Part of the Picture: Home, But Not Alone
HOME, BUT NOT ALONE
JULY 12, 2008 - AFTER THE UNTIMELY, UNEXPECTED DEATH of her husband and child, Julie (Juliette Binoche) does two things in Krzysztof Kieślowski’s Blue: she mopes, then she copes. The key to both, she feels, is anonymity, a severance from all things past, all things that root her and give her identity, so she moves into a ratty apartment in a part of Paris where no one is likely to recognise her as the wife of a famous composer.
As she tells her mother, later on, “Now I have only one thing left to do: nothing. I don’t want any belongings, any memories. No friends, no love. Those are all traps.” All she wants are her little stolen everyday pleasures – the ice cream she orders at the local café and which she proceeds to smother with coffee; the cigarette she lights up in her new home, exhaling in a manner that suggests she didn’t inhale, for it’s not twin flutes of smoke from the nostrils but a messy cloud from the mouth.
Julie has barely begun to relax with a cigarette, one morning, when there’s someone at the door. It’s a girl with flowers and a smile. It’s Lucille (Charlotte Véry) from downstairs, the “whore” that the other neighbour was trying to get rid of, the other day, when Julie was tending to her plants and when the suddenness of the silence being pierced by the doorbell made her drop the pot she was holding.
That earlier conversation began fairly innocently, in the vague manner that conversations often do when there’s a point to be gotten to but only after a bit of customary civility. “I heard you got locked out last week,” said the neighbour. “Your husband lent me a blanket. I spent the night in the stairwell,” said Julie. The rituals of civilisation having been observed, the neighbour got down to business. “I wanted you to sign this.”
Julie looked up from stuffing the plant back into its pot and saw a hand holding out a sheet of paper. The neighbour explained, “Everyone has signed already. We don’t want loose women in our building. The young woman downstairs…” Julie cut her off. “I don’t want to get involved.” The neighbour protested, as if Julie’s involvement was the very matter of life and death. “[But] she’s a whore.” That bit of information did nothing to Julie’s decision. “That’s not my problem,” she stated firmly.
And it’s this “whore” now, smiling at the door, extending flowers to Julie, explaining the reason for this gesture of gratitude. “To kick me out, they needed everyone’s signature. So I’m staying.” And Lucille walks in, uninvited – yet another unwelcome presence in Julie’s apartment, in Julie’s life. “Your place is cool,” Lucille observes, walking up to a lamp hung from the ceiling with blue glass beads. “When I was a kid, I had a lamp just like this.”
Julie is silent, the flowers clasped close to her chest, not knowing how to respond to this desecration of the sole remnant from her previous life, from her child’s room. She watches helplessly as Lucille continues to express familiarities with the object, as if it were her own. “I’d stand under it and stretch out my hand. I dreamt of jumping up and touching it.”
Lucille fondles the sparkling blue crystal, her voice hushed with remembered awe. “I forgot all about it. Where did you find it?” she asks Julie, who, by now, is no doubt wishing she’d signed the petition. The first hints of tears springing in her eyes, Julie simply says, “I found it.” There’s some more pointless, painful conversation, and Julie moves away to the kitchen to arrange the flowers. “Sorry, I talk too much,” says Lucille, who’s gone on to look out of the window, at the street corner where the man who plays the flute has left behind his instrument and disappeared.
Lucille leaves, and later, Julie returns home from a shopping expedition. She goes to deposit her purchases in the pantry, when she discovers that the cardboard box, in there, has been chewed through. It’s a mouse. It’s a mother, scampering around her pink translucent hairless helpless litter. Julie stares, afraid as she’s always been of mice, since childhood. She appears to have had enough of the world’s persistence in encroaching on the solitary bubble she’s trying to build for herself. As if people weren’t enough, she’s now being haunted by fears from her past.
The manager says it will take two or three months to move her to another apartment, so Julie knocks on the door of the man downstairs, the man with a cat. She borrows the animal despite his words of caution. (“He’s not neutered. He can get violent.”) She walks up to her apartment. She opens the door with the hand that isn’t wrapped around the squirming non-neutered violent creature. She kneels, she lets it in, she closes her eyes, and she shuts the door.
Copyright ©2008 The New Indian Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Its lovely, the way things just “happen” in a Kieślowski movie…
what, do you just make a list of all critically acclaimed World cinema directors and their award winning films(or get it off some IMDB or AFI list sites) and then tick them off one by one as you cover selected moments from their works in this whole Part of the Picture series?
MLN: Got hold of all three. Doing White and Red in subsequent weeks.
Vijay: It’s just whatever’s available at that time. And to begin with, I’m going through all the films I’ve seen many times, that’s all.
And about “critically acclaimed,” that’s about the only way you get to know about foreign films. I’m sure there are tons of undiscovered great films out there, but chances are, unless they’re by a Great Director, or they’ve done the Oscar rounds or they’ve been praised by the critical establishment, you’ll never find the films, at least in India.
I’m planning to sign up with Big Flix, the Net Flix equivalent out here. Maybe they’ll have some “un-critically acclaimed” films.
“It’s just whatever’s available at that time. And to begin with, I’m going through all the films I’ve seen many times, that’s all.”
Just curious, how much time you spend watching films in a week? Apart from Hindi films, if you have to watch these other films “many times” I wonder whether you ever get off that couch at all
Bharadwaj, the thing with World cinema(excluding Hollywood) I have always wondered is, like you say we see the ones that has either done the Oscar rounds or has been critically acclaimed already. I have always wanted to know whether these directors were considered arthouse in their own countries. Were Fellini’s or Truffaut’ films really that apart from those of other Italian/French directors? How does an average Italian film fare when compared with Fellini’s films, say? Someone from outside India may not be able to judge how offbeat/arthouse, say a Thamizh MA is, unless they see a Kuruvi.The difference is quite striking with respect to mainstream vs arthouse films here. Is that the case with those Italian French films too? Maybe even an average mainstream Italian movie has a lot more arthouse elements in it and Fellini was not all that unique or great, just barely better than the rest. I wouldnt know. I would have to just rely on the “critical acclaim” part here, some one else’s judgement that tells me that he was special, since I have’nt seen a lot of Italian films to judge for myself
and one more question, since you write this series for a local newspaper, did your boss think that this sort of column had a readership? I mean only a small fraction watch World Cinema in the first place and on top of that you are not reviewing full films but only talking about selected moments from those films, which will be more interesting to those who have already watched those films. That sounds like a hard sell
Or maybe you just get the space/freedom to write whatever you want to, without caring about the target audience.
hi baradwaj,
do you (or anyone else who reads this blog) know a good library or shop that sells/rents these films? i live in gurgaon and i get only the popular movies. thanks in advance
hrishi
Nice review. Haven’t watched any of these 3 movies. Will try to get hold of the DVDs. BTW, What’s your take on “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”?. Its the adoptation of a novel by the same name(which was one of Milan Kundera’s best works).
Never heard about this director..Have to check with this movie..As always..Enjoyed ur writing..
Btw, did u happen to see Pan Nalin’s “Samsara”?? I found it mindblowing. One of the best works from the league of Indian Born Directors goin the hollywood way..WOuld love to see that movie in your Part of the Picture.. Amazing cinematography and screen play that runs like a zen art.
Baradwaj,
Talking of undiscovered great films, have you (or has anyone) watched this Korean movie called ‘Memories of Murder’. I saw it quite by chance recently. I do not wish to garnish it with superlatives and raise expectations sky high, but get prepared to be blown away. Highly recommended!
Vijay: “Were Fellini’s or Truffaut’ films really that apart from those of other Italian/French directors?” I don’t know about the 60s, but the French films I’ve seen in the past decade — say, anything by Patrice Chereau or Andre Techine — they were hits in France, plus popular abroad too. Something like A Very Long Engagement travels easily across cultures.
The point is not whether Fellini was “unique.” Even if he was merely one among a thousand Italian directors doing such films, he’s still an excellent filmmaker, and that’s what counts. Perhaps he’d be “celebrated” more because of his being critically acclaimed around the world, but how does that matter? The only thing we care about is the film itself, right? And he’s made plenty of stinkers too. Try sitting through Satyricon or Casanova…
About the “local” newspaper… Dude, from your comments (especially on the 2001 post), I understand that these films may not be your cup of tea, but there *are* a lot of people interested in world cinema. Even Anandha Vikatan has a serialised feature called “Ulaga Cinema.”
Newspapers don’t always serve what EVERYONE wants. Otherwise, you wouldn’t find such huge features on Amitav Ghosh’s new book, which only a “small fraction” is going to pick up and actually read.
Also, I try to couch the moments I talk about within the larger context of the film. If that’s not coming through, that’s a problem and I’m going to have to correct that. But I disagree that this “will be more interesting to those who have already watched those films.” That’s like saying an excerpt from a book is of value only to those who have read it (or intend to read it).
hrishi: Oops, no idea. Try asking Jabberwock…
Bhargs: Oh, that’s a great film (not as great as the book though). Another of Kaufamn’s films I love is Henry and June.
Ramkumar: No man. I missed Samsara…
Vishal: Thanks for the reco. But dude, how can you say you do not wish to “garnish it with superlatives” and then say “get prepared to be blown away. Highly recommended?”
I tend to agree with Vijay on this. Generally, when we read your reviews, we try to compare our understanding of the movie with yours. If it matches then it’s bliss because reading one’s thoughts articulated beautifully on paper is an amazing experience. If it doesn’t, still we get to drool over your writing skills.
But my grouse is where will I get to watch these movies. There are n’t as many seeders and leechers for these movies
Ramesh: First of all, thank you very much.
Second of all (is there a “second of all”?), reg. “But my grouse is where will I get to watch these movies” - but I don’t think that’s what Vijay has a problem with. He had a whole different set of questions, which I’ve tried to address in my response. Or have I missed something in what Vijay said?
Ranesh: World Movies (the new UTV Channel for..er..World Movies :D)is showing Red, White and Blue starting July 14..in celebration of French/France Day..
Pls do add dekalog to the list if possible and put in a word about Zbigniew Preisner’s soundtrack
Vijay said this :
I mean only a small fraction watch World Cinema in the first place and on top of that you are not reviewing full films but only talking about selected moments from those films, which will be more interesting to those who have already watched those films.
I was on similar lines, but I guess you did respond to him. Sorry, I overlooked it.
BTW, Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmIEyI5PbVk&feature=related
heh! that was intentional, Baradwaj. The superlatives I have in mind for the movie are more exalted
I might be getting carried away..but I absolutely loved the movie. Need to watch it again. For netflix subscribers, the movie is available for watching online.
MLN: That’s one way of not having to worry about what films to tackle for the next ten weeks
Hi Baradwaj,
I am a regular reader of your reviews but first time commenter. The posts about world cinema piqued my interest to drop in a comment. I am an avid watcher of these movies too and a collector too. ( Though have to confess not all of them are original ). I have as of now a decent collection of these dvds so was wondering if there are enough interested people we could have an informal film camp. That would be a good way to bring like minded people who are interested in these kind of cinema together . I believe there was something like this before in chennai but I dont remember the details now.
I am not sure how long am going to be here but would love to do this as long I am here. If there are enough people interested maybe we can take it further. I am based out of chennai and I presume you are as well?
“About the “local” newspaper… Dude, from your comments (especially on the 2001 post), I understand that these films may not be your cup of tea, but there *are* a lot of people interested in world cinema.”
Bharadwaj, come on, When did I ever say that I was not interested in World Cinema? Just because I didn’t like 2001 as much does not mean that I don’t watch World cinema AT ALL. This is the problem with communication over cyberspace sometimes
And even with regards to 2001, if I didn’t care about it all or had’nt even heard about it I wouldn’t even comment on why I didnt like it as much. I would have to give something a try before I decide I don’t like it, right?
The questions I had on Fellini or Truffaut’s films too were of a curious nature. I really wondered whether their films stood out a lot more from films of other directors in their country. Just a curious thought, since I had’nt seen a lot of films from that part of the world from other directors. I occasionally catch only award-winning films since, like you say, they are the ones easily accessible. Since we have such a vast difference between mainstream and arthouse films here, I was wondering about the same as far as European cinema was concerned. Nothing more.
“About the “local” newspaper… Dude, from your comments (especially on the 2001 post), I understand that these films may not be your cup of tea, but there *are* a lot of people interested in world cinema. Even Anandha Vikatan has a serialised feature called “Ulaga Cinema.””
Maybe the audience for World Cinema is picking up,but I still bet it is but just a fraction of the audience for local films.
“But I disagree that this “will be more interesting to those who have already watched those films.” That’s like saying an excerpt from a book is of value only to those who have read it (or intend to read it).”
I am not talking about “value” here. Even if I or someone else have not seen the film about which you are writing, the writeup still has merit and a value of its own. I am not denying that. I am just talking from the point of view of the audience, about how much more interesting it would be for a person who has already seen those films to read your writeups vs someone who has’nt. Ramesh above for instance, thinks the same. Actual excerpts from a book are different. Here what you are presenting is YOUR take on vignettes from a film. However all said and done,We might still read the writeups because we might find some other things interesting about it, like how I read this one even though I have seen this particular film
and one more thing..
“The point is not whether Fellini was “unique.” Even if he was merely one among a thousand Italian directors doing such films, he’s still an excellent filmmaker, and that’s what counts. Perhaps he’d be “celebrated” more because of his being critically acclaimed around the world, but how does that matter? The only thing we care about is the film itself, right? And he’s made plenty of stinkers too. Try sitting through Satyricon or Casanova…?”
It matters to the extent that writers like you cover only his films, right? You don’t spend a lot of time on the films of other less celebrated directors from those countries. But you watch even the stinkers from the celebrated director.Because, thats what is accessible and thats the director you have heard of.
Also when you say such a film is excellent or such and such film is a “stinker” you are saying it is purely based on whether that film worked for you, and not by any yardstick. Which is fine. But maybe after watching a hundred other films from other directors of those countries, if you revisit Blue it might not seem that “excellent” anymore.
Howe do you recognize innovations/cliches in desi films? Because you have seen plenty of Hindi/Tamil films. For someone who has’nt seen Drohkaal, Kurudhipunal might seem like a commendable original effort.For someone who had’nt seen Nenjathai Killadhe, Mouna Ragam might seem like a one-of-a-kind effort. I was trying to extend the same to World Cinema. While I would be able to certainly appreciate those few acclaimed films I see for what they are, I would still not know their true measure of excellence unless I have kind of a general “feel” for films from those countries. My appreciation would be incomplete. Developing that “feel” requires being familiar with the cinema from that part of the World. And I agree that’s tough because of limited accessibility (and limited time to hunt them down in the case of some of us
)
Pavitra: Is there someplace that give World Cinema listings? Thanks.
Girish: Thank you for the kind offer, and yes, I am in Chennai. If those who are interested can email me and if there’s enough people, we can see where this goes.
Vijay: I understand what you say, but the way I look at it, let’s be happy that we get to sample at least a little of what else is out there, even if we don’t get to sample *everything* else that’s out there.
Oh yes, the audience for World Cinema is only a fraction, but then you could say the same about art films from our country too. And if those films merit a writeup, I guess there’s some sort of readership for these too.
“We might still read the writeups because we might find some other things interesting about it, like how I read this one even though I have seen this particular film” Oh, so you did read this piece. That’s all that matters really, to me
the newspaper tv & movie guide gives the listings.. .. ..
but when i was in chennai, i didn’t see World Movies anywhere…but i did see a mention of the colour trilogy even in your paper’s weekly magazine..no time given tho.
For me “Blue” was basically about loss and how Juliet Binoche’s character attempts to cope with it. She tries to ‘lose’ herself in the Parisian urban mileu but it seems she ‘loses’ that (her loneliness, her ‘blue’ feeling so as to say!) too with the continous intrusions in her life.
Look forward for your comments on White and Red
Abhishek Das: Speaking of the “meaning” of the colour blue, Kieślowski apparently thought that the three colours of the French flag corresponded to Liberty, Equality and Fraternity (the French motto). Hence he devised the three stories (based on liberty, quality and fraternity) and named them after the colours. Later, he found out that there was no such correspondence — between the colours and the motto — but he had boxed himself into a corner and hence the titles stayed.
“..but he had boxed himself into a corner and hence the titles stayed.” - What’s with all these supremely creative beings boxing themselves into corners? (Kieślowski, Reagle of “redtop” fame, heck even Kamal Hassan, as you — and some commenters — noted on the Dasa piece).
Maybe that’s just par for the course. Or is it that they often find out, if only in hindsight (as Nicholas Sparks notes), that “sometimes the biggest risks you take in life are the ones you take with the heart.” (If nothing else, this explains away the logic-defying nature of what one winds up with, as opposed to what one originally started out to create, sometimes).
Hi,
My first comment, though I have been a long time visitor and I like the way you articulate.
If you liked ‘Blue’, then watch out for ‘Red’…this is one of the most ‘visual’ movies I have watched in a long time. While in Blue, it was music that grabbed hold of you in its soothing embrace, what really blew me over in this was the dark and rich look of the movie with frames saturated in red, there is always something that is ‘rouge’ in almost each and every frame. It also throws up questions about destiny and chance, predetermination and randomness and if we really are just playing our parts in a grand script or making it up as we go along.
Love to hear your thoughts about it.
BTW I caught the Three Colours on World Movies. They are quite good and opens up and arena for those who like to explore cinemas from the far and beyond. Like yesterday I caught Ettore Scola’s ‘A Perfect Day’ with a lumniscent Sophia Loren in it.
Sorry for the long digressive comment
Cheers,
Rahul
Rahul: Red is one of the most difficult — but ultimately beautiful and satisfying — films I have seen. When I first watched the films, in isolation, many years ago, the full interconnectedness of the triology didn’t register. But seeing them at a stretch, now, so many things clicked. From overlapping characters to overlapping images (like a coin being tossed, a tear being shed, a bottle being pushed into a recycle bin)… So in a way, Red is essentially replaying this interconnectedness in its own story. Took me a few viewings to get that