Acts of Defiance [SAVAGE NIGHTS]

From the Chicago Reader (March 25, 1994). Although I’ve posted this once before, it seems worth bringing it back now, upgraded, to recall one of the neglected screen appearances of Maria Schneider  (1952-2011). — J.R.

*** SAVAGE NIGHTS

Directed by Cyril Collard

Written by Collard and Jacques Fieschi

With Collard, Romane Bohringer, Carlos Lopez, Corine Blue, Claude Winter, Denis D’Archangelo, and Jean-Jacques Jauffret.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MBsvcClDz0Y/TEcB4Z9PdaI/AAAAAAAAMDw/OFj1qKpu3nY/s1600/PDVD_002.JPG


If memory serves, the first time I ever heard of Sylvia Plath was the first time a lot of other people heard of her — in the mid-60s, a few years after she committed suicide, when her posthumous collection Ariel was published. I recall a teacher of mine in graduate school remarking that Plath’s suicide validated her late poetry, implying that if she hadn’t actually taken her own life, poems such as “Lady Lazarus” and “Daddy” wouldn’t have meant as much as they did — indeed, may not even have been “as good.”

The remark offended me at the time, but in retrospect I wonder if in some awful, seldom-acknowledged way my teacher was right. Many of us prefer to believe that works of art should be self-justifying, and therefore demand to be taken on their own terms, without “outside” information, but the fact remains that the hyperactive media and life itself rarely offer us that luxury. Take, for instance, these two consecutive stanzas in “Lady Lazarus” — “Dying / Is an art, like everything else. / I do it exceptionally well. . . . I do it so it feels like hell. / I do it so it feels real. / I guess you could say I’ve a call.” There’s a world of difference between reading these lines with the knowledge that Plath had already attempted suicide once and would try again and succeed and reading these lines without that knowledge. Without it the lines themselves, for all their blunt strength, don’t have the same impact; they might even sound self-indulgent.

A related quandary presents itself with Savage Nights (an adequate though incomplete translation of the original French title, Les nuits fauves), written by, partially scored by, directed by, and starring a bisexual musician/composer/filmmaker who died of AIDS a little more than a year ago. Because it deals semiautobiographically with the reckless life-style of the filmmaker, Cyril Collard, presumably before as well as after he learned he was HIV-positive, it is not a movie that can be approached from any neutral corner. The relation of life to art was undoubtedly even more melodramatic for a French audience because Collard, who was one of the first public figures in France to openly acknowledge being HIV-positive, was still alive when his film opened in France. In fact, he died only three days before Savage Nights swept the annual Cesar awards (the French equivalent of the Oscars), winning prizes for best film, best first film, best editing, and best new actress (Romane Bohringer), and it seems likely that given the circumstances under which they were awarded, the prizes had some political import.

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

Even in the U.S., where the political significance of the film is necessarily somewhat different, we can’t ignore the film’s autobiographical subtext; and the fact that Collard is now dead may intimidate us into not being too critical — even if we wind up recoiling from the movie, as some people have.

Conceived and executed as an act of defiance, Savage Nights virtually defines the cliched buzz term “in your face” by confronting the viewer with a good many things that are missing from most other contemporary movies and, more defiantly still, refusing to pass judgment on almost anything. For starters, though none of its characters seem especially bright or talented, they all seem to be living in the real world. Collard gets this across with a series of shocks — shocks that are the movie’s strengths as well as its limitations, that define its style as well as its content.

First a bit about content, which in this case means the plot. (If you don’t want to hear about it, skip to the next section.) Adapted from Collard’s novel of the same title — published in French in 1989 and in English quite recently – Savage Nights is mainly devoted to a few months in the life of Jean, a 30-year-old cinematographer and musician with AIDS living in Paris in 1986. After testing a 17-year-old girl named Laura (Romane Bohringer) for a part in a TV commercial that she doesn’t get, he calls her up, expresses his attraction to her, and before long has sex with her without telling her he’s HIV-positive. When he finally confesses this fact to her some time later, her anger is succeeded by an infatuated desire to remain with him and, less rationally, to “save” him with her love, and she insists on having further sex with him without a condom.

Far from being monogamous, Jean periodically looks for and finds anonymous sex — including group sex, hand jobs, and “golden showers” — with men along the banks of the Seine. He also becomes sexually involved with a taciturn, punkish youth named Samy (Carlos Lopez), whose Dutch father is in prison and whose Spanish mother used to work as a part-time prostitute. Through the influence of a fascistic pimp named Pierre Ollivier (Jean-Jacques Jauffret), Samy hangs out with skinheads and becomes increasingly drawn to sadomasochism. Samy is living with a woman when he first meets Jean, but after a spell, to the consternation and anguish of Laura as well as his former lover, he decides to move in with Jean. Samy also expresses a desire to have unprotected sex with him, but in this case Jean refuses, and he also declines sex of any kind with his ex-girlfriend Karine (Laura Favali).

Seemingly appalled by the morbidness and possessiveness of Laura’s continuing infatuation with him, Jean refuses to respond to most of her phone messages until she has a nervous breakdown; then he helps her mother take her to a sanitarium. Several weeks or months later he goes to visit Laura, now recovered, at a seaside location (possibly near her grandmother’s home in Nice, though this isn’t spelled out); he tells her he loves her, but she informs him it’s too late. Looking up Samy in Spain, who’s now fully under the influence of Ollivier, he saves a skinhead from castration in a gang skirmish by cutting his own hand with a knife and threatening to infect Ollivier if the boy isn’t spared. Still later, he travels alone to another seaside location — again unspecified, but described by him as “the edge of Europe,” which probably means the southern tip of Spain or Portugal — and phones Laura, telling her in essence that by facing death he’s finally come to understand life and caring for other people.

The most obvious attributes of the film’s style are a camera that tends to remain close to the characters and mobile (reportedly the camera was most often mounted on one of the shoulders of the cinematographer, Manuel Teran) and editing that depends largely on jump cuts — unexpected breaks in continuity and leaps forward in the action. Less prominent, though worthy of mention, is an emphasis on bright colors that, according to Collard in a 1992 interview, stems directly from a desire to emulate fauvism, the artistic movement associated with such painters as Matisse, Derain, and Vlaminck. (This style point is one reason “savage nights” is a less-than-perfect equivalent to les nuits fauves.)

What seems most significant about the camera and editing styles is the way they play against one another (as in Godard’s Breathless, which also features jump cuts and a mobile, hand-held camera kept close to the characters). From one point of view, the “hot” camera pulls us into the thick of the action while the “cool” editing distances us, skipping across consecutive events like a pebble skipping across the still surface of a pond, never giving us enough time to invest ourselves fully in the elements of a given scene; thus the very rhythm of the film becomes a kind of existential stammer. But one can also interpret this pattern in the opposite way: the camera’s closeness to Jean, Laura, and Samy — all of whom behave recklessly and often hysterically, and who in many important ways can be regarded as three versions or aspects of the same character — alienates us from their compulsive behavior, while the jump-cutting energizes us, repeatedly pushing us forward in a manner that forces us to share their compulsiveness.

Whatever interpretation one chooses, the net result is the same: an objectivity toward the characters. Our relationship to them is neither wholly empathetic nor wholly critical. The fact that Collard forces us to reach our own conclusions about them is the film’s biggest challenge, its ultimate dare — and what prevents the movie from being a soporific Hollywood “entertainment.”

How “pure” is Jean’s bisexuality? When he has sex with Laura before telling her he’s HIV-positive, and when he later refuses to pick up the phone when she calls repeatedly, leaving frantic messages — some of which he plays back later in his car — is this because he unconsciously hates her? The film doesn’t conclusively support or deny this idea; we have to decide for ourselves. Nothing the movie tells us is privileged, not even Jean’s offscreen narration — though this fact may wind up partly contradicting Collard’s intentions.

The weakest parts of the movie are the beginning and the end, perhaps because these parts break with the stylistic dialectic described above and grapple toward final definitions of some sort. In the prologue, set in Morocco in March 1986, Jean has a brief, enigmatic encounter with a woman named Noria, played by Maria Schneider, the lead actress in Last Tango in Paris. Schneider seems to be turning up as a muse to bestow her benediction on the film; she also appears later in a dream. Meanwhile Jean informs us offscreen that his astrological sign is Sagittarius. It all smacks of new-age mumbo-jumbo and hopeful invocation, including the scene just afterward when Jean arrives in Paris a month later and tells us he’s just learned about the death of Jean Genet. This whole patch of the movie feels like a string of quotations attached to the beginning of a novel, and the ending isn’t much clearer, even though it’s aiming even more obviously for transcendence or some notion of the infinite. Chicago film critic Sergio Mims persuasively compares it to the ending of The Incredible Shrinking Man – which I suppose, in a way, Collard is at this point, although the narration would have us believe that he’s expanding (”Perhaps I’ll die of AIDS . . . but I’m part of life”). Maybe, according to Collard’s philosophy, he’s doing both, rather like the incredible shrinking man entering the infinite molecular universe.

I have fewer problems with what comes between the beginning and the end, even though the three central characters aren’t very likable, behave monstrously on occasion, and are sometimes impenetrable (Samy in particular). After all, the same could be said of most of the characters in King Lear – which is not to suggest that Collard has much else in common with Shakespeare. (Some critics have complained that the way the characters scream at one another in some scenes points to some dramatic failing on Collard’s part, but I can’t see what they’re talking about. The consequences of playing out one’s feelings to the utmost, sexual and otherwise, are the subject of this movie, and Collard needs those screams the way Matisse needed those blues — all the better to splash us with.)

These characters don’t ask for our approval, not even once, and they ask more from life than it’s fashionable to want. If they cleaned up their acts, they’d bore us to distraction — which is probably why the ending, by which point Laura and Jean have allegedly straightened out a bit, fails to interest us much. They’ve become too much like characters in other movies.

How much of the movie is fiction and how much is documentary? It doesn’t linger over clinical details, but when we see Jean being treated for a lesion it doesn’t look fake. Collard, by the way, wound up playing the lead part only as a last resort, when he couldn’t find anyone else who was both suitable and willing. Considering everything else he does — including singing seven of the songs on the sound track, four of which he wrote or cowrote — it’s amazing that he can pull it off. But he does.

When I first saw Savage Nights, several weeks ago, I wasn’t sure what I thought; but it sure woke me from the living death most Hollywood entertainments offer nowadays to anyone looking for more than simple diversion. Now that I’ve seen it again, I still can’t say that I like all of it, but I also still find it difficult to dismiss.

People who come out of Philadelphia feeling the least bit irritated should rush off to Savage Nights without delay; if there was ever a corrective to that Hollywood snow job this is surely it, and a movie this blunt and honest doesn’t usually stick around for long. No bad courtroom drama here, no sucking up to “likable,” down-home homophobes, no nice-guy speeches, no role models. Just three desperate, largely interchangeable people going for broke, going under, sometimes going over the top, and going after their desires like insane fiends, whether we like it or not.

http://www.cinemovies.fr/images/data/photos/2877/les-nuits-fauves-1992-2877-1379064801.jpg

Published on 25 Mar 1994 in Featured Texts, Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

The Paper

Director Ron Howard (Parenthood, Backdraft, Far and Away) scores with an old-fashioned entertainment about a day in the life of a New York tabloid like the Post or the News. The contrived climaxes are strictly over the top, and the Coca-Cola plugs are so frequent that the movie starts to seem like a feature-length commercial, but a bustling script by David and Stephen Koepp and fancy turns by Michael Keaton, Robert Duvall, Glenn Close (as a snarling villain), Marisa Tomei, and Randy Quaid keep your adrenaline up even when your mind is on automatic pilot. There’s a very strong moment showing how a trumped-up police bust registers on the innocent party’s sister, a black girl doing her homework, and it’s easy to forgive the movie’s ham-handed depiction of the New York Times when its west-coast ribbing of Manhattan provinciality is so on target in other places. (Indeed, one suspects that the coolness of many reviewers to both this picture and Greedy, the latter made by Howard’s production company, is similarly motivated: for all their good humor, both movies are just a little too skeptical about slimy aspects of the contemporary world too often uncritically accepted.) This may not be The Front Page, but it understands what made those early newspaper pictures so breezy. With Jason Robards, Spalding Gray, and Catherine O’Hara. Bricktown Square, Golf Mill, Lincoln Village, 900 N. Michigan, Ford City, Evanston, Webster Place.

Published on 25 Mar 1994 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Savage Nights

Highly controversial and troubling but undeniably powerful and impossible to dismiss, this French feature cowritten (with critic Jacques Fieschi) by, directed by, and starring the late Cyril Collard follows the last reckless days and nights of a 30-year-old cinematographer and musician who discovers he is HIV positive but continues to have sex with strangers as well as with his two more regular lovers. Based on Collard’s autobiographical novel Les nuits fauves, Savage Nights won Cesars (the French equivalent of Oscars) for best picture, best first picture, most promising actress (Romane Bohringer), and best editing a few days after the 35-year-old filmmaker died of AIDS in March 1993. These honors can’t simply be written off as sentimental: stylistically and dramatically, this is an accomplished piece of work. If Collard’s driven hero often seems far from admirable–unconsciously misogynistic beneath his apparent bisexual “tolerance,” and, as his masochistic behavior often implies, full of self-loathing–the film seems admirably unpropagandistic in permitting spectators to make up their own minds about him. It also gives full voice to the agony of unrequited adolescent love (Bohringer’s volcanic performance), and, for better and for worse, offers a treatment of AIDS that’s the other side of the moon from Philadelphia–politically incorrect with a vengeance. Whether you like this or not, you’ll have a hard time shaking it loose. With Carlos Lopez. Pipers Alley.

Published on 18 Mar 1994 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Highway Patrolman

The anarchistic and unpredictable English director Alex Cox (Repo Man, Sid & Nancy, Walker) goes bilingual in this 1992 Mexican picture, spoken in Spanish throughout. In some ways it’s his best work to date–a beautifully realized tale about the life of a Mexican highway patrolman who’s neither sentimentalized nor treated like a villain: he takes bribes, but has a sense of ethics. Wonderfully played by Mexican star Roberto Sosa, he’s a more believable cop than any Hollywood counterparts that come to mind. Starting off as a sadsack comedy with black overtones, the film gravitates into grim neorealism, but Cox also displays a flair for surrealist filigree (worthy of Bunuel in spots) and straight-ahead action, and does some marvelous things with actors and the Mexican landscape. In some respects, this is a return to the funky, witty pleasures of Repo Man, but the virtuoso long-take camera style–there are only 187 cuts in the entire movie–and emotional depth show a more mature Cox. (I hope the other Mexican feature he made around the same time–a masterful, baroque black-and-white adaptation of Jorge Luis Borges’s “Death and the Compass” done for the BBC, with a camera style suggesting Touch of Evil–will eventually be imported as well.) Music Box, Friday through Thursday, March 18 through 24.

Published on 18 Mar 1994 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

9 1/2 Weeks with Van Gogh

From the Chicago Reader (March 12, 1993). — J.R.

VAN GOGH

*** (A must-see)

Directed and written by Maurice Pialat

With Jacques Dutronc, Alexandra London, Gerard Sety, Bernard le Coq, Corinne Boudon, and Elsa Zylberstein.

Consider the following two scenarios:

(1) In May 1890, Vincent van Gogh, missing one ear, arrives at Auvers-sur-Oise and meets Dr. Gachet — an avid art collector and fan of the Impressionists contacted by Vincent’s brother Theo — who advises the painter not to worry about his nervous attacks and to concentrate on his work. Taking a room at the Ravoux inn, Vincent follows the good doctor’s advice, but his alienation from others continues to torment him; during Bastille Day, when everyone else is celebrating outside, he sits alone inside, in extreme anguish, at a cafe table. While painting a field he is attacked by crows, and he agitatedly adds a few of these birds to his canvas before pulling out a revolver and shooting himself. He dies shortly afterward, his faithful brother at his bedside.

(2) In May 1890, Vincent van Gogh, both ears intact, arrives at Auvers-sur-Oise, takes a room at the Ravoux inn, and meets Dr. Gachet — an avid art collector and fan of the Impressionists contacted by Vincent’s brother Theo — who advises the painter not to worry about his nervous attacks and to concentrate on his work. Vincent follows this advice, painting the doctor’s teenage daughter Marguerite (who soon develops a crush on the artist), the doctor himself, several local landscapes, and even the village idiot, at his request, for the price of two sous. He meets friends from Paris at a riverside gathering and makes love there to Cathy, a prostitute he knew at Arles. (Later she expresses concern about his former self-mutilation, and he explains that he merely nicked one of his ears a little.)

Theo, his wife Jo, and their baby come to visit Vincent and the Gachets for the day, and they all enjoy an outdoor meal — Vincent amuses everyone with his Toulouse-Lautrec imitations, and the female servants sing — and a riverside dance. After telling Jo that he’s been a financial burden to her and Theo, Vincent jumps into the river, but he’s quickly fished out and Theo affectionately chastises him for his silly behavior.

Soon after, Marguerite comes to Vincent’s room and unbuttons her blouse; later in the day we see them making love in the fields. (Still later, she calls her father a fake liberal and coward for not approving of her affair with Vincent.) Visiting Theo and Jo in Paris, Vincent attacks his brother for not trying to sell his paintings. Theo attacks him in turn for insulting a critic who’s written about his work, and, after Vincent leaves for a brothel and cabaret, Jo attacks Theo for supporting Vincent. When Marguerite turns up looking for Vincent, Theo takes her along to the brothel, where she spends much of the night dancing and making love with Vincent. But on the train ride back to Auvers she denounces Vincent as sick, and Dr. Gachet, who meets them at the station, calls him loathsome before Marguerite accuses her father of not loving her and then faints. Vincent has sex once again, this time with a woman at the inn, goes out in the fields to paint, and winds up shooting himself. He dies shortly afterward, his faithful brother at his bedside.

The first of these scenarios describes the last reel or so of Vincente Minnelli’s 1956 MGM feature Lust for Life; the second describes, in abbreviated form, Maurice Pialat’s 1990 French art movie Van Gogh. If the second scenario strikes you as somewhat ludicrous given what we know about van Gogh — in particular about his sex life in May, June, and July 1890 — your reaction apparently isn’t shared by most of the French, English, and American critics who’ve written about the film since it premiered in Cannes 100 years after van Gogh died. They seem to find it a perfectly plausible account of the last nine and a half weeks of his life.

Yet the letters the painter wrote to his brother in his last 67 days — which take up the last ten pages of a collection edited by Irving Stone (author of the novel Lust for Life) in a book called Dear Theo — tell a different story. There are many references to Dr. Gachet, and even more to Paul Gauguin (who’s not mentioned once in Van Gogh), but the only references to Marguerite Gachet are as follows: “I shall most probably do the portrait . . . of [Gachet’s] daughter, who is 19 years old.” “Yesterday and the day before I painted Mademoiselle Gachet’s portrait, which you shall soon see, I hope; the dress is red, the wall in the background green with an orange spot, the carpet green with a red spot, the piano dark violet. It is a figure that I painted with enjoyment — but it is difficult. . . . Dr. Gachet has promised to make his daughter pose for me another time with the small organ. And perhaps I shall have a country girl to pose too.” Lawrence and Elisabeth Hanson in Passionate Pilgrim: The Life of Vincent Van Gogh refer to Marguerite by name only once, informing us that Vincent “made a study of Marguerite Gachet at the piano that brought a cry of ‘Admirable!’ from Theo.” (In Van Gogh, it is Dr. Gachet who has this reaction.)

While one would ordinarily expect the Hollywood biography of van Gogh to “clean up” the mess of his life and the French art-movie version to wallow in it, something close to the reverse happens. Minnelli’s movie even takes the trouble to eliminate some of the Hollywood-ish obfuscations in Stone’s novel — most significantly, a phantom lover assigned to van Gogh. (Robert Altman’s Vincent & Theo, one should add, seems about as serious as Minnelli’s movie in sticking to the historical record.)

In defense of his own fanciful (and very Frenchified) account of van Gogh’s last 67 days, Pialat has said, simply and infuriatingly, “[One doesn’t] produce 100 masterpieces in a state of depression — van Gogh died from having had a glimpse of happiness.”

Pialat is one of the finest living French filmmakers, and Van Gogh, his tenth feature, is arguably one of his best — certainly, at two and a half hours, one of his most ambitious. I still have a sneaking preference, however, for certain earlier Pialat works — I’m thinking especially of We Won’t Grow Old Together (1972), The Mouth Agape (1974), and Passe ton bac d’abord (1979) — over his more top-heavy art-house exertions like Loulou (1979) and Under the Sun of Satan (1987). But given the economic inflation we’ve all come to take for granted, maybe we should allow Pialat his aesthetic inflations, Van Gogh included.

The late Stephen Harvey wrote that Minnelli’s Lust for Life was the only MGM feature he initiated himself, and plausibly suggested that Minnelli’s desire to make the film came from a close identification with van Gogh. It seems to me likely that Pialat’s desire to make Van Gogh stemmed from a similar identification with the painter, even if it wasn’t accompanied by comparable scruples about portraying van Gogh’s life. Pialat was a painter for 20 years before he turned to filmmaking, and his central theme is the male drive toward self-destruction. The sexual interest in nubile teenagers in some of his previous films, such as Passe ton bac d’abord and A nos amours (1983, see below), may help to account for the invented affair between Marguerite and Vincent in Van Gogh.

If one can forget about the real Vincent van Gogh while watching Van Gogh — not an easy matter, given the film’s title — there is a great deal to admire. The achievements of this film, which have practically nothing to do with Minnelli’s in Lust for Life, have a great deal to do with the subjects and the ambience of Impressionist paintings, and a branch of French cinema — specifically the one associated with Jean Renoir — that is often identified, for better or worse, with this movement. From the moment that Vincent (Jacques Dutronc) emerges from a third-class car in the Auvers-sur-Oise train station, a world and an era are powerfully realized, and the leisurely pacing of the action allows us to savor this creation in many details.

Minnelli’s stylistic debt to van Gogh is almost exclusively a matter of expressionism — in his efforts to represent the painter’s emotions through the actors’ performances (especially those of Kirk Douglas as van Gogh and Anthony Quinn as Gauguin) and through the colors, compositions, and camera movements of his mise en scene. Pialat’s more naturalistic and exploratory camera style, largely derived from the 30s films of Renoir, describes a kind of wandering investigation of events and locations played over a subdued acting style, which seems indebted more to Robert Bresson than to Renoir. It’s a style that plays on the actors’ physicality rather than on their expressiveness; significantly, Bresson (also a former painter) refers to his actors as “models.”

While some of the sequences set on the river recall scenes from such 30s Renoir films as Boudu Saved From Drowning and A Day in the Country, and part of the lengthy brothel sequence recalls Renoir’s 1955 French Cancan, the most extended literal citation I’m aware of is a lengthy dance sequence (here set in a brothel) that comes from John Ford’s 1948 Fort Apache. What this has to do with van Gogh or Impressionism — or naturalism, for that matter — is anyone’s guess.

Even if one can’t forget about van Gogh while watching Van Gogh, the film still has a lot to say, especially about the intractability of artists and their difficulty in living in society. The lengthy scenes by the river and in the brothel, as well as many other scenes set in the inn bar, the Gachet household, and Theo’s apartment and gallery, celebrate communal interaction and shared experiences — a central subject of Renoir’s films as well as Ford’s — and the irruptions of van Gogh’s solitude or madness in these densely interwoven worlds are striking mainly because they’re so uninflected. The point is that it’s easy to overlook — or rationalize, or attempt to assimilate — these irruptions rather than understand them on their own terms, and the power of Pialat’s mise en scene comes from placing them in such a way as to suggest how irreconcilable van Gogh’s vision was with the world in which he lived.

The decision to give van Gogh a healthy sex life may seem ridiculous considering the real circumstances of his life — so ridiculous, indeed, that when Vincent lies wounded on his deathbed I was reminded more of Bob Fosse’s All That Jazz than of Renoir or Ford. But it still creates a zone of distraction for us and for the film’s characters that meshes logically with Pialat’s overall purpose, which is to show us how much sex, meals, conversation, dancing, and all the other daily pastimes that form this film’s busy surface ultimately interrupt the lonely and all-consuming confrontation that takes place between artists and their work.

Published on 15 Aug 2011 in Featured Texts, Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum


Published on 12 Mar 1994 in Featured Texts, Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

Comments Off