tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2795601141833900338.post306927029466498532..comments2023-04-03T05:11:10.672-07:00Comments on THE MOVIE PROJECTOR: On the Riviera with Otto PremingerR. D. Finchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05045080274131718843noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2795601141833900338.post-82484392247703843952009-05-13T11:14:00.000-07:002009-05-13T11:14:00.000-07:00Sam, as usual you are the epitome of diplomacy! I ...Sam, as usual you are the epitome of diplomacy! I also made a point of watching this film because of Ed Howard's advocacy of it. I found things to like in it, but I suppose it's just one of those movies where the parts appeal to me more than the whole. (As I wrote, that often seems to be the case for me with Preminger.) The biggest surprise to me was how engaging Jean Seberg was. Preminger built the movie around her and her character, and I thought she came off quite well in the presence of all those old pros. If only she could have avoided those occasional lapses into that strong Midwestern accent. Thanks again, Sam, for your insightful contribution.R. D. Finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05045080274131718843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2795601141833900338.post-72896770159846180452009-05-13T06:50:00.000-07:002009-05-13T06:50:00.000-07:00R.D., you have made an excellent case here for why...R.D., you have made an excellent case here for why you are not in the 'yay' camp (you left no stone unturned in your astute analytical consideration) and you have alligned yourself with the initial reviews, which pretty much argue the same points. Despite my long familiarity and exposure to Preminger (yes those two films you do embrace there are classics, and I saw LAURA at that 2008 Film Forum retrospective your reference here!) I had not seen BONJOUR TRISTESSE until last month, at the urging of the esteemed Ed Howard, whose most fine comment preceeds mine here (along with John's fine one too) Somehow I didn't think this film would appeal to me, even though I became aware of the reputation it was building. I am now of the opinion that it's a masterpiece, and I greatly admire and appreciate the emotional center of the dazzling stylistics, the framing of characters, the use of color, flashbacks and the superb transcription of fatalism, which assists in realizing this searing tragedy. I dare say that re-viewings will enhance this position.<br /><br /> But you have written (typically) a superlative essay, and few can dispute what you have felt and found, even in the case of disagreement. What more can one ask?Sam Julianonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2795601141833900338.post-80954351846561044582009-05-11T12:11:00.000-07:002009-05-11T12:11:00.000-07:00Ed, thank you for your comments. I am a great one ...Ed, thank you for your comments. I am a great one for seeing both sides of everything, and as I watched the movie I saw how others might come up with a different reading of the film based on the same elements that I focused on. Another reason I appreciate your comments is that they often give me a chance to elaborate on something that I couldn't in the text without getting too tangential.<br /><br />That phrase "joyless hedonism" deserves some explanation. When I wrote it I was thinking of Cecile. The ending of the movie suggests that she will continue her lifestyle unchanged but also that she will no longer derive the pleasure from it she once did. This rings psychologically true to me because so often people will continue habitual activities long after they have ceased giving them pleasure, either because they refuse to acknowledge the pleasure is gone or because they keep hoping it will somehow return. So Cecile's future seems to hold little joy. But I also think this implies that there was something deeply flawed with her lifestyle to begin with--there was always a worm in the rose, so to speak. I guess I was thinking of joy as something deep and lasting rather than shallow and transient. And the latter is the kind of pleasure I see these people experiencing. The difference between Cecile and the others is that now she has some inkling of this, that her selfishness can harm others. The others don't seem to see this, so I suppose this sets up the possibility of some sort of alienation for the future Cecile. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had written "transient pleasure" instead of "joyless hedonism." <br /><br />As for the characters being likable or not, I find them pleasant and generally innocuous people, but I don't find the character traits of vapidity and self-absorption to the point of narcissism to be all that likable. To me these are the kind of people who view others as tools for their own ends, even if that end is simply to while away the hours having a good time.<br /><br />John, thank you for your comments too. After liking "Anatomy of a Murder" so much when I finally saw it a few months ago, I was hoping this film would live up to the praise some have given it. It's certainly entertaining (and pretty) as a slick soaper, and the character of Cecile places it above the beautifully photographed teenage soaps of Delmer Daves, but for me it still "fell short" of its recently elevated reputation. I noticed that in July TCM is showing a series of films by Jean Seberg, including this one. I had always heard what a bad actress she was, but having recently seen her for the first time in this and "Breathless," I'd have to say she had something that came across on the screen, perhaps not so much acting talent as a distinct and entrancing persona.R. D. Finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05045080274131718843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2795601141833900338.post-33275167212915878082009-05-11T07:11:00.000-07:002009-05-11T07:11:00.000-07:00Great stuff here, I'll be back later today.Great stuff here, I'll be back later today.Sam Julianonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2795601141833900338.post-73418412696585534602009-05-11T05:49:00.000-07:002009-05-11T05:49:00.000-07:00That's a good, balanced review, but I'm definitely...That's a good, balanced review, but I'm definitely in the camp of those who view this film as one of Preminger's too-often overlooked masterpieces. It's a sublime, complex film, one in which the dance of figures within the frame defines the relationships between characters. Contrary to your reading, I think Preminger is sympathetic towards all of these characters, even Elsa, who is maybe a little "ridiculous" but is also so sweet and happy that it's hard not to like her anyway. <br /><br /><I>Preminger portrays all the characters in the movie except Anne as vain, shallow, and jaded. Moreover, he seems to believe that the result of this self-centered way of life is moral and psychic stagnation for those living it, a stunting of emotions and empathy, and an existence of joyless hedonism. ... I infer from this attitude a clear sense of moral judgment.</I>...<br /><br />This really doesn't ring true to me. One effect of the sunny Technicolor for the flashback scenes is that they're fun and lively and emanate a real sense of happiness. This is certainly not "joyless hedonism." These people are genuinely happy with their lifestyles, and they enjoy being together. They're self-centered and amoral, yes, but Preminger presents them in such a way that they're also likable. Part of the tragedy of the film is the tragedy of Anne's destruction, but the other part is the loss of this idyllic existence for Cecile and Raymond. <br /><br />The audience thus initially feels the intrusion of Anne as the "joyless" one, disrupting this sunny utopia, and it's only slowly that Preminger begins to introduce her point of view as well, shifting her from a villain to a sympathetic character in her own right.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2795601141833900338.post-62327951152338799732009-05-11T05:11:00.000-07:002009-05-11T05:11:00.000-07:00I always had mixed feelings about Preminger’s work...I always had mixed feelings about Preminger’s work, some of which I admire a lot (Laura, Anatomy of a Murder, Bunny Lake is Missing, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Fallen Angel and Angel Face). Others fall into a mixed bag category where there are many things to admire, still there seems to be something missing that makes them fall short. Here fall films like, The Man with the Golden Arm, Tell Me That You Love Me Junie Moon, River of No Returns, Exodus, In Harm’s Way, Whirlpool and Daisy Kenyon. Then there are his films that are just plain bad, Hurry Sundown, Skidoo and Such Good Friends to name a few. I have not had the opportunity to see Bonjour tristesse so I cannot comment directly, however, you review is terrific as usual. I particularly liked your comparison to Fellini’s La Dolce Vita and Antonioni’s L’ Adventura, the, detached objective viewpoint of the European directors vs. Preminger’s condemnation of his characters. Your last paragraph is also particularly interesting on how Fellini and Antonioni’s films deal with superficial characters and lifestyle, yet they manage to probe deep down revealing the depth of their characters while Preminger characters, and his film, both seem superficial on the surface and underneath. Finally, Jean Seberg was such a beauty. A shame her life was so short and tragic.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01808503055317962289noreply@blogger.com