Introduction
I was studying Freudian psychology in France during the riots that happened there in the 60s, so this film was very familiar in its setting. Also, on a broad level, Freudian analysis can be applied to the film as a whole, with characters representing the different aspects of id, ego and superego. Unlike my previous reviews, this piece is more of an analysis (and I will entitle it thusly) and will hitherto be the most pretentious prose I will write. Don’t worry! I won’t do anything like this again, you cunts!
I watched this film on the recommendation of a lifelong friend and same-sex lover after watching another recommendation made by him – Blowup (1966). Both have the typical soundtracks you would expect (which I will not mention at all), one of course being contemporary and the other not, but both also have challenging character types who are not instantly likeable. My friend and I agreed that we missed this (having been around at the time) and generally, film viewers are more comfortable with characters who, whilst having flaws, are generally ‘good people’. Let’s get more abrasive protagonists so the viewer ends up thinking “I do not care what happens to this person”. I also enjoyed the guilt-free smoking which is extended to a wider theme in the film in the form or responsibility.
Analysis
Basis:
Michael Pitt, who is currently being seen as a flawed gangster in the relatively interesting series ‘Boardwalk Empire’, plays Matthew, who is a seemingly naive American studying French, in Paris, in 1968. Matthew soon meets Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel), who have ties to the ‘revolutionary acts’ that are taking place, and they quickly bond over their mutual affection for not just the French new wave, but cinema in general.
Matthew goes around to the family home, where it is revealed that Isabelle and Theo’s father is in fact a once-famous poet. During a meal, they all smoke pink cigarettes whilst discussing existentialism and relativity; at this point of the film, it is established that Theo has little love for his father’s views, which have become wet over time. Later in the film this is countered by Matthew’s background, where there is implied poverty, sexual abuse and a dictatorial father.
During dinner Matthew makes the observation that everything is inextricably linked through a demonstration of the dimensions of a cigarette lighter. This is highlighted throughout the film in the human medium; in the same way that the cigarette lighter relates to each contour and corner of all that is perceived, every action and every human movement relates to a piece of cinema – the visual counterpart to life. Bertolucci achieves this comparison by relating movements made by the characters to famous flicks of the time, which becomes something of a competition between the characters, but also raises the notion of art imitating life and vice versa; however, it relates to a subconscious imitation that is condensed, by Matthew, to something as simple as a lighter; appliance emulates appliance and person emulates people (cinema).
Knowledge and experience is through the fucking nose, apparently, too – the bigger the nose the bigger the brain. This pleases me, as I am renowned for my gargantuan fucking snout. Bertolucci does a good job of making you want to be there at first, which organically expands into you actually being there all together. WHAT?!
Person:
 |
| Matthew pisses in a sink for the seventh time |
Matthew habitually pisses in sink – wait a second, I imagine; I do that in a way, as one of my idiosyncraticies is that I kneel to urinate. He also covers his mouth because of morning breath – he is an utterly human representation thrown into an intellectually aristocratic family – a nouveau-gentry – wait, he has the same hair as me too! – I am trapped in the implied incestuous relationship that in turn is trapped in a cyclopean house.
The Keaton/Chaplin argument that Matthew and Theo share is comparable to any modern day discussion between ‘who you prefer’; for example, the common question “do you prefer Ben Affleck or Ben Kingsley?”. Mechanisms such as this cement the viewer’s position within the plot, regardless of the period it is set. You find yourself wishing to be in Matthew’s situation, or having siblings like Isabelle and Theo, where innocuous film-naming competitions that mirror life become excuses for sexual acts.
Communism and Isabelle:
 |
| Theo fries eggs as Matthew takes one for the team |
Throughout the film there are allusions to the backdrop of the tale, which is the boring student riot. This is coupled with communist imagery, with busts of Chairman Mao, references to the little red book, and Soviet flags. After one of the film-naming charades Theo instructs Matthew to fuck Isabelle as the forfeit, which he, in a dazed manner, completes. Yeah, you get to see pretty much all of Eva Green. During their awkward intercourse, Theo fries some eggs, representing the loss of innocence through the consumption of embryonic states, the menstrual cycle and the fact that his sister is, as it turns out, a virgin. The blood red that Matthew dabs on his hand from Isabelle’s vagina is just as symbolic as the red of the communist flag as it signifies a revolution of sorts – Isabelle’s loss of innocence, which was unexpected on account of her demeanour, is at one with the revolution. Later, when Isabelle gets her period as they’re sharing a bath, everyone’s really happy. Phew! We all know how that feels, right guys?
Accept everything:
Matthew occasionally expresses his embedded nationalistic views that he has brought with him from the Americas, communicating his support for troops in Vietnam. This makes him an alien of sorts, however he is quick to adapt to his surroundings, and a central theme to the film is just this – acceptance of whatever the fuck is going on. Isabelle cooks a really shit meal for them and I think sums it up by saying that Matthew should shut the fuck up and “just eat the fucking thing as if you were in some foreign country you’ve never fucking been in, or even fucking heard of, before and this is the national dish.” That’s what it’s about, baby – shut the fuck up and eat it. It’s right there, isn’t it? Don’t be a pussy – don’t just look at it, eat it. Penny, pound! Penny, pound!Sexuality and Family:
There is not a relationship between three different people in this film – there is a relationship between Matthew and Isabelle/Theo. Although they’re not literally the same person (you fucking idiot), what Matthew doesn’t seem to grasp during the course of the film is that to receive love from one of the twins is to receive love from them both. Whilst the intercourse happens between Isabelle and Matthew, at times we see that Matthew is almost knowingly trying to seduce Theo, and there is some frustration over the fact that they never actually bum. There is a envious beauty to this love that I, being born of the earth, will never feel.
Although an incestuous relationship between the twins is suggested early in the film, it’s clear that they have never actually fucked. It is indirectly suggested, through Isabelle and Theo wanting to shave Matthew’s pubic hair, that they want to have a child, but due to their relationship to one another cannot do so. Matthew is essentially their kid, who they also happen to fuck. It is interesting to note that after the point where Matthew cries like a little baby over them wanting to prune his bush that he tries to ‘bring it back’ a notch by taking Isabelle out on a date that is displayed by Bertolucci in a classically cinematic way, even with a fucking closing aperture on the scene. There’s also a reference to a previous reference of the film Freaks (1932), but I don’t give enough of a fuck to include it. Oh, yeah, it’s inferred that Isabelle’s father – at some stage – has fingered her, or something. Who can blame him, amirite? This is the exposition of all that ‘sins of fathers’ shit that everyone always fucking talks about all the time.
Sexuality is married to knowledge which is derivative of experience; the characters use sex, at times, as an oppressive tool, something to overpower another with. Theo almost kisses Matthew at one stage after they have been drinking dusty wine and fucking about on a bed, but they soppy fuckers kind of chicken out of it. Ha! Pussy faggots aren’t man enough to kiss!
The Middle Classes and my inability to Forgive:
Isabelle’s room is clinical and filled with clinical things – a bastion retreat – Matthew compares it to his own sister’s bedrooms. Wait a second, Isabelle; FUCK YOU. You can’t have it both ways, luv. Seems to me like you want to live the life of an impoverished artisan whilst simultaneously and surreptitiously leading what others would constitute a ‘normal’ life. It’s okay though, because she shows her cards and it turns out that she’s just as fucked up as all the rest of the bourgeoisie. Ah, fuck it – fuck you! It’s easy to be that way if you have the fucking option, isn’t it? Some people don’t have a choice, you bitch.
Freud:
I won’t go into this too much as it’s obvious, but just imagine that the parents are the superego, Theo and Isabelle are the ego (yeah, that’s right) and Matthew is the id. The superego goes on holiday and look what happens: The Dreamers
The End and the Off Switch:
In final childish act they build a fort as a form of defence for when ma and da. When Isabelle discovers that her parents have left a cheque for Matthew to fuck off, she realises that she has been caught lying naked with her brother and lover. Oh, shit! She promised (she embarrassingly remembers) that she promised to top herself if they ever found out, so she tries to gas the three of them. Idiot. This is thwarted by a rock that smashes through the window as angry students futilely march against the gendarmerie. I sure hope the government wins if all the other students were as FUCKING LAZY as these three.
However, her swiftness to remedy the situation that she has put herself into with suicide is interesting, as I think we’ve all been in stages of our life where it would just be easier to press an invisible ‘off switch’. And it is symptomatic of the characters in the film to react in this manner, as their life had become an enclosed form of incestuous (not in the family sense) hedonism.
Conclusion:
Out of ten: SEVEN
No comments:
Post a Comment