Yes, she has a cameo in Very Long Engagement. Her French is actually pretty good to my relatively untrained ear, but my girlfriend (who's French) thinks that Foster speaks French beautifully.

La Haine is directed by Kassovitz, Engagement is directed by Jeunet.

Anyway, Foster has been fluent in French since she was young. She personally dubs all her English performances in French. Quite a rare case there.

So I finally watched this last night after holding it in my keyvip for a few months. Very impressed, and I think accusations of it being derivative are inevitable but maybe half-baked. Lots of movies have been made about life in civilization's outskirts like ghettos and slums, trying to capture the alienation and the difficulties that these people face. These films all take place in similar settings, feature similar cultures and subcultures, and I have to wonder to what degree is this derivative of another film, and to what degree are they merely kindred representations of similar milieux? I've seen some comparisons to Taxi Driver, maybe due to Jodie Foster's involvement and the superficial reference in the film. I think the two films have remarkably little in common, though. They both have guns and violence and alienation, sure, but they present completely different scenarios with completely different intents and results. La Haine resembles other films, but it did not feel particularly derivative to me (obviously it is informed by other films, but I don't think it relies on them).

The subtitle discourse was an entertaining read. I don't have much to say about it, because I know enough French to see through the changes. I'm a little disappointed, but that's all.

I'm most interested in hearing people's opinions about two elements from the film. First, the moments of absurdity in the film, these bizarre and seemingly incongruent situations that provide such stark contrast to the harsh realism of the piece (the cow, the man who tells the story about Siberia; to a lesser degree the drunk man who hangs out with them while they carjack, the whole scene with the guy Asterix). What do you think these accomplish? Why include them? I loved them, but I'm trying to think about their purpose, how they might function in the narrative as something more than just random comedy.

The other thing I noticed was the tendency for the camera to linger, often staying on a scene after the characters left, and typically seeing something there, often for comedic or ironic effect. This happened several times, to the point where it either seemed like directorial excess or like it might have a particular purpose. I found the shots interesting, just not sure what to think about them. There were several instances of this, but some that stand out clearly: the guy peeking out of the bathroom stall after they all leave (hysterical), the breakdancer spinning and spinning for a few seconds after everyone else has run to see "the shit going down" outside, and the Eiffel Tower cutting off after their attempt to mimic turning it off themselves (eloquently suggesting that they have no control over their world; I also think the allusion to "that only happens in the movies" is also relevant).

Any ideas? Humor me and my random observations.

I watched this tonight and I too am wondering of the purpose behind the odd comedic scenes. Though I have come to some possible conclusions myself.

***SPOILERS***

As far as the cow goes, I believe Vinz had convinced himself it was a sort of sign - Perhaps this traces back to Freud's "The Uncanny", where he elaborates on how man can perceive something as a sign if his or her encounter with it is itself, uncanny. Though I haven't totally figured how it works into the film. Perhaps paralleling the uncanniness of death itself? That seems a bit of a stretch though.

The man's story in the bathroom: Once again perhaps a stretch, but at the end of the film of course there is the quote: "It's not how you fall, it's how you land." Well of course the old man explains how the man was running towards the train attempting to run while holding up his pants, as he had abruptly stopped shitting, and every time he tried to reach for his hand to pull him on the train, the man's pants would fall tripping him to the ground. The scene of the man running consistently tripping over his own pants is a funny story. Then the man responds the the question of "What happened to him?" with "Nothing. He froze to death in the harsh cold of Siberia." bringing the story to a rather sad ending, or landing. My thought is that this story is a parallel to the quote in the end. The funny and entertaining part of the story representing the fall and the bummer ending being the landing, the exact opposite of what the quote warns to do in the end.

Yes, stretches, but my best guesses freshly after seeing the film. Anyone want to play with my theories? Ha ha.

I don't remember if he says anything about the cow, but on the commentary track Kassovitz says that the old man, who was in Cafe au Lait, told him that story at the end of shooting, and Kassovitz liked it so much that he put him in La Haine so he could tell it on camera.

Finally, La maine is coming on Blu, May 8th.

For those of you that haven't read Chris's review of the Blu-ray (the only place I've seen this mentioned), the subtitles on the Blu-ray drops the name changes, so Asterix, Obelisk, and Le Pen are in the subtitles and Snoopy, Charlie Brown and Hitler are not.

Great news! Now that that's confirmed, I'll happily upgrade.