criterionforum.org

For those in the Boston area, this is scheduled to play at the Harvard Film Archive on 2/2. http://hcl.harvard.edu/hfa/calendar/february14.html

Just watched Sunshine for the Poor last night, an absolutely delightful film in every way - different in many ways from Stranger by the Lake, but, 13 years apart, still instantly recognizable as the work of the same man. Claire Denis once cited Guiraudie (along with Dumont and the Larrieu brothers) as an example of a director who "offers a territory to be discovered" (as opposed to merely showing a landscape), a quality well evident in Stranger as well as here. Utterly inspiring example of how one can make such a captivating film out in the sticks with basically zero decor, with just four people (one of them played by Guiraudie himself) and nothing else - very anxious to seek out the rest of his output now, too bad it's not more readily available without resorting to unofficial channels.

(edit: fixed the Denis misquote)

James Quandt on Stranger.

I disagree with the general enthusiasm. It's a correct film but it's not the masterpiece that Cahiers and the critics sell. Or may be I am blind.

Saw this the other day with little knowledge of what is was about (a Hitchcockian thriller that involves a gay cruising spot, that's it), and I was floored. The control and intelligence in editing and composition was very impressive, this was an incredibly well-executed film. It did win an award at Cannes, but I'm surprised it didn't warrant more attention. Considering how disappointed I was in last year's overall crop of films, it was nice to see one that was knocked out of the park.

repeat wrote:Claire Denis once cited Guiraudie (along with Dumont and the Larrieu brothers) as an example of a director who "offers a territory to be discovered" (as opposed to merely showing a landscape), a quality well evident in Stranger as well as here.

Has anyone had good experiences with les frères Larrieu? A few years back I got all worked up for Les Derniers jours du monde only to be badly let down by the awkwardly shot, half-baked mish-mash of sci-fi and bougie vacation drama that appeared on screen. Did I hit upon their only stinker or was that one pretty representative?

Guiraudie was a case of love at first sight, but I'm glad I ventured further with Dumont than Hadjewich, a film that did not impress me even half as much as the rest of his output I've seen.

And now the US will be getting a Blu-Ray as well, courtesy of Strand on 13th May, provisionally.

Strand Blu-Ray on DVD Beaver.

The lossy Dolby Digital audio may be a deal breaker. This appears to have been put together with some care, given the bonus materials, so I can't fathom why they went with lossy audio. Their BD of Mysterious Skin had DTS HD.

Really disappointing. The Peccadillo Pictures BD has the same bonus features listed so I'll at least wait till that comes out before deciding which to pick up.

Gary's typical badly worded review here leaves him sounding like he's finally coming to terms with his feelings.

It's definitely a film I'm going to have to see again... and probably a third time before I get a solid handle on it. It does have a lot of homosexual relations scenes and, obviously, male nudity.

_shadow_ wrote:Strand Blu-Ray on DVD Beaver.

The lossy Dolby Digital audio may be a deal breaker. This appears to have been put together with some care, given the bonus materials, so I can't fathom why they went with lossy audio. Their BD of Mysterious Skin had DTS HD.

Really disappointing.

Strand approaches home video like I do Valentine's Day--you can't deliver perfectly on all fronts or else expectations will be too high the next time around!

STRANGER BY THE LAKE Beaver review and not a single nude screencap to be found!
I can't help but chuckle thinking about Gary struggling to find that many different screencaps of guys with their clothes on!

And yet if a woman had her top off for one second in the film, there'd be a screen cap of it.

He's apparently calmed down with age. See also the Nymph()maniac review.

"Homosexual relations scenes"? What the hell?

Maybe all that mutual masturbation rubbed him up the wrong way?

"Homosexual relations" sounds like a progressive hick talking about their gay kin

Isn't that phrase from a bad movie or something? Gary is a kook, but I think that was meant as a joke. As I mentioned above, I think it's funnier in the context of his statement just previous to that one.

I didn't mean to trigger the latest round of gang up on Gary - merely pull his leg a little. I'm happy to say that I read dvdbeaver.com every morning over coffee! But the choice of screencaps really did make me chuckle. And the use of phrases like "Homosexual relations" I chalk up to being Canadian. Never hesitate to blame Canada!

rohmerin wrote:I disagree with the general enthusiasm. It's a correct film but it's not the masterpiece that Cahiers and the critics sell. Or may be I am blind.

This is about where I come down as well-- there are a lot of good aspects at play here, but it adds up to less for me than others got out of it. I appreciated the lyrical quality of the cruising scenes, but I didn't find much value in the central "mystery" (and I definitely didn't find it thrilling; Labeling the film a "thriller" just because there's murder is like the constant labeling of movies with deception and potentially dangerous loved interests "Hitchcockian"-- oh, whoops, that happened here too didn't it) and the resultant finale is yet another needlessly ambiguous "climax" (pun unintended but enjoyed) from an art house flick. Admittedly the scenery is nice, though the much lauded sound design and visual sparseness have been done to death so many times by now that I can't believe anyone is getting worked up about their implementation here. The spare attempts at presenting the culture of this cruising locale are well-observed (though I would have enjoyed a more conventional approach that allowed for more study of these behaviors/interactions) and the performances nicely tuned. The repeated homosexual encounters aren't really any more or less unusual than graphic sex scenes in every other heterosexual erotic film of this ilk out there, so while it may be a good talking point /angle for product differentiation, it doesn't end up adding or subtracting much in the long run.

Also, because I can't be the only one to not know what everyone kept talking about, a "silurus" (which Strand didn't translate) is a catfish (I was guessing an eel or some kind of gator from the context)

domino harvey wrote: The spare attempts at presenting the culture of this cruising locale are well-observed (though I would have enjoyed a more conventional approach that allowed for more study of these behaviors/interactions) and the performances nicely tuned. The repeated homosexual encounters aren't really any more or less unusual than graphic sex scenes in every other heterosexual erotic film of this ilk out there, so while it may be a good talking point /angle for product differentiation, it doesn't end up adding or subtracting much in the long run.

I'm not sure what you mean with "a more conventional approach" and what would have allowed for more study of these type of interactions ? As someone for whom gay cruising is a large part of their sex life (and without regrets or apologies), I've never seen a film which showed gay cruising more truthfully or with more insight.

I don't think the film even made any attempt to be unusual in its explicitness, actually the explicit stuff is the bare minimum of what is needed for a film about male, gay promiscuity not to seem coy. The inserts just make up a few seconds. In the end the film doesn't attempt to be pornographic, its just honest, so why criticise the film for not being more explicit ? The whole point is that this is about a type of gay, male sexual behaviour and not heterosexual encounters which we see all the time and that does make it different and unusual, especially in terms of how the film comments on it by being a genre film. It's not that the individual aspects of the film push boundaries, its how they work in context.

This still is my favourite film of the year so far, both as an admirer of Hitchcock's films and as a gay man slut, possibly because it cuts quite close to the bone(r) for me. It's really an allegory of gay, male self-destructiveness and internalised self-hatred. Why are there bug chasers and gay men who take huge risks with their lives and health for sex (I hasten to add I'm quite responsible in terms of myself and others, but I witness a lot of unhealthy behaviour). It's really only a step away from falling for a handsome serial killer. And the whole film is also in the French tradition of tales about l'amour fou, Truffaut's favourite thematic stalking ground, which generally does end in self-obliteration.

Lost Highway wrote:It's really an allegory of gay, male self-destructiveness and internalised self-hatred. Why are there bug chasers and gay men who take huge risks with their lives and health for sex (I hasten to add I'm quite responsible in terms of myself and others, but I witness a lot of unhealthy behaviour). It's really only a step away from falling for a handsome serial killer. And the whole film is also in the French tradition of tales about l'amour fou, Truffaut's favourite thematic stalking ground, which generally does end in self-obliteration.

Maybe an allegory too far. I agree with domino. My problem with the film is that I simply stopped believing it right after the big moment, where it lost all of its dramatic and psychological veracity. I thought the film was really playing fast and loose with its characterization of the protagonist. The film is premised on his doing what he does (or doesn't do) at that moment and afterward with what he sees, but the entire set up, where we meet and grow to like him presents us with a person who just wouldn't go there. I've seen plenty of people of all orientations and degrees of sluttiness fall for assholes. And there's a subset of those who stay too long with even more egregious abusive types. What I haven't seen is anyone ever -- especially anyone as normal and seemingly psychologically healthy as the protagonist -- not only not report an unambiguous crime as serious as murder but then just suddenly become even more attracted to the hot perp in some perverse way that's really redolent of Columbine fangurling (of course a large part of the attraction there is they don't ever have to deal with the reality of the killers). Of all the "explicit" images in the film the one that makes the least narrative and dramatic sense to the whole is the central murder. It's a great piece of cinema, beautifully shot, sure, but why should we believe it in the context of the film's narrative? Why didn't Guiraudie opt for eliding that moment, or at least giving the protagonist and the audience some kind of ambiguity? I get that the choice is bold and almost stubbornly if not schematically anti-cliche, but how does it work dramatically for those for whom it's working?

I figured we're meant to read it as delusional justification (a kind of reverse "stealthing") as I don't think the film's narrative works at all unless you read everything as critical of cruising. Even the "outsider" cop appears to wear the same clothes days in a row, implying he's never left the cruising locale due to his own dot dot dot (and he like everyone else pays for the dalliance). It doesn't help the on the nose symbolism that the protagonist is chided for not using condoms and just trusting his anonymous partners to volunteer their status immediately before the murder-witnessing sequence. Like, I get it, but isn't presenting death wishes in this manner (and of course another major character is given a literal death wish) a bit much?

I didn't read the film as being critical of gay cruising, I would have hated it if I thought it was. It is what it is and different men get different things out of it. The film is a Hitchcockian black comedy on the pitfalls of male desire which happens to take place in a cruising ground. If you appreciate Hitchcock you can put up with some schematic characterisation in aid of the overall design. I also don't think a film is "a bit much" when it deals with something films hardly ever deal with and then does so as a rather elegant genre film.

Lost Highway wrote:I didn't read the film as being critical of gay cruising.

I agree. It seems to present it without any judgment at all.

Lost Highway wrote:If you appreciate Hitchcock you can put up with some schematic characterisation in aid of the overall design.

This is where your argument and the film lose me and why I agree with domino that comparisons to Hitchcock are overblown. To me there's a vast gulf between "some schematic characterisation" and the kind of character-denying plot manipulation that Stranger by the Lake hinges on. To say that this specific character does this particular thing for these singular (and singularly inscrutable) reasons makes a claim about the protagonist that wants to ignore everything we see beforehand and every reason we're supposed to have to care about his fate. Hitch would have been more rigorous about writing for character, not to mention addressing the question he forever dealt with in his own films: "Why doesn't he just go to the police?"