Bastards (Claire Denis, 2013)

[repeat]

Trailer for Bastards (mild spoilers).

[FerdinandGriffon]

Trailer for Bastards (mild spoilers).

Looks great. Does this have a US distributor yet?

[Jeff]

Trailer for Bastards (mild spoilers).

Looks great. Does this have a US distributor yet?

No one has picked it up yet.

[repeat]

I think I read IFC has it? I got a rare chance to see it last month (festival screening) and I can tell you it is absolutely stunning.

[repeat]

Aha, here it is - according to Screen, it will be distributed in the US by IFC, Artificial Eye in the UK. I don't know if that's to be trusted or not but so they say.

To say a bit more about the film, Denis has stated her starting points were The Bad Sleep Well, Michael Mann's Thief and Faulkner's Sanctuary, and yes, it is every bit as dark, cool and disturbing as those reference points imply. Maybe a warning might even be in place as to the disturbingness: it's not exactly hard to watch, but there is a mounting sense of dread that materializes eventually - Denis said it took Stuart Staples two days to recover from the first viewing, and I think many will share that experience. It's one of those films that you just sit through totally transfixed and come out with shaking knees. Staples' score is once again absolutely beautiful btw, and a totally integral part of the film's sinister mood.

Yoshimori in the Cannes thread made the inevitable Lynch comparison (I guess there's a slightly similar feel, although honestly I don't think Lynch could pull it off this subtly) - "elliptical, creepy darkness" sums up the mood pretty well, but could I modestly suggest spoiler-tagging the last sentence, as I think the film is carefully constructed to reveal those particular elements very gradually (all the reviews I've read so far have also avoided explicit mention of them).

Also, the topic title should read "Claire"...

[Jeff]

Good news on the IFC pickup. Last I heard they were having trouble finding a buyer after Cannes.

[sighkingu]

Can't wait for this one.

[j99]

Can't wait either. It's been a while since "White Material".

[repeat]

Flicking through a 2010 issue of Cahiers du Cinema this morning, I came across an interview with Claire Denis about The City Below, which competed in Un Certain Regard under her presidency - and rather strikingly, what she had to say about Hochhäusler's film could apply word-by-word for Bastards: "There were many beautiful films in the competition, but [The City Below] was without rival... It was as if it was there to irritate us, to remind us unremittingly of certain things about today: about the banks, about brutality... It's a film that hurts, and if it didn't get awarded, maybe that was because it hurts. It's an extraordinary film."

[rohming]

watched L'Intrus recently and was completely blown away by it (and Staples' score was amazing). this sounds like it's in a similar vein, can't wait.

[zedz]

Tindersticks' soundtrack album is out next month.



It can be ordered from their website.

[repeat]

For French readers, there is a long and absolutely indispensable interview about the film - and specifically the critical controversy surrounding it - in the July/August issue of Cahiers (the one with Greta Gerwig's eye on the cover). Contains massive spoilers, but I'd say it's worth getting and keeping until you've seen the film.

Could the moderator fix the misspelled name from the topic title, just for the sake of searchability? Should read "Claire"

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Tindersticks' soundtrack album is out next month.

It can be ordered from their website.

If you can't wait it's already available from Amazon etc as a mp3 download. Gotta love the Hot Choc cover.

["membrillo"]

Did anyone else try watching via VOD and find that is was missing subtitles? I tried Amazon and PS Store and both streams were missing subs.

[OnOnt]

It had subs when I saw it on iTunes yesterday. Phenomenal film.

[Sonmi451]

Caught this a few nights ago, and still can't get it out of my mind. How Cannes passed this film up for In Competition is beyond me. It's probably the most scathing critique of patriarchal gender relations I've seen, and would make a nice double bill with Manderlay, in that both films deal so frankly with the dehumanization and codependency caused by the oppressor/oppressed dynamic.

Just a fantastic film, top 5 of the year for me so far, in a very strong year.

[repeat]

Caught this a few nights ago, and still can't get it out of my mind. How Cannes passed this film up for In Competition is beyond me. It's probably the most scathing critique of patriarchal gender relations I've seen

It is that, but it it also so much more - and don't worry, it will take at least a week or two for the short term effects to subside I really, really urge everyone with any interest in this film to get hold of Cahiers du Cinema #691, where Denis discusses the film and its negative reception at length. I promise you it's worth it even if you have to read it with a dictionary and grammar book on the side.

david hare, did you manage to see Bastards more than once? I found it confusingly elliptical on first viewing, much less so on the second and almost entirely linear on the third. The gut-punch power of the last 15-20 minutes however was not diminished in the least, if anything I'd say it just got stronger with each viewing.

L'inconnu du lac was fucking amazing. There's actually a thread for it as well: would love to hear recommendations regarding Guiraudie's previous output (from which I understand this one is a bit of a departure)

[Sonmi451]

First par: I think Claire is going much much further and with far more sly humor than Gender studies and Patriarchal Critiques 102. The lovingly tracked shots of the bloodied naked daughter dragging herslef down the street have far more than a lesson in sexism going on, especially in the frame of Agnes' lush, sombre photogpahy.

I agree that there is much more going on, clearly more than a simple lesson in sexism and certainly more than I could take in on a single viewing. But I do think Denis is going for a much deeper/systemic indictment here, especially in that amazing sequence you reference, which I actually found to be the most moving/damning in the film in regards to gender roles and sexual objectification. It's a fantastic juxtaposition, the pretty (very?) sexy early scene where we first see the daughter walking naked through the streets against the later scene where it is revealed just how unsexy it really is. I think Denis is clearly representing how men see women (notice in the early scene the man looking on as she walks) vs. what men actually do to women in a patriarchal system. In that respect it's very much of a piece with Denis' previous concerns with colonialism (as far as I know - I've only seen White Material thus far), since what is colonialism but an extension of patriarchal relations on a global political scale? On either level, patriarchy is manifested in the desire to show up, conquer, use up, and abandon.

[AlexHansen]

Loving this little exchange, so my thanks to you both. I was a bit underwhelmed after my viewing last week, which I blame on it being nowhere as elliptical as I'd been lead to believe. I'd be interested in hearing what exactly you were finding confusing the first time you viewed it, repeat. I know a few folks that complained about Mastroianni's exact relationship with Subor not being clear. It lacked details/specifics but the importance elements were easy to discern.

[repeat]

Alex - some of the relationships between the characters slightly eluded me on first viewing, as the information comes quickly and in little bits. But I was tired after a long day at a festival, and (I haven't been able to verify this, but) I'm pretty sure the (pre-theatrical) cut I saw omitted entirely the introduction with Jacques writing the letter in his apartment. (Some people in the audience didn't realize his relationship to Justine even at the end!)

What you've got to realize to start tackling the implications of the story is Denis' insistence that il n'y a pas de salauds dans le film ("there are no bastards in the film"): they are only there from the confused viewpoint of Marco, who (like the viewer) gets unwittingly sucked into the tragic mess that has developed around the relationship of Jacques and Justine (which - and this is absolutely key to understanding the film - is an entirely consenting one). What results when Marco is introduced to this world from outside as a "hero" is a kind of a classic Greek tragedy that (I think) transcends any moral judgment of any of the characters, which is also why I think the patriarchal critique approach is (while possible) flawed and just way way too reductive. The actual tragedy here lies in impossible nature of Justine and Jacques' relationship: the only evil or depravity going on might be in the business that's taking financial advantage of them, but that is really a side issue, an unfortunate outcome (and one that is also never really explained). The reason why a lot of people had problems with the film is that the film itself refuses to moralize, and that refusal causes people to project their own condemnations of various characters - essentially making the same "mistake" that leads Marco to where he ends up. I don't know if I'm being clear here but I'll try to explain further when I have more time!!

[Black Hat]

Really? I thought the Mastroianni/Subor relationship was the one thing the film explicitly spelled out.

When I first saw the film I thought it was an absolute indictment of humanity but when I saw it a second time I realized I was projecting my own shocked, angry and disgusted emotions on to the film as opposed to what was actually shown to me. I'm not sure Denis is really indicting anything. Think about it, did she really judge anyone or condemn anything that happened? It seemed to me that she was depicting a reality. The world as she sees it is inhabited with complex people, from one side monstrous as Laporte was with Marco's niece on the other a concerned, loving father. Mastroianni carrying on like she had been to only follow it up with the choice she made at the end. Marco who although the specifics of it was left unsaid, outside of the brief scene with his daughter at the train station, had demons of his own that sent him out to sea.

What tied all of this together, what the film was ultimately about for me was the gravity of family structure and the ensuing struggle for individual identity independent of its pull. Marco comes back to shore on account of his family, the shot of him looking back at his open sea fully understanding that his new found bearings will sooner or later collapse upon him thru no fault of his own. He does it because that is what we do for family, we don’t ask questions, only finding out later that perhaps we should have, but that's life now isn't it?

[Black Hat]

Has anybody read Faulkner's Sanctuary? Denis made mention of the influence the book had at both the talk she gave at NYFF and the post screening Q & A.

Glad people have finally been able to see this great film so we can talk about it.

[repeat]

When I first saw the film I thought it was an absolute indictment of humanity but when I saw it a second time I realized I was projecting my own shocked, angry and disgusted emotions on to the film as opposed to what was actually shown to me. I'm not sure Denis is really indicting anything. Think about it, did she really judge anyone or condemn anything that happened? It seemed to me that she was depicting a reality. The world as she sees it is inhabited with complex people

This is absolutely on the mark, and mirrors my reaction too: the shock and indignation of the first viewing was replaced with overwhelming sorrow and even sympathy on subsequent ones. In that Cahiers interview Denis makes it absolutely clear that she is not indicting at least any of the characters. What is depicted here is a messy reality of extreme moral complexity, which Denis looks at unflichingly and without moralization, challenging the viewer to do the same - and I think it's only natural that we at first side with Marco in looking to identify "the bastards" (especially as the way that the film is structured and even titled would initially seem to steer us in that direction).

I agree that the weight of the family unit (and maybe also its potential for incubating the most questionable situations) is totally a central theme here. As with James Gray, characters act on a primal loyalty towards family: and when Marco belatedly realizes what exactly is going on, his personal moral disgust leads him to basically forsake his family - while Mastroianni's character stays true to hers, thus her choice and the final outcome of their relationship. (I hope this is vague enough to not spoil the plot for anyone)

[Sonmi451]

I totally agree that family is a central theme here, and that Denis is not indicting any one character or making moral judgements against them. That is the beauty of it, she portrays complex human relationships for what they are, totally dependent on past experiences and historical circumstances. Granted, the shock and indignation of the first viewing has still not worn off, but by not indicting any one character I think Denis is definitely indicting a system that leads people to behave as depicted in the film. Every woman in the film is completely and utterly dependent on a man for their very survival. Sandra is broken and lost without her husband - like her daughter wandering naked in the street (notice in beginning we see her covered with a blanket just after we see the daughter). Raphaelle especially; when viewed in this way her final action makes more sense. As opposed to her "staying true to her family", I think it is more indicative of her subservience and her need to "caress the rod that rules" her.

[repeat]

Every woman in the film is completely and utterly dependent on a man for their very survival. Sandra is broken and lost without her husband - like her daughter wandering naked in the street (notice in beginning we see her covered with a blanket just after we see the daughter). Raphaelle especially; when viewed in this way her final action makes more sense. As opposed to her "staying true to her family", I think it is more indicative of her subservience and her need to "caress the rod that rules" her.

Can't argue that, it's a plausible reading - it's still a form of familial loyalty though! Just to keep the issue as complicated as it should be, here's Denis on the Laporte/Raphaëlle relationship:

CdC: When [Marco] is looking on the Internet at these images of rich people, high profile people with a lot of power, it reminds you of Eyes Wide Shut.
Denis: I wasn't thinking of this wealth at all. Sure, he's got dough, he's got a mistress. But it wasn't my intention to investigate circles of power, any more than to make a film about

Spoiler

incest.

And besides I like the character played by Michel Subor very much. He's an old guy, he's got his son, it's Michel Subor. You could imagine someone having fallen in love with him one day. One can fall in love with a rich man, it's [nothing to be ashamed of].
CdC: But what we see of him, he's not treating his mistress too well...
Denis: I'd rather say they have a sort of a "common market". It's a pretty common relationship: a kept mistress, I don't see what's bad about it...
CdC: Well then, where is the bad/evil in the film?
Denis: The evil appears solely for the character of Marco, who discovers that all this is born of a guilt, like a softness, a weakness, which has accumulated like a mille-feuille. The guilt is related to [Jacques]... I don't make films where's you have the good and the evil, and anyway I'm not interested in knowing where the evil is. It's somewhere in the film, I see it in lots of places.

Difficult to translate that last bit but I think she means that the evil is a little bit here and there and not just at some particular locus. On subsequent viewings I thought it was obvious that Laporte too is a sort of a red herring, an easy target because he's got all the signifiers of a "fucking bastard", so that we can conveniently relieve all the other characters from culpability and see them as innocent victims of this evil mastermind. But apart from Sandra's conviction of his involvement, the only thing incriminating him that we see is his presence on the surveillance camera photos (which definitely confirm that he's involved in what's happening, but it's certainly a long way from confirming he's somehow "behind it all").

French DVD coming out on Wild Side in January, appears to have HoH French subs if Amazon is to be trusted. I don't think there's much hope of a Blu-ray anywhere. (Edit: apparently it's also currently available on Amazon Instant Video in the US!)

(Finally fixed the typo in the thread title, I didn't realize it was my job as the thread split had made me the OP - sorry about that)