... at the sheer ineptness of the story, direction, everything in fact. I was at the same screening as the other person who has posted here and it's clear that we were watching different films, either that or he/she is easily pleased. Odoul has taken a great actor, Pierre Richard, now well into his old age and made him, in what purports to be a straight film, far more of a buffoon than he ever was when he played the foil to Gerard Depardieu in such classic Francis Veber movies as Le Chevre, Les Fugitifs and Les Comperes. Odoul seems to be trying to set French film-making back forty years to the days of the self-indulgent but talentless Jean-Luc Godard, whose idea of movie making was to take a hand-held camera on to the streets and follow Jean-Paul Belmondo walking around Paris for 90 minutes. The only real difference is that here Odoul sets his story, such as it is, in a château where the Lear-like Richard lives with a literal fool. For reasons best known to Odoul (or maybe not) Richard sees fit to hire, like Hamlet, a troupe of players to enact not the death of his father, but his own. Take two Shakespearean references, throw in a touch of the Samuel Becketts and you too can be the darling of the pseuds.
3 Reviews
"A film about everything and about nothing" - Damien Odoul (director)
njd1233 July 2005
I saw the UK premiere of this film at the Institut francais in London. The showing was followed by Q&A with the director Damien Odoul who also plays one of the main characters in the film, Yves. The film is set on the estate of an old French château in the countryside and centres around an old dying man (played by Pierre Richard) who invites a few actors to amuse him. The film deliberately lacks any real plot (it has been described as Beckett-esquire by one critic) but does end conclusively. The film will make you laugh - largely due to the weird and wonderful characters who do out-of-the-ordinary things, and you will certainly get a sense of satisfaction from watching it.
In the Q&A with the director, he said that his aim was to try and dig deep and try to touch the innocence which lays at the heart of life. His favourite character in the film is Pipo - played by a friend who in reality lives in a psychiatric hospital and is not an actor at all. He is someone with a "simple mind" who sees, listens and understands. The innocence and simplicity that Odoul alludes to is one "avant la naissance" (before birth), at the very root of existence.
An excellent film.
In the Q&A with the director, he said that his aim was to try and dig deep and try to touch the innocence which lays at the heart of life. His favourite character in the film is Pipo - played by a friend who in reality lives in a psychiatric hospital and is not an actor at all. He is someone with a "simple mind" who sees, listens and understands. The innocence and simplicity that Odoul alludes to is one "avant la naissance" (before birth), at the very root of existence.
An excellent film.
Positively unsummarisable existential meditation!
oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx7 December 2009
The main image that this film brings to mind is from a documentary I saw some time ago where an elderly gentleman lacking funds and consigned to a Russian care home was carpenting his own coffin. In this film, Jean-René, chatelain of a decoratively fortified country pile, finds out that he is dying. As one final splurge he arranges for a company of actors to put on a production on the theme of the myth of Dionysus. Ultimately they are incompetent and he is forced to stage his own scenario, for which the troupe are merely required to spectate, a pared down duty which they nonetheless manage to fail at. There is perhaps a message here that you get out of life what you put in, you must come to terms with the world and pen your own epitaph, clairvoyant in the knowledge that you are the only one qualified to do so (and even to read it).
In this regard, I was also reminded of the Rivette film "Love on the Ground", a film about directing (amongst other things), where the auteur character (Clémont Roquemaure) is the only one with a true overview of his creation. The final play he puts on in that particular film, is a true self expression, which meets with total rejection by the select audience, showing similarly that not only must you fabricate your own creation, you must also act as the only real audience. There is a curious reflexive quality to this rumination as I sit here writing a review that, in all likelihood, only a very few people will ever read, and in the circumstance that most that happen here will be hostile to this movie.
It was commented on in the liner notes for the UK DVD release that the film had a sense of humour that was similar to Monty Python. For me this film was not funny, in the sense that it rarely made me laugh. However there are quotations in this film, and situations, which most people will find ludicrous enough to laugh at: for example Yves says, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", after seeing a whole film that suggests perhaps the opposite, you can easily start laughing.
The film lacks aesthetic grandeur (note particularly the introduction of jarring fluorescent pink and yellow at points in the film), and yet another quote is perhaps responsible for explaining this, Jean-René quotes Angelus Silesius, "The rose knows no why, blooming because she blooms, caring nothing for herself, nor desiring to be seen". That is a quote which I believe means two things, firstly it has been taken as a thumb-in-the-eye to aesthetics, secondly Angelus Silesius was known to understand the rose as a symbol of a human soul, and so he is perhaps referring to our general limited awareness as humans. Indeed the characters in the movie are pretty unaware folk, whose pastimes range from character assassination to bed-hopping via petty bickering. Apart from ludicrous, presumptive, often misogynistic backbiting, ("She'll either be wed or hanged by year's end.") most of the film consists of scenes of the "spassing" of these characters, of their simple joys. At one point I'm quite convinced this references Fassbinder's movie Chinese Roulette, which contained elements of "spassing" and indeed both movies have women rollerskating in doors for the sake of spassing. Another key source of inspiration must surely have been Bunuel's Viridiana (the beggars feast), although others have mentioned The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (which I have not seen).
Going back to the Russian reference, amongst the many seeming influences of this film one would be Chekhov, who comes up at one point when a character mentions that all Chekhov plays end with a pistol shot. Indeed there is a rather Chekhovian feel with the characters in this movie. The following Chekhov quote chimes well with the film, "Life does not agree with philosophy: There is no happiness that is not idleness, and only what is useless is pleasurable." Instances of these useless idle pleasures include troupe director Yves conversing with a cat, "s'il te plaît, aide-moi!" ("help me please"); the financial director smashing fine Napoleon china; and Jean-René gibberish jamming with piano playing.
Strangely perhaps what will stay with me the longest is a strangely framed and shot dream sequence where an actress floats over the countryside in a hot air balloon, or where we see the simple art of watching the sky whilst led on one's back rendered in POV.
If this film doesn't sound strange enough, know this, after watching it, all of a sudden I started to hatch plans for the construction of my Tomb Niveous on a small icebound Antarctic island.
In this regard, I was also reminded of the Rivette film "Love on the Ground", a film about directing (amongst other things), where the auteur character (Clémont Roquemaure) is the only one with a true overview of his creation. The final play he puts on in that particular film, is a true self expression, which meets with total rejection by the select audience, showing similarly that not only must you fabricate your own creation, you must also act as the only real audience. There is a curious reflexive quality to this rumination as I sit here writing a review that, in all likelihood, only a very few people will ever read, and in the circumstance that most that happen here will be hostile to this movie.
It was commented on in the liner notes for the UK DVD release that the film had a sense of humour that was similar to Monty Python. For me this film was not funny, in the sense that it rarely made me laugh. However there are quotations in this film, and situations, which most people will find ludicrous enough to laugh at: for example Yves says, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", after seeing a whole film that suggests perhaps the opposite, you can easily start laughing.
The film lacks aesthetic grandeur (note particularly the introduction of jarring fluorescent pink and yellow at points in the film), and yet another quote is perhaps responsible for explaining this, Jean-René quotes Angelus Silesius, "The rose knows no why, blooming because she blooms, caring nothing for herself, nor desiring to be seen". That is a quote which I believe means two things, firstly it has been taken as a thumb-in-the-eye to aesthetics, secondly Angelus Silesius was known to understand the rose as a symbol of a human soul, and so he is perhaps referring to our general limited awareness as humans. Indeed the characters in the movie are pretty unaware folk, whose pastimes range from character assassination to bed-hopping via petty bickering. Apart from ludicrous, presumptive, often misogynistic backbiting, ("She'll either be wed or hanged by year's end.") most of the film consists of scenes of the "spassing" of these characters, of their simple joys. At one point I'm quite convinced this references Fassbinder's movie Chinese Roulette, which contained elements of "spassing" and indeed both movies have women rollerskating in doors for the sake of spassing. Another key source of inspiration must surely have been Bunuel's Viridiana (the beggars feast), although others have mentioned The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (which I have not seen).
Going back to the Russian reference, amongst the many seeming influences of this film one would be Chekhov, who comes up at one point when a character mentions that all Chekhov plays end with a pistol shot. Indeed there is a rather Chekhovian feel with the characters in this movie. The following Chekhov quote chimes well with the film, "Life does not agree with philosophy: There is no happiness that is not idleness, and only what is useless is pleasurable." Instances of these useless idle pleasures include troupe director Yves conversing with a cat, "s'il te plaît, aide-moi!" ("help me please"); the financial director smashing fine Napoleon china; and Jean-René gibberish jamming with piano playing.
Strangely perhaps what will stay with me the longest is a strangely framed and shot dream sequence where an actress floats over the countryside in a hot air balloon, or where we see the simple art of watching the sky whilst led on one's back rendered in POV.
If this film doesn't sound strange enough, know this, after watching it, all of a sudden I started to hatch plans for the construction of my Tomb Niveous on a small icebound Antarctic island.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
