73-74, 418-420 4 by Agnès Varda

[Michael]

It's been a couple of days since watching Bonheur. I couldn't get that film out of my mind. It's among the most luminous films I've ever seen. I feel so alive and starry-eyed all over again for having seen such a gorgeous and majestic film like Bonheur. Varda creates a very absorbing world of luxuriant images and intense feelings about a carpenter who's in love with two women at the same time. The story is simple but its little panorma becomes so vibrantly colored and emotionally rich, with seductive magic and astonishing humanity blowing through it.

But at the same time, there's an ocean of anger simmering underneath the "cheery" veneer popping with 60s artificiality/kitsch. In the end, if you find the sense of discomfort creeping up, it's because Varda refuses to "fix the problem", simply letting life to go on with women playing the "same role". A powerful statement about women all beautifilly, artistically and subtly realized.

Bonheur really deserves to be called "masterpiece". Wholly justified.

[Jack Phillips]

That's one possible take, certainly. I, on the other hand, see the film as not having "astonishing humanity blowing through it" so much as an incredible simulation of the same. The seamless incorporation into the whole of the iconography of TV advertising, poster art--even bridal magazines--makes me want to punch the air with glee. I showed the DVD to a friend this weekend and his feeling was that Varda had beaten Godard at his own game. The great thing is that Varda never winks at her audience over the film's 80-minute run time; she leaves her viewers to respond as they will. Naturally, interpretations will vary, but it's hard to go too far wrong (unless you're a professional critic: Amy Taubin's fatuous piece in the accompanying booklet gets details wrong (there is no "dirgelike sound" at film's end, by that time the cheery strains of the opening have resumed), leading her to make silly pronouncements (the family "is already entombed")).

[Michael]

I, on the other hand, see the film as not having "astonishing humanity blowing through it" so much as an incredible simulation of the same.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. it's most likely that I'm misunderstanding you but I hope you're not saying that Bonheur doesn't have humanity. To say that Varda's film doesn't have humanity is missing the point.

That is if only to scratch the McCall's/Redbook surface to see what's laying behind. Like every Varda film, there are many faces on display, coming from every crack of the sidewalks. That's humanity to me. I remain so lost in thoughts and emotions involving the women and their children.

[GringoTex]

Cracked the set with La Pointe Courte, which I'd never seen before. While it's astonishing conceptually, I don't think it's particularly a good film. Almost every individual shot is a thing of beauty, but they don't go together very well.

[Michael]

Of the whole set, it's the weakest film but I think it's amazing enough especially if thinking of it being filmed by a woman in 1954. Not bad for a debut film I must say. Like I wrote earlier, she was way ahead of her time.

[Jack Phillips]

I, on the other hand, see the film as not having "astonishing humanity blowing through it" so much as an incredible simulation of the same.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. it's most likely that I'm misunderstanding you but I hope you're not saying that Bonheur doesn't have humanity.

I apologize for not making myself sufficiently clear. I'll try again: humanity in Le Bonheur is presented at a high level of abstraction.

Cracked the set with La Pointe Courte, which I'd never seen before. While it's astonishing conceptually, I don't think it's particularly a good film. Almost every individual shot is a thing of beauty, but they don't go together very well.

The device of the two disparate, alternating plot lines was probably a mistake. It didn't work for Faulkner either.

[Michael]

I apologize for not making myself sufficiently clear. I'll try again: humanity in Le Bonheur is presented at a high level of abstraction.

You're absolutely right. Jack, I've been enjoying reading your thoughts. Last night I strolled with Cleo for the hundredth time. More sublime every time. It's hard to detect the comparisions on Beaver but I can vouch that the new Cleo looks much better. I don't know what to make of that excerpt from a TV show with Madonna. It seems kind of embarassing, I don't know... there's not much to learn from it except you get to see Madonna acting juvenile while Varda tried to stay polite. However, I ADORE the Remembrances extra with the interviews with Varda, Corinne Marchand and other actors. It also details the making of the film and Varda explains a bit about the running time of Cleo and its title. She also points out the variety of clocks on display throughout the film and discusses how the painter Hans Baldung Grien inspired the film. This little documentary is a real treat for Cleo lovers.

The Varda set is another reason to live for. I've not felt this strong about a film (Bonheur, Cleo and Vagabond) since CC released Mala Noche last fall.

Finished the whole set last night - films and extras. My god. I'm changed forever. I could watch and listen to Varda for hours without blinking my eyes. What an amazing woman - always inspiring and brilliant. Her filmmaking decisions and ideas are fascinating - worth the cost of the set. One thing I still don't understand is her disappointment with the last tracking shot of Cleo. She said it was dark or something and she wanted to reshoot it two months later but it failed for different reasons so she decided to keep the original shot. Can someone please enlighten me on what she meant by her disappointment with the initial shot? But on the other hand, I think Cleo is among the most perfectly crafted films. Ever. (And so is Le Bonheur).

La Pointe Courte is not as magnificent as the other films in the box. It's good enough for its astonishing photography alone. Take it like if you're walking through a gallery of Varda's photos coming to life. The concepts are still pretty cool especially for its time - way before the New Wave. It also shows Varda's love for the textures and feelings of "documentary" and swirling them with abstraction and poetry. If that film paved the road for Varda to make her next major film the most exquisite Cleo, then I'm all for it.

[J Wilson]

She was upset with that shot in Cleo because the camera tracks were visible in the picture, wasn't she? And when she tried to re-shoot, the same emotional content simply couldn't be re-produced by the actors. I was so engrossed in the moment that I didn't notice the tracks until they were pointed out by Varda.

[Michael]

Ah, the camera tracks! That makes sense. Having seen Cleo too many times to count, I never noticed the tracks! But they aren't that distracting...out of focus in the background.

One of the extras explains the origin of Cleo's frog-pearl ring. How wonderful.

[GringoTex]

Just watched Bonheur for the first time and was blown away. It's like a horror film disguised as a hallmark card. An unbearable tension slowly begins to seep through the pores of every luscious shot until by the end, it fully takes over. The chatacter of Francois is so charming and likeable that it feels like a punch to the gut when you realize he's a monster.

[Michael]

Thrilled by the fact you were blown away by Bonheur. I think every one here will be if given the chance to watch this stunning film (which was never released in the US, imagine that!).

Very interesting that you see Francois as a monster. But on the other hand, I don't. Like everybody else, he has a right to be happy so he chooses to continue his affair with the other "apple tree". After Francois telling his wife about his affair, we never really know if his wife is really okay with all this even though she says it's okay. A sense of resignment and disappointment fills her (or maybe not) but the damn gorgeous 60s kitsch keeps choking everything going on in that moment of truth - like Technicolor suffocating Cary in All That Heaven Allows. The wife's death and thereafter fleet by so quickly and the new woman steps in the role of the "wife" (and mother as well) like nothing has happened. I keep thinking: what makes this woman to slip into that role? Her love for Francois? Or is that because the fact she's a modern woman unlike the first wife? Varda refuses to answer questions. The fact that the film itself erases the sweet wife (the first one of course) so quickly and that life moves forward just fine without her... all that I find very disturbing, unsettling... despite the overwhelmingly luxurious and precise imagery swallowing up every shot.

If we, the viewers, find ourselves wanting to question or judge Francois or even his new wife (like the villagers trying to interpret Mona in Vagabond), then maybe we are the ones who are the "monsters". Who are we to measure or judge the happiness of others?

[GringoTex]

Francois believes happiness can be accumulated. This makes him psychopathic. He's so narcissistic that he confuses his wife's decision to commit suicide for her complete embrace of his own self absorption. These two qualities combined make him a monster, imho.

As for the second wife, she's weak and a bit empty in the head. She could probably step in and be anybody's substitute wife. She's the prototype Stepford Wife.

[Michael]

Very fascinating and valid points, GringoTex. Your thoughts are a lot more exciting than the rambling, boring discussion between the 4 "intellectuals", featured as an extra.

Such a perfect, phenomenal , provoking film, standing very comfortably with masterpieces Cleo and Vagabond.

[GringoTex]

Very fascinating and valid points, GringoTex. Your thoughts are a lot more exciting than the rambling, boring discussion between the 4 "intellectuals", featured as an extra.

Such a perfect, phenomenal , provoking film, standing very comfortably with masterpieces Cleo and Vagabond.

I was astounded by how poor that discussion was. I think only the film society guy had even put any thought into it. French "intellectuals" are second to none when it comes to posing.

I'm going to watch this again focusing on your idea that Francois' pursuit of happiness is perhaps justified. I just read Taubin's interpretation that the whole family set-up is corrupt from the beginning. I don't agree with this. Varda is not a nihilist. Something that beautifully and innocently filmed cannot be corrupt (naive or unworkable perhaps- I was reminded of Truffaut's quote: "Monogamy is impossible but anything else is worse.").

[Michael]

I was astounded by how poor that discussion was. I think only the film society guy had even put any thought into it. French "intellectuals" are second to none when it comes to posing.

Absolutely right about posing and all. Bringing my mind to this: CC should ask this forum for volunteers to come to its office and discuss certain films on camera. Just imagine HerrShreck discussing Passion of Joan of Arc or Eyes Without a Face or Michael Kerpan discussing Ozu, zedz Fassbinder or Yang, etc.

[Jack Phillips]

Francois believes happiness can be accumulated. This makes him psychopathic. He's so narcissistic that he confuses his wife's decision to commit suicide for her complete embrace of his own self absorption. These two qualities combined make him a monster, imho.

You obviously watched a different film than I did. In the one I saw there is no "decision to commit suicide," and whether the wife died intentionally or by accident is left very much in doubt. The husband can only be a monster if he is operating against the world he inhabits; in fact, he is perfectly in sync with it. The second wife is no worse than the first wife, which is why she fills so well the hole left by her predecessor. The film I saw is about perfect surfaces: when the kitsch world is disrupted by death (the ultimate faux pas) it reacts quickly to smooth everything over and re-establish the status quo ante. It is in that the horror lies.

[colinr0380]

I was astounded by how poor that discussion was. I think only the film society guy had even put any thought into it. French "intellectuals" are second to none when it comes to posing.

Absolutely right about posing and all. Bringing my mind to this: CC should ask this forum for volunteers to come to its office and discuss certain films on camera. Just imagine HerrShreck discussing Passion of Joan of Arc or Eyes Without a Face or Michael Kerpan discussing Ozu, zedz Fassbinder or Yang, etc.

Or yourself on Mala Noche! In keeping with the semi anonymous nature of the forum Herr Schreck, Michael Kerpan, zedz et al should appear either in shadows or pixelated with their voices distorted to protect themselves from the wrath of offended professional critics.

And for balance in the middle of the interview the door to the room should be slammed open and either Barmy or domino harvey should enter and completely refute whatever argument is being put forward at the time! (i.e. shouting "I hate Eyes Without A Face!" before walking back out with a flourish! And if one was included domino harvey could have hijacked Vittorio Storaro's Last Emperor interview in a similar manner, making aspect ratio accusations before being clubbed and dragged out of the room by Lee Kline!)

[Michael Kerpan]

In keeping with the semi anonymous nature of the forum Herr Schreck, Michael Kerpan, zedz et al should appear either in shadows or pixelated with their voices distorted to protect themselves from the wrath of offended professional critics.

I go under my real name in all but political forums. ;~}

My only video performance in recent years (9 years ago!) is providing instruction on legal writing.

[GringoTex]

You obviously watched a different film than I did. In the one I saw there is no "decision to commit suicide," and whether the wife died intentionally or by accident is left very much in doubt.

There's no doubt at all. Varda made sure to film first wife's water struggle against the backdrop of a bridge. You don't fall from bridges- you jump from them.

The husband can only be a monster if he is operating against the world he inhabits; in fact, he is perfectly in sync with it.

He's only in sync with it when he's with his nuclear family. In the scenes with his mistress, Varda resorts to abrasive cutting. The sync is gone. And when he wakes up from his woods nap to discover his wife is gone, he's anything but in sync with his natural suuroundings. He runs around like a chicken with his head cut off while the fisherman and picnicers look at him like he's an alien. Definitely out of sync.

The second wife is no worse than the first wife, which is why she fills so well the hole left by her predecessor.

I don't find the first wife bad at all. I'm quite neutral about her. She fulfills her wifely and motherly duties admirably, but other than that, we get zero sense of her interior thoughts and desires. It's very obvious what the second wife is looking for. We are privy to her thoughts.

The film I saw is about perfect surfaces: when the kitsch world is disrupted by death (the ultimate faux pas) it reacts quickly to smooth everything over and re-establish the status quo ante. It is in that the horror lies.

I strongly disagree with this. Kitsch makes plenty of room for death- it always has. What Kitsch (and Francois) avoids and hides are moral consequences.

[bluesea]

Francois believes happiness can be accumulated. This makes him psychopathic. He's so narcissistic that he confuses his wife's decision to commit suicide for her complete embrace of his own self absorption. These two qualities combined make him a monster, imho.

I'm not quite ready to label him a psychopath, but its true that its narcissism that leads him to make the fatal revelation to his wife (Therese).

As for the second wife, she's weak and a bit empty in the head. She could probably step in and be anybody's substitute wife. She's the prototype Stepford Wife.

Right, look at Therese, she is a more complete person. She is a creator, both as a mother and as a seamstress. We see her in a much broader range of social situations with different kinds of people. The other woman goes dancing, hangs with guys, and dials phone numbers.

[Jack Phillips]

You obviously watched a different film than I did. In the one I saw there is no "decision to commit suicide," and whether the wife died intentionally or by accident is left very much in doubt.

There's no doubt at all. Varda made sure to film first wife's water struggle against the backdrop of a bridge. You don't fall from bridges- you jump from them.

A reckless statement, one you can't hope to successfully defend. People do, I believe, fall from bridges as well as jump from them. We would know for certain which is the case in Le Bonheur if Varda had bothered to show the actual moment when the wife left the bridge. She decided to elide this, however, leaving us free to speculate as to why. I believe Varda wished to leave the matter unclear, or, anyway, was less concerned about the character's psychology than the effect her action had on the narrative.

[GringoTex]

I'm not quite ready to label him a psychopath, but its true that its narcissism that leads him to make the fatal revelation to his wife

You're right- sociopath is a better description.

A reckless statement, one you can't hope to successfully defend. People do, I believe, fall from bridges as well as jump from them. We would know for certain which is the case in Le Bonheur if Varda had bothered to show the actual moment when the wife left the bridge. She decided to elide this, however, leaving us free to speculate as to why. I believe Varda wished to leave the matter unclear, or, anyway, was less concerned about the character's psychology than the effect her action had on the narrative.

Really- adults don't fall from bridges with guard rails. I've got a thousand years of engineering and psychology to back me up on this. Unless first wife decided to hang over the edge in a moment of drunken reckless frivolty (which certainly wouldn't match her mindset at the time or anytime), she certainly jumped.

Varda didn't elide this to let you the viewer speculate freely. She did so to let Francois speculate freely. And so he did. His speculation freed him of all moral concern. He inserts second wife and continues his Auguste Renoir-esque dream with barely a skip.

What makes this movie a complete masterpiece is that, at first, Francois IS the perfect husband, perfect father, perfect co-worker. As a husband, father, and co-worker myself, I could only watch with envy how deftly he negotiates these responsibilities.

And I admit- when he's revealed as a a self-centered SOB, I had to ask myself if my condemnation of him wasn't just an envious self-reflexion of my own failings. And of course, it is.

This is where a Truffaut or Godard would have stopped (and Varda was more a part of them than the Left Bank crowd, geography be damned), but Varda is a woman and we have to read her films from that perspective. (She was also married to a homo/bi-sexual and that has to be considered, too).

So the idea that there are two interchangeable women for each male and his offspring in a single small French suburb -- well, hell- that's Christ-like. Especially when the kids are involved.

[Jack Phillips]

A reckless statement, one you can't hope to successfully defend. People do, I believe, fall from bridges as well as jump from them. We would know for certain which is the case in Le Bonheur if Varda had bothered to show the actual moment when the wife left the bridge. She decided to elide this, however, leaving us free to speculate as to why. I believe Varda wished to leave the matter unclear, or, anyway, was less concerned about the character's psychology than the effect her action had on the narrative.

Really- adults don't fall from bridges with guard rails. I've got a thousand years of engineering and psychology to back me up on this. Unless first wife decided to hang over the edge in a moment of drunken reckless frivolty (which certainly wouldn't match her mindset at the time or anytime), she certainly jumped.

Odd that in the flashback we see her, once in the water, grasping desperately at a tree branch, as if she were attempting to save herself. Doesn't seem consistent with someone who has jumped, but I guess you could argue that she changed her mind, just too late to do any good. You could also argue that such an action is consistent with someone who has fallen in accidentally.

[J Wilson]

Odd that in the flashback we see her, once in the water, grasping desperately at a tree branch, as if she were attempting to save herself. Doesn't seem consistent with someone who has jumped, but I guess you could argue that she changed her mind, just too late to do any good. You could also argue that such an action is consistent with someone who has fallen in accidentally.

I assumed that the shot of her grasping for the branch was his rationalizing something he knew to be his fault into something he could accept; much easier to live with her accidentally drowning than knowing you made her jump.

[Michael]

I assumed that the shot of her grasping for the branch was his rationalizing something he knew to be his fault into something he could accept; much easier to live with her accidentally drowning than knowing you made her jump.

Exactly. The sole purpose of the "flashback". I think it's a natural response (internally of course) to the shock of discovering a loved one unexpectedly dead. This is also why I find it way extreme to label Francois as "monster", "psychopath", "sociopath", and such. Selfish is more likely.