Amélie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001)

[chizbooga]

this movie looks like one of those "splenda" artificial sweetener commercials

[HerrSchreck]

It may not be capital C-cinema, but I remember watching it and being entertained. It's not La Regle de jeu, but it's not supposed to be. I did think it somewhat better than so much of the blockbuster slop that parades around under the mass-entertainment roof these days.

One thing I'm not crazy about though, is hypermanuipulation of colorschemes-- in otherwise naturalistic shots of human beings in real locations-- thru CGI. I will say though that of the many films I've seen tinker aound with this conceit, it seemed more appropriate in Amelie.

[HerrSchreck]

Baz Lurhrmann

There is nothing, across the hills and through the valleys, under the seas and flowing down the rivers, arching through the skies or drifting through space, lurking in the dreams of children or the nightmares and substance-feuled visions of adults, in prefecture or municipality, in quai or alley or dirt road, in democracy or dictatorship, baanesteria-fueled jungle dance or caffeinated boardroom, worse than Baz Lurrrrrhmann. I'd rather drink a tall hot cup of soapscum from the bathtub of the Bowery's oldest and cheapest SRO than watch a film by this guy.

[Andre Jurieu]

The problem is, based on your location at least, I don't think you've experienced the brunt of this fanbase or can conceptualize it in a way that accurately replicates its prominence. For social American posters here between the ages of probably sixteen and thirty, I would venture that somewhere in the vicinity of one out of every two people in the same age group you encounter at a social function will bring these films up as shining examples of film art (with little or no other knowledge of films older than they are) and thus the sheer magnitude of people who express these opinions does hold some weight on the ability to see the film without contextualizing it within its fanbase.

If these people are so grating, I’m not sure why anyone would choose to hang around in these social circles.

We're just saying that for people exposed to their fanbase on such a large scale, it's very hard to not take that into consideration when discussing the films.

It might be very hard, but it's not impossible. Is it that difficult to just shrug it off considering their opinions are fairly harmless and their reactions are not really the sole responsibility of the filmmakers? Seems like just another case of "it’s not the band I hate, it’s their fans."

[domino harvey]

Again, I did not say that the fanbase did in fact effect the quality of the film. I explained why the fanbase was invoked in a discussion of the film. I did not say that the fans make the film any better or worse. But a discussion held without even breaching the subject of its rabid fans is not a very complete picture of the film's continued reception, no matter how "above" it some of you think you are.

And you can't choose to not run into these fans-- I'm not kidding, one out of every two people I meet in this age group love this film, and I'm definitely not alone. Many of these people are great persons deserving of friendship and association, you just learn to not bring up movies or sit quietly while others carry on. Outside of hanging out at the VFW Hall, it's pretty much an inescapable part of social life.

[Andre Jurieu]

You are again talking as though I said the fanbase did in fact effect the quality of the film.

I thought I just said it's possible to disregard exaggerated praise for certain films that you already know have a large "cult" fanbase. I thought the point you were trying to make was that it's very hard to not take the large rabid fanbase into consideration when discussing the films, while I'm saying you could also make the choice to ignore such mass opinions and just focus on your personal attitude towards the film. I'm not sure how you can say that the fanbase is so overwhelming that you are forced to take it into consideration, but then state that you are not allowing it to influence your perception of the film.

I explained why the fanbase was invoked in a discussion of the film. I did not say that the fans make the film any better or worse. But a discussion held without even breaching the subject of its rabid fans is not a very complete picture of the film's continued reception, no matter how "above" it some of you think you are.

I guess I don’t understand why we have to devote so much time and effort into breaching the subject of the rabid fans of some particular film. We can certainly agree that certain films obtain a large fanbase and that these large swaths of fans do effect the general reception/perception of the film within mass culture, but it also seems that we're devoting an excessive amount of effort in making this point and essentially worrying about what others think of a film. It seems that we breached the subject and have then chosen to dwell on it rather than move past the topic.

And you can't choose to not run into these fans-- I'm not kidding, one out of every two people I meet in this age group love this film, and I'm definitely not alone.

Well, I'm assuming that's a bit of hyperbole, because I can probably ask a bunch of people about these movies and have a variety of responses ranging from "I love that movie" to "it sucked", but most people would probably just express moderate enjoyment of casual indifference. I know a lot of people who "like" Amelie and Fight Club, but very few people still state either film to be the greatest thing their eyes have ever processed.

Many of these people are great persons deserving of friendship and association, you just learn to not bring up movies or sit quietly while others carry on. Outside of hanging out at the VFW Hall, it's pretty much an inescapable part of social life.

If that's the case, then why devote so much effort into getting annoyed by their comments/opinions? It's obvious their perceptions of various filsm are different from your own and ultimately how they feel about Trainspotting isn't going to dramatically alter your life when they speak of it in passing. If they keep bringing it up and tormenting you with it, then we're talking about something different, but basically you kind of have to know you will encounter a few people within your life that think Amelie is a beautiful movie.

[Michael]

It may not be capital C-cinema, but I remember watching it and being entertained. It's not La Regle de jeu, but it's not supposed to be. I did think it somewhat better than so much of the blockbuster slop that parades around under the mass-entertainment roof these days.
.

Same as my reaction to Amelie when I first saw it. It was infectiously charming. I didn't like the rapid opening montage introducing all the main characters. It should let us discover them along Amelie's movie-long journey but I remember really adoring the ending with Amelie and Nino zooting on a moped throughout Montmartre.. that was really lovely.

The only French girl for me is Cleo.

[HerrSchreck]

Amelie and Nino zooting on a moped .

Another riff off of Veronique.

[Highway 61]

The film's death grip has even extended to French professors from fucking France.

Perhaps given the stereotype that Americans are dumb and don't watch many french films, the professor tailored the class?

That's what I assumed at first, but he genuinely revered the movie as one of his country's very best films. C'est la vie, je suppose.

[colinr0380]

Since I am a cynical type, I prefer my sentiment with a darker edge such as in Delicatessen but I was glad to see Jeunet have some success with Amélie after being incredibly disappointed with the way Alien: Resurrection turned out (though it has a fascinating performance by Sigourney Weaver and my reaction to Jeunet's film has softened somewhat since having the Alien vs Predator films to compare it to!)

One thing I'm not crazy about though, is hypermanuipulation of colorschemes-- in otherwise naturalistic shots of human beings in real locations-- thru CGI. I will say though that of the many films I've seen tinker aound with this conceit, it seemed more appropriate in Amelie.

It has been a while since I last saw Amélie but I think this is the heart of the problems some people have with the film, which is the same thing that others find so great. As much as the film is superficially about helping people out it is really just a giant self improvement scheme for our heroine, with the people she helps just pawns in her (mostly) benevolent hands. It is a rather egotistical film in that sense - everything is filtered through her eyes and her personality which on the one hand unifies and gives coherence and significance to the tiniest of events and on the other could be considered extremely insular and naive.

However there are some flashes of a world beyond that can just about be glimpsed. I always used to be irritated by that sequence of running the blind man through the streets helpfully describing things to him before leaving him bathed in a purifying light of joy. In reality the poor guy has just been accosted and dragged through the streets by a strange woman and then left dazed and bewildered as she just as quickly runs off again! On a repeat viewing I started thinking I was purposefully meant to be irritated so that I'd see the conflict between fantasy and reality and that they were not quite lining up perfectly. Add to that the way we are supposed to celebrate Amelie breaking in to the grumpy guy's flat and messing with his stuff (kind of like a malicious Faye Wong, and I think the Onion AV Club correctly described this kind of character in films as the 'manic pixie dream girl'! Amélie is the ne plus ultra of this character type - lovable though sometimes irritating and seeming borderline psychotic if real world rules are applied to her).

The film seems to acknowledge this by moving from a situation of generally forcing help on people whether they need it or not to focusing on Amélie's quest for her man. It provides her with fulfilment, happiness and a sympathetic person to share her view of the world with (and who may hopefully at times gently challenge her view of the world!) to prevent her becoming one of the people in the block of flats clinging on to faded dreams or repetitive behaviours.

I also find it interesting to compare Jeunet's film with the character Audrey Tatou played in a film not long after Amélie called He Loves Me...He Loves Me Not. In that film the first half plays out from the girl's perspective and feels like a fluffy piece of romantic longing. Then the second half takes the point of view of the man in the relationship, feeling stalked and threatened by the girl's attentions. I suppose this later film more pointedly shows that sometimes people should look beyond their needs to consider the effect their actions are having on others. I feel that contracting the title of the Jeunet film for the English speaking market was a mistake and extremely misleading, though of course it may have been a cyncial move to focus only on the superficial in the marketing! Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain perfectly describes a film that, for both better and worse, stays mostly inside the main character's psychology and fairy tale projections onto her world.

[HerrSchreck]

Another great post, Colin. I haven't seen Amélie beyond that first viewing approx 7 yrs ago (I think I saw it as a rental from an old Blockbuster membership--!!-- when it very first came out on dvd, and can't remember too many specifics from the thread of the narrative.. but I think I vaguely recollect the scene you mention with the blind man), so I don't feel qualified to comment on the story itself.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and feelings re the color manipulation, and how it struck you. And I'm curious to know if you enjoyed it the film overall, despite it's lack of a darker edge.

[Shrew]

The more I delve into cinema, the more I feel Amelie is the digestion and gestalt of French cinema, particulary of the humanist vein. Renoir, Carne, Truffaut, and Kieslowski (particularly Red) all bleed off the screen in gushing waves, both in feel and in particular images, characters, and plots. That said, I don't feel the film is ripping off the older films to create a chimera so much as stirring them all in a pot and creating something absolutely delicious, and at times more enjoyable than the pieces that went into them. Ex. I feel the aforementioned scooter ride works on its own terms here, and combined with all the other pieces creates something more pleasurable than just the scooter from the original.

As a result, Amelie strikes me as essentially French propaganda--projecting Paris as the ultimate romantic dream, where one finds shy beautiful girls and nice boys who work in porn stores, and fragile old men who watch over us all, wrapped up in warm light and beautiful colors. It's a place that exists in the mind- the image of Paris- but is not reality. That isn't neccessarily bad-who doesn't love 'Paris'- but I like to keep Amelie right next to La Haine on my shelf.

[swo17]

I like to keep Amelie right next to La Haine on my shelf.

Either you only own two DVDs, or you employ some bizarre organizational system based on tangential sentimental associations. How do you ever find anything?!

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Let me tell you, there are few things more disheartening than having a conversation about movies with someone at a party and then they say the magic words, "I like foreign films." You lean in close, ready to hear what they're into, and then it turns out that just means Amelie. So, sort of a theoretical love of foreign films

I have this experience all of the time with Life is Beautiful.

Gag. I try to throw Louis Malle's Au Revoir Les Enfants at the Life Is Beautiful fans. They still won't watch it. I guess it's too hearbreaking. I guess they need a clown like Benigni or a heart-throb like Adrien Brody before they'll watch a World War Two movie.

[HerrSchreck]

I like to keep Amelie right next to La Haine on my shelf.

Either you only own two DVDs, or you employ some bizarre organizational system based on tangential sentimental associations. How do you ever find anything?!

Well, look on the bright side: at least he didn't say he kept it right next to Chute de la Maison Usher or Boudu.

[swo17]

Well no, those two belong next to Fight Club, obviously.

[Shrew]

I just like making my life harder for the sake of irony.

(And my system is divided by country, then semi chronologically/movement by directors. No, it doesn't make sense.

[jojo]

To get straight to the point...Amelie herself is pretty much a minor league stalker. And I agree with Colin that the film, while obviously not condemning Amelie's actions, slowly hints that Amelie herself is the problem rather than the people around her. This is most apparent in the relationship between her co-worker and one of the diner's regulars. Amelie tries to set them up because she deems them to be just "perfect" for each other...and they do in fact "get it on" in one memorable sequence...but at the end of the film, they have broken up and have already gone back to their regular routines. It's played off for laughs, but the point is that Amelie's meddling was pointless and totally wrongheaded in the bigger scheme of things, so it's not like the film totally tries to play her off as some saint (like how some have read the film as).

The fantasy/reality conflict is also solidified by the mystery of the picture booth man. Amelie and Nino are seen throughout the movie trying to figure out this mystery man who leaves pictures of himself all over the place in various Paris picture booths. At one point it is implied, I believe, that it is a ghost. However, this mystery of course resolves itself in the most mundane possible answer.

It is interesting in that if you take away the fairy tale tone and the colour manipulation and editing, and focus solely on the matter-of-fact details of the narrative, it actually does reward second and third viewings and it doesn't come across quite as "cute" as it does on first viewing. There are elements in Amelie that still rub me the wrong way, but these little details here and there add a bit of intrigue to what may, at first glance, seem like Paris romance fluff.

Audrey Tautau's performance helps this reading a lot too. She's attractive and cute, yes. But when she gives you that little elfin grin of hers, you see that little gleam of a psychopath in her eyes...and reading her interviews, I don't doubt for a second that it was deliberate addition on her part.

[Mr Sausage]

To get straight to the point...Amelie herself is pretty much a minor league stalker. And I agree with Colin that the film, while obviously not condemning Amelie's actions, slowly hints that Amelie herself is the problem rather than the people around her. This is most apparent in the relationship between her co-worker and one of the diner's regulars. Amelie tries to set them up because she deems them to be just "perfect" for each other...and they do in fact "get it on" in one memorable sequence...but at the end of the film, they have broken up and have already gone back to their regular routines. It's played off for laughs, but the point is that Amelie's meddling was pointless and totally wrongheaded in the bigger scheme of things, so it's not like the film totally tries to play her off as some saint (like how some have read the film as).

I never realized it before, but this is just a Frenched version of Jane Austen's Emma.

[Mr Sausage]

Christ!

You think it's THAT good?

Certainly better than that Gwynneth Paltrow stuff.

[Michael]

Christ!

You think it's THAT good?

I always thought she was the objective correlative for Jeunet's depression based obsessive control freakery, before the awakening of the prozac (as the hidden text of course.)

At least she makes Montmartre prettier than it actually is these days.

Very funny, dave.

Revisited Amelie last night. It's really a little decent pretty confection. I just kicked back and watched it, sometimes it's nice to have a film that doesn't pick on your brain. I still didn't like the opening monage spelling out Amelie's childhood. It should have opened with her waitressing at the cafe - just another morning for Amelie before the eventual turn in her life and keeping her childhood a total mystery. But I guess Jeunet wants the film to have the "once upon a time" feeling to it.

My favorite character is easily the Glass Man. He's always riveting to watch and how I would love to have him for a neighbor and a friend. His interactions with Lucien cracked me up.

A very pretty film, retro and modern at once, bringing my mind to Parisian macaroons. Crispy color-dyed surface with sticky, gooey, melty heart but not my favorite cookies.

[jojo]

Well, just because I spent more than 2 sentences on it doesn't mean I think it's "that" good. It's more interesting than some people give it credit for...but it's still ultimately another crowd pleasing truffle.

[colinr0380]

I'd love to hear your thoughts and feelings re the color manipulation, and how it struck you. And I'm curious to know if you enjoyed it the film overall, despite it's lack of a darker edge.

I was fine with the colour manipulation and generally enjoyed the film. In a way I'd probably have more problems if it were not so stylised. One of the things that I find so grating in films with these kinds of characters is when their projections are given some real world basis and there is the suggestion that the film is trying to make a great statement about the way 'we should all see the world like them' or tries to justify its character's actions. Then I can't help but judge them against real world standards! (The film which is looking likely to be my worst film of this decade, Ma Femme est une Actrice, is a film in that vein, with the creepy, completely idiotic and superficial insecurities of the lead character taking precedence over more important issues, such as saving a relationship through the couple actually talking to each other, yet we are supposed to in some way sympathise with him rather than wanting to punch him in the face. It doesn't help that the director seriously indulges the lead actor playing this character, perhaps because they are one and the same person!)

When a film throws itself so completely into its character's mindset I find it easier to accept the work as a piece of fiction that is not intending to put across universal messages and enjoy the way the film manages to manipulate the wider world to turn it into an expression of the way the protagonist sees it, making it almost an individual case study. However I could say the same thing about my admiration for Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (or Fight Club)! Enjoying the techniques displayed in the film and getting involved in, or gaining some insight into, the psychology of a character that I don't have a natural affinity with (and may actually recoil from in reality) is one of the things I like most about film. In a world where sometimes it can seem that there is no place left unexplored a new frontier would be to show how different people have individual reactions to their environments depending on such factors as their knowledge of the history of the area, personal experiences or positive or negative projections onto the place they are in.

I'm not sure I'd like Amélie if I met a character like her in real life and became one of her pawns, and I sometimes have worries about people who might unquestioningly use such characters as rolemodels (I do like Michael's joyful posts about the film though!), but it was an interesting way to spend a couple of hours of film watching! It probably is not going to figure on my list of top films of the decade but it was decent enough.

[Michael]

Not only the signature cookies of Paris, these are the Amelie of cookies:

[swo17]

I just chipped a tooth on my computer monitor. =P~