and LQ's interactions.

I was never wild about Cleo 5 to 7 but I still gave the set and Varda the benefit of the doubt. Yikes.

La Pointe-Courte is a dead-zone hinged on a spectacularly miscast female lead (For all of Varda's eye for framing shots, where was her eye for attractiveness?) and Noiret (in possession of none of his eventual talents as an actor) moving around the frame like models on a "slumming" photo-shoot for Mopey Vogue.

And Le Bonheur, for all the attention its garnered in this thread, is shallow nothingness masquerading as insight sheerly by virtue of its transparency. "If something is so blank and obvious, it must mean something more!" I'm completely baffled by the hearty debate over the film when arguing over the characters is like speculating whether Barbie really loved Ken.

[psufootball07]

Agreed with what you said, although Cleo is probably Vardas best work. Wouldve rather seen Vardas The Gleaners than Le Bonheur in this set.

[LQ]

I'm completely baffled by the hearty debate over the film when arguing over the characters is like speculating whether Barbie really loved Ken.

ouch!

And what of Vagabond??

Wouldve rather seen Vardas The Gleaners than Le Bonheur in this set.

heh, not that I'd substitute any, but I really want a meaty criterion of this someday. What a truly special film. Not my favorite, but closest to my heart.

[mfunk9786]

Gotta agree with domino about Le Bonheur. I still liked it a lot, which is where we diverge, but the characters were shallow setpieces. Which is why I still disagree significantly with the idea that the husband had any motivation outside of getting some new, exciting sex until the postal worker started nagging him to leave his cuckold wife.

Simple, but certainly not plain due to the way it was shot and the fact that it doesn't profess to be anything more than a meditative little morality play.

Any interview with Varda about this film on the DVD doesn't go into anything but the fact that she was listening to Mozart and thinking about the spectrum of human emotions, particularly sadness. Maybe she's trying to tell us something about her movie.

[Michael]

If the world of Bonheur spit out a woman into the 70s California, that woman would be Millie from 3 Women.

[tartarlamb]

Saw Le bonheur last night for the first time and absolutely loved it. Nevermind that Varda's aesthetic eye never falters even in such a bland, provincial setting -- I thought the film was a hilarious and deadpan slam at the chauvinism that's so evident in so many French and Italian films (especially Godard and Truffaut). This Mediterranean ladies man has love enough for everyone -- its not adultery; he just wants more happiness!

[mfunk9786]

I thought the film was a hilarious and deadpan slam at the chauvinism that's so evident in so many French and Italian films (especially Godard and Truffaut). This Mediterranean ladies man has love enough for everyone -- its not adultery; he just wants more happiness!

=D>

[domino harvey]

If the world of Bonheur spit out a woman into the 70s California, that woman would be Millie from 3 Women.

Except Duvall's character isn't one-dimensional and self-contained. Altman's film goes to great pains to show that she's self-delusional and that others recognize how pathetic she actually is, which of course makes Spacek's hero worship and eventual usurping of her personality all the more compelling! The characters in Le Bonheur aren't aware enough to delude themselves, they just exist on the surface. At best they're the magazines Duvall reads, not the reader.

[tartarlamb]

The characters in Le Bonheur aren't aware enough to delude themselves, they just exist on the surface. At best they're the magazines Duvall reads, not the reader.

If you see the film as a comedy, then its much easier to accept the simplicity and lack of self-awareness of the characters. Varda is deconstructing cliches about happiness, so its no wonder that her characters are so blind in accepting what turn out to be terribly backward and frankly stupid notions of happiness. I believe its part of the reason this was filmed in a small village -- these people are still a little bit enslaved by traditional notions of love, relationships and happiness.

As a side note, if this little morality tale was about rich French hipsters visiting their summer villas and pontificating a lot more, and had the males been nigh-blameless in their infidelity, and had the director's name been Rohmer rather than Varda, I think a lot more people would have enjoyed Le bonheur. (Don't get me wrong, I love Rohmer).

[domino harvey]

What are the "cliches about happiness" that the film deconstucts?

[Tom Hagen]

As a side note, if this little morality tale was about rich French hipsters visiting their summer villas and pontificating a lot more, and had the males been nigh-blameless in their infidelity, and had the director's name been Rohmer rather than Varda, I think a lot more people would have enjoyed Le bonheur.

Rohmer's males are not "nigh-blameless" in their infidelity (or more appropriately, their intellectual explorations of the concept of infidelity). Rohmer's ambiguous treatment of his characters is leagues away from a vulgar self-justification for male chauvinism. All of the, uh hem, "pontificating" in Rohmer's cinema is in service of parsing out that critical distinction.

As for Varda, Le bonheur reminded me of the 1970s sex education filmstrip pastiche in Beck's "Where It's At" music video. And that's not a compliment.

[tartarlamb]

What are the "cliches about happiness" that the film deconstucts?

From the wife's perspective, the notion that her little Eden -- a supportive family, a simple life, a loving husband and two wonderful children -- is invincible to tragedy and unhappiness.

From the husband's perspective, the notion (in so many French films) that women are vapid tools for a man's well-being and happiness, and that its quite alright to love your wife and have a mistress on the side. This man is quite oblivious to the tragic consequences of his selfishness for his wife and family -- even after the tragedy! He simply replaces one blonde for another, and Varda savagely has them gamboling off into the countryside, just as happy as they were at the beginning of the film.

[domino harvey]

"Savagely"? At best the ending is cheap, predictable irony on the interchangeability of Stepford Lovers. The problem is that the notions you claim the film is commenting on are equally cliched on either end of the spectrum. These are eighth grade creative writing class insights into paper dolls. No new information is revealed and old ideas aren't given enough spark by the mechanics of the film. It simply fails on every level.

[LQ]

Trust me, nobody's going to budge on their original reaction to Le Bonheur. Let's just leave it as this: You see or don't see in it what you will.

[Tom Hagen]

Here's my question about Vagabond: what the hell was the attack of the vine people at the end of the film all about? Was Mona being smeared with the wine lees just a great unexplained act of surrealism? Is this something that happens regularly in France out in the sticks?

[LQ]

Here's my question about Vagabond: what the hell was the attack of the vine people at the end of the film all about? Was Mona being smeared with the wine lees just a great unexplained act of surrealism? Is this something that happens regularly in France out in the sticks?

In the south of France there are a lot of bizarre wine fests, especially in smaller towns. In the winter, though..?
I think it was tinged with a bit of surrealism, in any case. It sure set me on edge.

[domino harvey]

but really domino harvey, I'm keen to hear your take on Vagabond. Did you see it yet? Or did the other films dissuade you from continuing further

Oh I'd already seen it (Though I sold the set before I could rewatch the new transfer), but figured the other films in the set weren't akin to it, which is why it being in the set didn't hold any weight in my previous post. I think it's the best of the four films in the box, but it still doesn't quite work. The idea of defining Bonnaire's titular wanderer by those she encounters is an interesting idea, but Varda underutilizes the device. Bonnaire does her best with what little she's given but her teen is so one-note that the film rests on the people she encounters, many of which are equally uninteresting, though a few memorable encounters thankfully do occur-- The professor who studies plant fungus or the old woman who is less senile than her family assumes. It would have made a good twenty-minute short, but as a two hour film, it's pretty redundant.

[tartarlamb]

"Savagely"? At best the ending is cheap, predictable irony on the interchangeability of Stepford Lovers. The problem is that the notions you claim the film is commenting on are equally cliched on either end of the spectrum. These are eighth grade creative writing class insights into paper dolls. No new information is revealed and old ideas aren't given enough spark by the mechanics of the film. It simply fails on every level.

Alright, different strokes. I thought the film was clever, personally. I didn't at all anticipate the husband's insensible reaction to his wife's death, and I appreciated the deadpan which, to me, seemed pretty bold.

[LQ]

The idea of defining Bonnaire's titular wanderer by those she encounters is an interesting idea, but Varda underutilizes the device.

How would you say she underutilises it?

Hmm. I think Varda renders the point salient by using said device- who actually knows anyone? At the end, what do we really know about Mona? She is only the accumulation of information given by the people she encountered. And whats tragic, when you look at her blank, sullen eyes is the thought that there might be nothing more than that to her entire personhood. And that to me is chilling. Someone on the great horror thread mentioned this as a "serious horror movie" and I can see why, in a way.

[tartarlamb]

Rohmer's males are not "nigh-blameless" in their infidelity (or more appropriately, their intellectual explorations of the concept of infidelity). Rohmer's ambiguous treatment of his characters is leagues away from a vulgar self-justification for male chauvinism. All of the, uh hem, "pontificating" in Rohmer's cinema is in service of parsing out that critical distinction.

Sorry, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The comparison to Rohmer was meant to be complimentary. I was simply pointing out that gender perspective and class milieu may play a small part in critical judgement of these films.

And the point, too, was that a male's infidelity is either intellectually explored, validated, or even celebrated in French film, while a woman's almost invariably results in tragedy (Contempt, An Unfaithful Wife, Jules and Jim, etc. etc.).

Anyway, I watched Vagabond last night. I thought it was admirably unsentimental and original.

[Michael]

Anyway, I watched Vagabond last night. I thought it was admirably unsentimental and original.

You can say that again.

[domino harvey]

The idea of defining Bonnaire's titular wanderer by those she encounters is an interesting idea, but Varda underutilizes the device.

How would you say she underutilises it?

Hmm. I think Varda renders the point salient by using said device- who actually knows anyone? At the end, what do we really know about Mona? She is only the accumulation of information given by the people she encountered. And whats tragic, when you look at her blank, sullen eyes is the thought that there might be nothing more than that to her entire personhood. And that to me is chilling. Someone on the great horror thread mentioned this as a "serious horror movie" and I can see why, in a way.

Well, the film spends more time with Bonnaire than it does those who encounter her-- but since the audience, as you say and I concur, don't really know anything about her, the time would have been better spent on her interactions with others, with less time devoted to her solo wanderings. The film is only really interesting when others react to her. By saying the device is underutilized, I'm saying there should have been more/better interactions/reflections to justify what the film attempts. It wants to be a movie about how others view her, but it also still wants to be a movie about her, but the two ideas are counteractive.

[LQ]

Well, the film spends more time with Bonnaire than it does those who encounter her-- but since the audience, as you say and I concur, don't really know anything about her, the time would have been better spent on her interactions with others, with less time devoted to her solo wanderings. The film is only really interesting when others react to her. By saying the device is underutilized, I'm saying there should have been more/better interactions/reflections to justify what the film attempts. It wants to be a movie about how others view her, but it also still wants to be a movie about her, but the two ideas are counteractive.

But those spans of time devoted to her aimless wandering are the times that we the viewer spend with her. We collect data about her all the same, and formulate hazy, grasping opinions. Or we're simply indifferent. The only difference is that Agnes isn't interviewing us

[tartarlamb]

I found it very effective. By the end of the film, I still didn't know her character at all. I had what everyone in the film had: vague and ill-formed ideas of someone who may be either a champion of personal freedom, a deadbeat, or just a sad and lonely woman. Its quite a feat that Varda was able to sustain that mystery and avoid defining her character -- its a wonderful application of documentary principles in narrative fiction. The film reaps enormous benefits from Varda's restraint and her resistance to defining, idealizing, or sentimentalizing her character. A lesser director would have taken the bait.

[domino harvey]

Well, the film spends more time with Bonnaire than it does those who encounter her-- but since the audience, as you say and I concur, don't really know anything about her, the time would have been better spent on her interactions with others, with less time devoted to her solo wanderings. The film is only really interesting when others react to her. By saying the device is underutilized, I'm saying there should have been more/better interactions/reflections to justify what the film attempts. It wants to be a movie about how others view her, but it also still wants to be a movie about her, but the two ideas are counteractive.

But those spans of time devoted to her aimless wandering are the times that we the viewer spend with her. We collect data about her all the same, and formulate hazy, grasping opinions. Or we're simply indifferent. The only difference is that Agnes isn't interviewing us

But over half the film is devoted to the audience's solo time with this ciphery waif, which would be fine for a character but for an abstract, a surrogate for Varda's supposed concept, whose only goal is to have us react but not interact with her blankness, that's poor time management. Varda's training as a documentarian has seemingly dulled her to anything but the surface of what she films. I don't mind doing the work as a viewer, but I don't work harder for a film just to cover the ass of a filmmaker who is confusing obliqueness for insight. Compare Varda to another filmmaker who makes the viewer work, Godard, and you get the full contrast: his films are so dense with ideas that every examination yields limitless treasures; Varda's films pound one idea past the point of recognition and then sit back and relax.