Spoilers herein.
I am a newcomer to Rohmer?s work, having seen only two before this. But this is so intelligent, so imaginative, I must rush to see what else I can. He works with the nature of the telling by focusing on the manner of telling. Here, he selects a subject that concerns artifice and abstraction (the aristocratic manners with a former mistress, and theideals of the French revolution). And he presents them according to his understanding of how artificial and abstract they are.
The presentation is shocking. If you haven?t seen it, he has flattened all the sets by literally using paintings with people superposed. This is done inside as well where all the walls are flat and have texture painted on them. Doors, cupboards also. We are transported to a theatrical world where the actors not only perform for us, the characters perform for each other. Very clever notion that reminds us how synthetic ?normal? film is.
At the same time, we have Rohmer?s constant fixation with how abstract notions interact with reality. Here we have the French revolution. Unlike that which took place in North America the decade before, this was pure ideals not at all practicalized. (Dr Franklin was appalled.) And it was heavy with opportunists and posers. The notion of how things were, how they should be, how one should comport, what constitutes a ?nation,? or ?liberty? -- all abstractions. Presented in the form of dialog between two people who could not shape it.
Sex is the driver here, at least of the characters we see. But it is so refined, so submerged one completely forgets the moist clutch and replaces it with the unctious glance.
It seems to me that Rohmer?s relationship with his actors and the text is slight, as it should be, allowing him to focus on the space around them. Other filmmakers frame their shots around the principles and a few elements from the environment. Rohmer frames his entirely from the environment, which incidentally flattens everything -- even without the painting trick.
This is the logical extension of "Marquis," May Rohmer live long enough to go further.
Ted?s Evaluation: 3 of 4 : Worth Watching.
IMDB: 10
I am a newcomer to Rohmer?s work, having seen only two before this. But this is so intelligent, so imaginative, I must rush to see what else I can. He works with the nature of the telling by focusing on the manner of telling. Here, he selects a subject that concerns artifice and abstraction (the aristocratic manners with a former mistress, and theideals of the French revolution). And he presents them according to his understanding of how artificial and abstract they are.
The presentation is shocking. If you haven?t seen it, he has flattened all the sets by literally using paintings with people superposed. This is done inside as well where all the walls are flat and have texture painted on them. Doors, cupboards also. We are transported to a theatrical world where the actors not only perform for us, the characters perform for each other. Very clever notion that reminds us how synthetic ?normal? film is.
At the same time, we have Rohmer?s constant fixation with how abstract notions interact with reality. Here we have the French revolution. Unlike that which took place in North America the decade before, this was pure ideals not at all practicalized. (Dr Franklin was appalled.) And it was heavy with opportunists and posers. The notion of how things were, how they should be, how one should comport, what constitutes a ?nation,? or ?liberty? -- all abstractions. Presented in the form of dialog between two people who could not shape it.
Sex is the driver here, at least of the characters we see. But it is so refined, so submerged one completely forgets the moist clutch and replaces it with the unctious glance.
It seems to me that Rohmer?s relationship with his actors and the text is slight, as it should be, allowing him to focus on the space around them. Other filmmakers frame their shots around the principles and a few elements from the environment. Rohmer frames his entirely from the environment, which incidentally flattens everything -- even without the painting trick.
This is the logical extension of "Marquis," May Rohmer live long enough to go further.
Ted?s Evaluation: 3 of 4 : Worth Watching.
IMDB: 10