criterionforum.org

Isn't the simple answer to all these questions: lust. People in the real world do ridiculous, reckless, career- and life-destroying things all the time for the very same reason, so I found it completely plausible for this one guy to do what he does.

I'd almost buy that if the narrative were suggesting some combination of the following: some sort of prior relationship between the two men (a personal reason to give the guy the benefit of the doubt) , any ambiguity regarding the crime in question (a logical smidgen of deniability) or any psychological hook on which to hang this very particular (and to me still leftfield seeming) turn into not doing what the character we know up until that moment would do -- stay the heck away from that guy and talk to the cops (if not right away, then certainly when given multiple easy opportunities to do so). There's just no dramatic irony in watching his flat one-note withholding of the facts. And, for me, almost no tension except wondering when/if he'll be killed too, but without really caring anymore -- mostly because the protagonist at that point feels more like a pawn than a fully imagined character.

zedz wrote:Isn't the simple answer to all these questions: lust. People in the real world do ridiculous, reckless, career- and life-destroying things all the time for the very same reason, so I found it completely plausible for this one guy to do what he does.

I still have not caught up to this film yet, but how does it compare to perhaps the ultimate dangerous cruising film, Looking For Mr Goodbar?

warren oates wrote:

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?"

Hitchcock elements: A thriller entirely confined to one setting (Rope, Rear Window, Lifeboat), a charming and/or seductive murderer (Psycho, Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, etc), a deconstruction of perceived ideas about romance as a sham, to put it in Fassbinder's words "love is colder than death" (Vertigo, Marnie, Notorious). Love scenes which are shot like murders, murders which are shot like love scenes.

To me the lead's motivation wasn't inscrutable. The murderer is Franck's romantic ideal and by the time the murder happens his heart and cock have taken over his mind. Scottie in Vertigo falls obsessively in love with a woman before he's even talked to her. What he does to get her, even after her "death", is arguably even more insane than ignoring (or even being even turned on by) the fact that the object of ones desire is a killer.

And then there are the reasons I referred to before, a self-destructive quality and internalised homophobia in many gay men, which comes out of low self-esteem from having been raised with the message that what you are (gay) is not considered acceptable. The characters psychology is anchored in what is a a political and sociological reality for many gay men. He does not care enough for himself to think of his safety first. And if the barebacking metaphor seems too on the nose for some, it isn't for me because to me its an act as mystifyingly self-destructive as falling for a murderer and it bears thinking about.

Maybe this is more relatable for some than to others, but it all made sense to me.

Lost Highway wrote:Hitchcock elements: A thriller entirely confined to one setting (Rope, Rear Window, Lifeboat), a charming and/or seductive murderer (Psycho, Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, etc), a deconstruction of perceived ideas about romance as a sham, to put it in Fassbinder's words "love is colder than death" (Vertigo, Marnie, Notorious). Love scenes which are shot like murders, murders which are shot like love scenes.

Agree about the contained thriller influence and how the Truffaut observation about Hitch's murder/love scenes applies here. But can we really call the murderer charming or seductive? He does pretty much nothing to earn Franck's attention but happen to fit a certain look.

I do get the Hitchcockian elements. I just think they aren't working anywhere close to the Hitchcock standard. For me this is a thriller that's almost devoid of thrills. Franck has a single flat unchanging reason not to speak up about the murders (hot guy, good sex). He doesn't ever discover more about his lover because it's all on the table before the relationship even begins. There aren't any further complications that make maintaining his silence a more interesting conflict, to make speaking up hard to want to do (Franck's not closeted, there's no indication that there'd be a scandal in his personal life, the beach itself is an open secret to the authorities, there's only the vaguest notion that Franck might be a suspect -- never that the only way out for him is to implicate his lover). There's no comparison to the multiple escalating complications that, for example, Guy faces trying to save himself and stop Bruno in Strangers on a Train.

Lost Highway wrote:To me the lead's motivation wasn't inscrutable. The murderer is Franck's romantic ideal and by the time the murder happens his heart and cock have taken over his mind. Scottie in Vertigo falls obsessively in love with a woman before he's even talked to her. What he does to get her, even after her "death", is arguably even more insane than ignoring (or even being even turned on by) the fact that the object of ones desire is a killer.

Is the murderer Franck's romantic ideal or is he more strictly something like Franck's erotic ideal? I don't think Franck has any illusions that they're going to run off together, partner up, settle down, buy property, get married and/or start a family. Vertigo's Scottie is certainly obsessed with an image of a unreal partner, but there are reasons that that story is so much richer or that it exists at all as a compelling narrative and, in a way, they begin and end with the fact that Scottie doesn't really know that Madeleine/Judy is a murderer. I seriously doubt Vertigo would be topping all-time greatest film lists if, for instance, halfway through the film Scottie saw Judy push the "real" Madeleine from the tower and then still pursued her obsessively because she had the right hair.

The thing that was really working about the film for me right up until the moment Franck sees the killing is how believable the world of the film was, how credible and normal he seemed as a character. I get what the film is trying to say about lust. I just think it stumbles irrevocably in its plotting, almost instantly destroying the credibility of its storytelling, such that it can only continue to play out as metaphor. As I write above, I've known plenty of men and women of varying degrees of sluttiness and sexual orientation. But I've yet to meet a single one who would do what Franck did. And the Franck of every minute leading up to the crucial one -- a guy who seems like a genuinely good person, who goes out of his way to befriend the lonely homely looking guy, who clearly sees himself as not merely some insular hedonist but part of a community -- strikes me as particularly bad casting for the Franck who does what follows (a choice which I'd have trouble believing from even the most selfish assholes I've known).

Apologies for bumping an old topic without re-igniting conversation of the film, but can anyone recommend either the Peccadillo or Strand bd over the other? The picture quality on the Strand release sounds quite good, but the inclusion of the short films on Peccadillo's release are also rather enticing. Has anyone seen one or the other and can comment on the veracity of either release's quality?

big ticket wrote:Apologies for bumping an old topic without re-igniting conversation of the film, but can anyone recommend either the Peccadillo or Strand bd over the other? The picture quality on the Strand release sounds quite good, but the inclusion of the short films on Peccadillo's release are also rather enticing. Has anyone seen one or the other and can comment on the veracity of either release's quality?

I'd be curious to know if anyone has opinions as well... They both have the same two short films, I believe. It looks like the Region B disc has a few more extras than the US (interviews/Q&As from various festivals) and lossless audio, from what I've read, whereas the only thing the US disc has that the UK doesn't is an additional take of the alternate ending, and it does not have lossless audio. The UK disc can also be had for cheaper than the US disc, even imported. So I'm leaning toward the UK myself...

After loving Miséricorde, I've been going through the rest of Guiraudie's filmography and it's been a real treat. When you see his other films, it's pretty obvious why this one and Miséricorde are the ones that will reach a wider audience given their focused approach and references to genre (though I agree with those above who say that this film does not deliver on genre thrills, albeit intentionally). But I think his films really enhance each other when you put them in conversation. For example, I saw L'inconnu du lac differently when I realized it was Guiraudie returning to Ce vieux rêve qui bouge — single location, homosocial space, slower pace, story structured by a routine which is divided into distinct days over the span of a week-ish, &c. But whereas this is a kind of romance that a crime film keeps trying to interrupt, Ce vieux rêve qui bouge is a kind of social realist drama that a romance interrupts and transforms into something new.

Basically all of Guiraudie's other films are more freewheeling, veering off into surrealism and unusual comedy — it might take a few films to get on the wavelength of his style and humor, if you ever do — until Miséricorde, which is much more grounded but effectively combines his two main modes. It's special to see a singular filmmaker like Guiraudie be able to crystalize his voice into a more mainstream, polished film which is at the same time a new, powerful way to articulate his style and themes.

To give you an idea of the range here: if Miséricorde is like

Spoiler

a rural, comic The Woman in the Window,

Viens, je t'emmène is like a modern redux of Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie, as its form of a continually frustrated sex farce is applied to a disturbing story about Islamophobia and property anxiety. And like Rester vertical and Viens, je t'emmène after the success of L'inconnu du lac, I'm sure his next few films after this burst of relative popularity will be his weirdest ones yet.