Daily Archives: Saturday, October 24, 2015

  • The Measure of a Man

    La loi du marché

    Stéphane Brizé  (2015)

    The Measure of a Man begins with an interview between an employment agency counsellor and Thierry Taugourdeau, the protagonist of Stéphane Brizé’s film.  Thierry, who’s fifty-one years old, has been unemployed for over a year, since he was laid off by the factory where he worked.  He’s recently completed five months of training as a crane driver.  His employment counsellor now admits that training won’t be enough to get a job – news that makes Thierry understandably angry and frustrated.  Stéphane Brizé goes on to describe Thierry’s continuing efforts to find work, his attempts to raise cash or secure a bank loan in the meantime, and his home life.  He’s married, with one child – a teenage boy, who has cerebral palsy but is bright and wants to go to college.   About halfway through the film, Thierry gets a job, as a supermarket security guard.  (We don’t see how he gets the job; Brizé simply introduces Thierry in his new place of work.)  Each scene, from the start of the film, is flawlessly realistic.   The Measure of a Man is gripping as drama and, in its early stages, suspenseful:  you wonder if the realism and the dramatic grip can be sustained.  After a while, you know they will be – at least for as long as Brizé keeps things at the same level.

    Several of the exchanges are at once sad and funny.  Thierry and his wife are still paying a mortgage on their apartment but they own a modest mobile home, which they try to sell:  the negative attitude of the prospective buyers emerges gradually and inexorably, as Thierry determinedly fights his corner.  As well as having a real job interview via Skype, he role-plays as an interviewee and, in the round-table discussion that follows, listens to a litany of unfavourable comments on his performance from his fellow unemployed.  The session co-ordinator asks the others in the group if they think they’d like to meet Thierry in real life and they say they’d rather not – although he’s sitting among them.  Shortly after Thierry starts his job at the supermarket, he attends a retirement do for Gisèle, one of the longest-serving staff; her colleagues sing a song that one of them has arranged in her honour.  One bit is more simply and enjoyably funny.  Thierry and his wife go to dance classes:  they move easily dancing together; when the male dance instructor intervenes and takes over the lady’s part to demonstrate some points of technique, Thierry is instantly much less comfortable.  As you watch and admire The Measure of a Man, however, you feel that Stéphane Brizé will, sooner or later, have to make his story (he wrote the screenplay with Olivier Gorce) more eventfully dramatic.  I was conscious both of wanting Brizé to do this and fearing I’d be disappointed as soon as he complicated the narrative’s scrupulous but limited lifelikeness.

    In the event, when Brizé first ups the dramatic ante, the result is both shocking and convincing.  We’ve already seen the security staff at the supermarket interviewing suspected shoplifters.  These sequences are compellingly miserable; the mood darkens further when Françoise, the cashier who wrote the farewell song for Gisèle and led the singing of it, is interrogated by the supermarket manager, with Thierry also present.  Françoise is accused of pocketing discount coupons for her own use and, once she realises further lying is fruitless and admits to this, she’s fired.  A scene or two later, the manager, with the supermarket chain’s director of human resources alongside, addresses the staff.  I expected the announcement of further job losses; instead, it’s explained that Françoise – whose domestic circumstances are now acknowledged by management to have been very difficult – has committed suicide.  I was less persuaded by the ending of The Measure of a Man, although the film stopped almost too abruptly for me to register this at the time.  A second female worker at the supermarket is hauled over the coals – this time for crediting other customers’ purchases to her own loyalty card.  Thierry is present again but, before this interview is over, he leaves the room, collects his things from his locker and drives away from the supermarket.  We realise that Thierry has been finding his spying work – spending his days patrolling aisles and watching CCTV screens – increasingly hard to tolerate.  Yet it’s difficult to believe in his impulsive departure – to accept that this deeply responsible family man would simply walk out of a job in a way likely to jeopardise his prospects of finding another.  The ending does, though, expand the meaning of the film’s English title; this is a case where the translated title is an improvement on the original.  Brizé’s more narrowly political ‘The Law of the Market’ conveys his deploring of capitalist exploitation and heartlessness.  ‘The Measure of a Man’ gets across both the sense of how much working-class identity depends on maintaining paid employment and the strength of Thierry’s moral compass.

    Vincent Lindon won the Best Actor prize at Cannes this year for his performance as Thierry Taugourdeau.  It’s hard to think the honour has been more deserved on many previous occasions in the Festival’s seventy years.  This is a fine demonstration of one of the hallmarks of great screen acting – the ability to let the audience see things about a character that other characters on the screen aren’t seeing.  (I realise how regularly I insist on this quality but it’s often a sine qua non in film drama.)  With an awareness of the camera so refined that it seems intuitive, Lindon expresses a persistent sense of Thierry’s showing less than he’s feeling, in order to improve the chances of making happen what he desperately needs to happen.  There’s humour in Thierry too, even though it’s hidden under layers of worry and disappointment.  What’s most remarkable about his acting – and Stéphane Brizé’s direction – is how seamlessly Vincent Lindon blends into a cast of non-professionals.  At the same time, he magnetises the viewer and carries the movie.  The Measure of a Man screened at the recent New York Film Festival (as well as the London Film Festival, where I saw it).  In an interview for NYFF, Brizé talked about his casting:

    ‘I had already filmed non-professional actors in tiny roles, and every time I had the feeling that I was getting closer to a truth – which is what interests me the most in my work. I had to push this system even further by throwing an experienced actor into a cast of non-professionals. The idea was to bring Vincent Lindon to uncharted waters in terms of his acting.  … Many of the roles corresponded to specific jobs: the security guards, the banker, the staff at the unemployment office, the cashiers, etc. Coralie Amédéo, the casting director, first looked for people who worked at the same jobs as their characters.  I was blown away by the people I met.  I doubt they can do what actors do – but I don’t think any actor is capable of doing what they can. It is fascinating to see people walk up to a filmmaker and casting director, in an office they’re completely unfamiliar with, and impose their crude and powerful truth with mind-blowing authority. Where does their ability to completely be themselves in front of a camera come from? It’s a mystery that continues to fascinate me.’

    Karine de Mirbeck interprets the role of Thierry’s wife perfectly.  Among the many excellent people playing a work-based alter ego, Françoise Anselmi, as her ill-fated supermarket namesake, is especially remarkable.

    10 October 2015

  • Amour

    Michael Haneke (2012)

    Amour is fluent and humane.  Since it’s written and directed by Michael Haneke, the second quality is more remarkable than the first:  in view of Haneke’s work to date, you would no more expect a film of his called Amour to celebrate love than you’d have expected a Todd Solondz movie called Happiness to be an illustration of its title.  The lives of the octogenarian married couple Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva), as she suffers a series of strokes and becomes entirely dependent on his care, are realised by Haneke with a detailed precision that’s effortless.  You take this for granted yet you know it’s something that only a very gifted film-maker can achieve.  In the same way, the two leads are so good that you’re hardly ever aware of their acting (but you’re aware that you’re hardly ever aware …) Images in your mind of what these two were like half a century or more ago give their senescence a particular charge even though Trintignant (aged eighty-two) and Riva (eighty-six) haven’t been fixtures of international cinema in the intervening decades (at least for audiences outside France).

    Georges and Anne are both retired music teachers.  At the start of the film they attend a public recital by a former pupil (played by the pianist Alexandre Tharaud).  Once or twice later on a tape is played in their Paris apartment and Georges sings ‘Sur le pont d’Avignon’ to Anne but one of the most striking things about Amour is the absence of any other music on the soundtrack (even though this is usual in a Michael Haneke film).  Once Anne is housebound, Haneke’s camera also stays within the apartment.  The sustained silence increases the sense of intimacy between the couple and the audience in the cinema (and makes you realise how often a film score can have the opposite effect).  This is also an example of a movie where the isolation of the principal characters is credible because it’s willed by them.  Anne and Georges are in this grave situation together – she and he, especially, are determined, as things get worse, that no one is going to gatecrash:  certainly not their brittle, humourless daughter Eva, who visits occasionally.  I’m not a fan of Isabelle Huppert but the peculiar deadliness with which she invests Eva’s lines is surely just what Haneke had in mind.   It’s not easy to get out of your own mind the sound of Eva rattling on to Anne about her and her British husband (William Shimell)’s financial planning, telling her nearly wordless mother that the interest rate on a savings account is currently 1.75%.  The only other living creature that seems in any way to share the old couple’s situation is a pigeon which twice gets into the apartment and, with the help of Georges, back out again.  You can see the pigeon as a symbol for something or other but it’s the fact that its comings and goings remain mysterious that makes it such a strong and beautiful element of the story.

    We understand that particular events cause Anne’s condition to get worse:  we’re not shown all these events but we see their effects.  Haneke does show, in real time, Anne’s first ischaemic episode, which occurs as she and Georges are having breakfast.  This is ‘a moment in and out of time’, in more ways than one.  From Georges’s point of view, it’s a frightening interruption of the flow of his life with Anne; once she ‘comes back’, it’s as if the episode occurred in a different world.  From Anne’s point of view, she has, of course, no memory of what happened – only her husband’s concern to disquiet her.  Amour includes an extraordinarily powerful dream sequence, its impact increased by the fact that the location of Georges’ nightmare is the couple’s apartment – or, at least, the corridor outside the front door of the apartment – so we take what we’re seeing as reality.  Haneke is also very successful in conveying the erosive effects, on morale and physical strength, of grim and, from Anne’s point of view, humiliating routine.  There’s no denying that Anne’s continuing, unstoppable decline is more upsetting because Emmanuelle Riva is so slim and elegant – because she looks still to be within touching distance of Anne’s younger self.  Trintignant’s Georges looks at Anne with a kind of impacted, disbelieving resentment that she’s disappearing but he does everything for her.   You hope that Anne will drift off into death as Georges tells her a childhood story but the end is not peaceful:  it’s a struggle which he, though increasingly weak and tired, has to win.  Haneke doesn’t explain what has happened to Georges at the end of the film but he doesn’t need to.   You accept that Anne’s death is, to all intents and purposes, the end of Georges’ life too.  That he departs with her.

    Because Michael Haneke likes and admires his protagonists, and because Riva and Trintignant are moving, Amour seems, compared with Haneke’s earlier work, a relatively emotional piece of work.  Yet it still has a chilliness that I find forbidding.  This quality derives partly from Haneke’s technique, which seems almost too perfect for its subject:  the physically gruelling scenes are staged so skilfully that the technical smoothness is rather appalling.  (The cinematography is by Darius Khondji and the editor is Monika Willi.)   The other chilly element is Anne’s and Georges’s impeccably cultured existence.  Their living room is lined with books and there are tasteful objets d’art in evidence.  They don’t have, though, a pet animal or a television or any trace of vulgarity or frivolity.  Maybe these things don’t make a difference to old age once it descends but the rarefied atmosphere of the couple’s increasingly gloomy apartment emphasises their helplessness.

    22 November 2012

Posts navigation