Monthly Archives: April 2023

  • Three Colours: Blue

    Trois couleurs: Bleu, Trzy kolory: Niebieski

    Krzysztof Kieślowski (1993)

    Krzysztof Kieślowski’s trilogy has been newly restored for its thirtieth birthday – a good opportunity to catch up with this famous work, none of which I’ve seen before.  I’d never even realised that Polish auteur Kieślowski’s tricolour concept related to the French flag and national motto of liberté, égalité, fraternité.  According to this scheme, the theme of Blue, the first part of the trilogy, is freedom.  A few minutes into the narrative, a car crashes into a tree.  Three people – a married couple and their only child – are in the car and two are killed in the accident (which is staged very credibly and shockingly).  The remainder of the film describes the aftermath for the survivor, Julie (Juliette Binoche).  On the one hand, the implication that a woman losing her husband and five-year-old daughter in such circumstances thereby is freed – or at least sees a chance to explore new possibilities for freedom – is striking, even subversive.  On the other, you wouldn’t actually guess from seeing Blue, as distinct from reading about it and its two companion pieces, that Kieślowski was primarily concerned with the first watchword of the French Revolution.          

    In hospital after the accident, Julie feels compelled to choose what could be considered the ultimate freedom:  she steals a bottle of tablets from the dispensary with the intention of ending her life but she can’t swallow them.  Her husband was the famous composer Patrice de Courcy (Hugues Quester); when Julie returns to their home, she destroys the unfinished score for his last commission, a piece to celebrate European unity at the end of the Cold War.  She contacts Patrice’s sometime collaborator, Olivier (Benoît Régent); aware that he carries a torch for her, Julie sleeps with Olivier before telling him they won’t meet again.  She empties the family house, puts it on the market and moves to an apartment in Paris.  The sole memento from her previous life that she retains there is a mobile of blue beads that belonged to her late daughter, Anne (I can’t identify the child who plays her:  the character isn’t shown in the IMDb cast list).  At one point, Julie removes one of the beads and appears to do with it what she couldn’t do with the tablets in hospital – bite, crunch, swallow.

    ‘I want no possessions,’ says Julie, ‘no memories, no friends, no lovers – they’re all traps’.  Kieślowski, who wrote the screenplay with Krzysztof Piesiewicz, presents Julie’s sloughing off of her former life as surprisingly easy in practical terms, given Patrice’s celebrity and Julie’s own reputation as more than an assistant to her famous husband.  There are many mourners at Patrice and Anne’s funeral, which Julie doesn’t attend but watches on what seems to be a live video link.  A journalist (Hélène Vincent) subsequently asks her,‘Is it true you wrote your husband’s music?’ (without getting an answer).  Bar Olivier, though, Julie has next to no social contacts to renounce – and no relatives except for her mother (Emmanuelle Riva), whom she visits a couple of times in a care home.  The mother has Alzheimer’s and doesn’t recognise her daughter, which makes Julie’s mission to erase the past all the more straightforward.  Julie goes several times to public swimming baths where, more often than not, she’s the only swimmer.  The place seems to be open all hours, so that Kieślowski and his cinematographer, Slawomir Idziak, can make the blue water even more eye-catching under night lights.

    Blue‘s sustained visual allure is absorbing but also distancing.  With Juliette Binoche’s face as its centre and in frequent close-up, the film is bound to look lovely.  Although Julie’s Paris apartment is sparsely furnished and decorated, the minimalist décor comes across as an affluent middle-class style statement as much as a declaration of intent:  it aligns with Binoche’s unadorned beauty, which the heroine’s simple hairstyle and wardrobe make all the more salient, as much as with Julie’s state of mind.  As her mother, the perennially elegant Emmanuelle Riva suffers from a notably decorous, even soigné, form of dementia.  A less typical, more memorable image – whether staged or an actual event caught on camera I don’t know – is supplied by a different elderly woman, watched by Julie from behind her apartment window, in the street outside.  The woman tries to put a glass bottle in a bottle bank.  Her face unseen, her back bent by what’s presumably osteoporosis, she reaches up with difficulty to insert the bottle, which is still lodged only precariously by the time Kieślowski moves on.  In the course of the bottle bank sequence, he cuts away two or three times to Julie’s observation of the scene – underlining emphatically in whom he’s interested and keeping the viewer, like Julie, at a remove from the old woman.

    It’s not long before Julie discovers, of course, that she can neither completely abandon her past nor detach herself in the present.  Snatches of Patrice’s music haunt her.  Antoine (Yann Trégouët), the teenage boy who was the only witness to the car accident, phones and then meets with her to return a necklace that he found at the crash scene, although Julie insists he keep it.  Olivier tracks her down.  (I didn’t understand how it was that Antoine managed to contact her more easily than it seems Olivier did.)  She’s visited by a fellow occupant of her apartment building who is organising a petition to the landlord to demand the eviction of another tenant, Lucille (Charlotte Véry), an exotic dancer at a nearby club.  Julie refuses to sign and soon strikes up a tentative friendship with Lucille.  Julie returns one day to discover a rat, with her newborns, in the apartment, and is scared stiff; she initiates contact with another neighbour, asking to borrow his cat to get rid of her unwelcome guests.  (I didn’t understand either why Julie kept calling the rats mice.)

    Some of these incursions on Julie’s anonymity – the disgusted neighbour’s petition, the rodent problem – are plausible through seeming random but in the closing stages of Blue Kieślowski relies on conventional, not to say clichéd, happenings to complicate her determined isolation.  Julie happens to see Olivier on television: he’s giving an interview in which he reveals that he kept a copy of Patrice’s work on the European unity piece and plans to complete it himself.  In the course of the interview, a photograph flashes up on screen of Patrice with another woman.  Through Olivier, Julie discovers she is Sandrine (Florence Pernel), who was not only in a years-long relationship with Patrice but is now pregnant by him.  From this point on, Blue relies on its impeccable art-film surface and cultural class to disguise a lapse into soap opera.  A super-civilised confrontation with Patrice’s mistress ends with Julie’s giving away the former family home (still unsold) to Sandrine because she carries within her the future that Julie doesn’t have. (Sandrine, a high-flying Paris lawyer, is hardly in need of such generosity:  I found myself wishing Patrice had been having it off instead with a more economically deserving cause, like the exotic dancer.)  Julie also decides to collaborate on the unfinished musical piece with Olivier, who then refuses to acknowledge the work as his unless Julie shares the composing credit, which she agrees to do.  She asks him if he still loves her and the answer is yes.  They meet again.  Perhaps Julie does have a future after all.

    You might think Patrice de Courcy’s commission was surplus to requirements thanks to Beethoven and Schiller but Kieślowski and his composer, Zbigniew Preisner, are resourceful.  Preisner’s composition on behalf of Patrice-Julie-Olivier is flamboyant verging on bombastic.  In the closing sequence, the music is premiered, complete with choir and soprano solo:  the lyrics are supplied by St Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.  The piece plays against a montage of shots of key characters from the story.  The film ends with Julie’s tear-stained face gradually beginning to smile.  Juliette Binoche is asked to make that kind of transition a lot.  She delivers luminously but I found Blue unmoving:  this conception-driven account of loss conveys little sense of a real struggle to cope with and come through bereavement.  At the start, before the car crash, Julie’s daughter is shown on camera to the virtual exclusion of Patrice; in what follows, Anne barely gets mentioned.  I felt this was less a matter of words failing grief-stricken Julie than of Kieślowski’s failing to work out a way of dramatising the mother’s loss of her child.  The husband is a better bet, what with his music and his infidelity.  Julie’s discovery of the latter is a coup de foudre.  If Patrice was in the public eye (and snaps of him and Sandrine together are part of a TV channel’s photograph library), it’s unclear how Julie could have remained in the dark about the affair.  But finding out about it so belatedly gives her another reason now to jettison the past and, I suppose, to feel ‘free’.

    9 April 2023

  • EO

    Jerzy Skolimowski (2022)

    I watched Robert Bresson’s celebrated Au hasard Balthazar (1966) about twenty years ago, for the first and last time.  I couldn’t believe that the cruel treatment of Balthazar, a donkey, was confined to Bresson’s script – that the animal(s) used in making the film didn’t suffer too.  Even though no-animals-were-harmed assurances in closing credits have been standard practice for decades, I decided to see EO – veteran Polish director Jerzy Skolimowski’s new version of Bresson’s tale – only after some hesitation, and I soon regretted my decision.  Although his film is very different from Au hasard Balthazar, Skolimowski still tells an offensively sad story and the numerous differences from Bresson aren’t gains, except that EO is slightly shorter than its inspiration (eighty-eight minutes compared with ninety-five).

    Skolimowski and Ewa Piakowska, who shares with him the screenplay credit, have a penchant for savage irony, sometimes oddly combined with donkey-based humour.  At the start, EO is a performer in a Polish circus with Kasandra (Sandra Drzymalska), who loves and does her best to care properly for him.  The circus is shut down, thanks to the efforts of Animal Rights activists and welfare-conscious local authority bylaws:  since EO’s life without Kasandra is more precarious, the film seems to say the do-gooders have made matters worse.  In the Bresson, when Balthazar joins a circus (about halfway through), he goes berserk after recognising one of his former, relatively less abusive, owners in the audience.  This is echoed in EO when the donkey wanders onto a field where an amateur soccer match is happening.  A penalty is awarded and EO starts to bray, disturbing the concentration of the penalty-taker, who fails to score.  This hands victory to the opposing team – they launch into wild celebrations.  Unlike Balthazar, EO has no reason to make such a noise; he does so simply in order to supply a bit of comedy – and to pay for it later that evening, when the aggrieved losers, after causing mayhem in the bar where the winners are drinking, see EO in the car park and beat him nearly to death.

    For Anglophone audiences, the donkey’s name is almost bound to suggest Eeyore in Winnie the Pooh (the film’s Polish title is the phonetically similar IO) but it’s for other reasons that Skolimowski’s characterisation of EO, as he travels through life, makes one uncomfortable.  My memory may be at fault about Au hasard Balthazar (as indicated above, I’ll not watch it again to check) but I don’t recall other animal species in Bresson’s film signifying much, except for the flock of sheep that gathers round Balthazar as he dies.  EO is very different.  Transported to stables after the circus closes, the donkey watches horses gambolling in the adjoining field and his attitude seems meant to be wistful.  Wandering out of a farm into a nighttime forest, where men are hunting, EO sees a wolf in its death agony after being shot.  Just before the football match, the protagonist trots through a town and stops at a shop window to look at tropical fish in an aquarium.  At a fur factory, a man electrically shocks and kills terrified mink.  It’s certainly one of the film’s few cheering moments when EO delivers a well-aimed hind-hoof kick that knocks the minx torturer unconscious (or worse) but the implication, here and elsewhere, that non-human animals are a kind of benign, oppressed (except for the gambolling horses) fellowship is quasi-Disney queasy.  One doesn’t need to spend long watching David Attenborough series (themselves not above anthropomorphism) to be convinced that the animal kingdom, without human intervention, is mostly birth, copulation and death.  The hero’s mug shot on the film’s poster, which makes the donkey look cute in an almost cartoonish way, proves more revealing than expected.  EO was played by six different grey Sardinian donkeys.  They are beautiful creatures but it’s startling how many reviewers of this widely-praised film describe EO as ‘adorable’, promise that ‘you’ll fall in love with him’, etc.  Fair enough, though:  Skolimowski definitely encourages this kind of reaction.

    Although he sets out to show the world as EO experiences it, Skolimowski is so concerned to drive home a misanthropic message that he abandons the donkey’s point of view whenever it suits.  Except for Kasandra, the animal hospital vet (Andrzej Szeremeta) who treats EO after the car park attack and, later on, a young Italian priest called Vito (Lorenzo Zurzolo), who finds the donkey tied to a pole and takes him home, the people in EO tend to treat animals unkindly or perfunctorily.  But people also treat other people badly – those who don’t are unlikely to be rewarded.  Mateo (Mateusz Kosciukiewicz), a Polish truck driver transporting a collection of animals that includes EO, buys food at a stop-off and offers some to a hungry-looking woman hanging around the place (an encounter that EO can’t be witnessing).  She sits and eats next to Mateo in the truck; he grins as he says to her, ‘And now for sex’; she makes a quick exit even as he protests that he was only joking.  Another man then appears on the driver’s side of the vehicle and slits Mateo’s throat.

    Vito lives with his stepmother (Isabelle Huppert), listed in the credits as ‘The Countess’. She complains about his gambling (which at least isn’t the usual vice of a screen priest nowadays), calls him names and starts smashing crockery.  EO is nowhere to be seen throughout this exchange.  It might seem appropriate for the Countess to be played by an aristocrat of the acting world but Isabelle Huppert’s brief appearance is rather bewildering.  Unlike anyone else in EO, she’s an internationally famous face:  she upstages the donkey as well as the other humans in the cast.  By this stage, Skolimowski seems to be losing interest in explaining how EO gets from one situation to another.  The Wikipedia plot synopsis, as it describes the last stages of EO’s journey to death, is more revealing than perhaps it means to be about this narrative sketchiness:

    ‘EO notices the gate into The Countess’ estate has opened, and he leaves. EO walks over a stone bridge in front of a large dam, watching the water flow.  Sometime later EO is with cows being led into a slaughterhouse.’

    There are repeated red-lit strobe sequences though even I’ll admit that in this case they’re not much harder to watch than quite a few other sequences.  (There was an on-screen warning at the start about flashing lights though no advance e-mail from BFI as there had been last autumn for Aftersun.)  The strobe is more notable as a symptom of the consistently spectacular (un-Bressonian) image-making by Skolimowski and his DP Michał Dymek.  When at the end of EO’s life the screen goes black, text immediately appears on it confirming not only that no animals were harmed in the making of EO but that animal safety was always the film-makers’ first priority.  I’m not questioning this in terms of the physical treatment of the animals involved; in that respect, the film is easier to take than Au hasard Balthazar.  I still can’t easily accept that some of the six animals playing the title character didn’t have a sometimes stressful time, unless the editing and/or use of CGI is more ingenious than I realise or the donkeys are more gifted actors.

    5 April 2023

Posts navigation