The Philosopher and the Genital Close-up

**oscar jubis** · 08-06-2004, 01:58 AM

It's not uncommon for film directors to have a background in painting, writing or photography. The jump to film directing is often facilitated by a period of tutelage under a veteran director, as part of a film crew. Many directors report being film buffs, consumers of cinema, who can point to other directors as having been influential. None of the above applies to Bruno Dumont.

I say this without joking but...I don't like cinema. I think there's something dead in cinema. I think movie lovers are aliens. I do not feed on movies. But my only passion is making movies. I made the discovery that cinema is an extraordinary means to express philosophy. (Bruno Dumont)

Born in the small French town of Bailleul, Dumont was a philosophy teacher who taught himself to make short documentaries for organizations and industries. He wrote and directed his first fiction feature, La Vie de Jesus (Life of Jesus), at age 39. His sophomore effort, the highly controversial L'humanite, won three awards at Cannes '99. Both films are available on dvd. His third film, 29 Palms, is the first one not set in his hometown. This 2004 release (limited) is set in the American West and will be available on video in the fall. (I'm not the member best suited to discuss Dumont since I can only opine about the first two films. H. Schumann has seen all three, lists Life of Jesus and Humanity as #61 and #80 in his list of 125 favorites of all time, and has written a review of 29 Palms. He, and perhaps others, would do a better job. I present some facts and opinions to bring up the topic and initiate discussion.)

Dumont explains he is not interested in providing diversion or entertainment, just a means for the viewer to reflect on his existence and that of others. Even though he uses non-actors and shoots on-location, in the realist tradition, some of his protagonists are not meant to be entirely believable. Their behavior is not meant to make strict psychological sense. They are often used as metaphors within a philosophical parable. This applies to Humanity in particular. The protagonist is a small time cop who discovers the violated corpse of an 8 year old girl. What follows is an odd police procedural, or the shell of one, built from chunks of real time. Some chunks involve observation of characters in activities unrelated to the investigation. Information is doled out miserly. All we know about the cop's past,for instance, is the he "lost" his girlfriend and child two years ago. Dumont strikes me as a practitioner of what Kiarostami called "unfinished cinema" is his manifesto at Cannes '95. The viewer's participation is essential. "Dumont's films compel us to react viscerally with the totality of our being" (Schumann) The use of long takes allow the viewer to ponder and reflect on the images.

A particular trademark of Bruno Dumont is a treatment of sexuality as carnal with no trace of eroticism. The frequent sex scenes are unusually explicit and a tad mechanical. His routine use of genital close-ups seems designed to demistify sexuality. His debut film raised eyebrows because of a scene involving actual penetration. Sex (and touch) is presented as perhaps the primary means for characters to communicate. The first two films involve woman-men triangles, with entirely different resolutions. 29 Palms apparently concerns a man and a woman who don't speak a common language, traveling through landscapes reminicent of Wim Wender's Paris, Texas. Sex and violence figure prominently. But Dumont is an original man-of-ideas who deserves the scrutiny of serious movie lov... aliens.

**oscar jubis** · 08-07-2004, 02:38 AM

La Vie de Jesus strikes me as a relatively realistic portrayal of small town youth, aimless and culturally deprived. The type of environment that facilitates xenophobia and racism, a major theme in my opinion. I appreciate the realistic depiction of epileptic attacks, because it's rarely seen in movies. I'm still undecided regarding the need for a close-up of an erect penis penetrating a vagina and the full implications of the title.

L'humanite is...something else. The director himself admits a cop like DeWinter doesn't exist. He is not believable. Cops don't behave like this. The director admits anybody expecting a policier will leave unsatisfied. In my opinion, the only reason the identity of the murderer is revealed is to show one of the most mistifying acts of compassion ever filmed. There are no behavioral clues that could indicate he is capable of such a savage act. It's a philosophical parable, not the psychological character study or the whodunit one would expect. The film includes some interesting rhyme effects, such as the close-up of Domino's vagina as she cries bringing the viewer back to the corpse's bloody vagina and the cries for help nobody heard, not even us. In another shot, DeWinter's body appears to levitate over a muddy field. And that expression on his face at the end could be interpreted in so many ways, not unlike the gaze of Vermeer's "Girl with a pearl earring".

Indeed, the two leads won acting awards for doing nothing. Nothing other than being themselves, that is.

Just like you with 29 Palms, I'm being more patient in general, waiting for some foreign films to eventually be released here in theatres or home video, especially when the import dvd is too expensive. Besides, I have too many discs at home I haven't watched yet.

**Chris Knipp** · 08-07-2004, 01:15 PM

I found both La Vie de Jésus and L’Humanité powerful and disturbing and wholly original. Dumont is right: they're not entertainment. But they can make you think. L’Humanité was the kind of movie that led complete strangers into intense discussions walking out of the cinema. Of course it doesn't quite make sense, but that's part of the stimulation. La Vie de Jésus has a sense of maddening boredom and frustration and the main character's life seems so penitential (no pun intended) that somehow there is a spiritual element. He is a suffering Jesus; his life is a Via Dolorosa. The threats of madness and aggression seem quite real, unmediated. I missed 29 Palms during the two minutes that it was showing here and I have my doubts about it after some things I have read, but nonetheless of course I want to see it. These are not the kind of movies I want to see again (I don't often do that except when I find the style enchanting or the film a classic) but they aren't the kind you want to miss, either. "Kubrick wannabe" is completely wide of the mark. Whoever came up with such a silly remark? Why not compare him with Danny Leiner?

**oscar jubis** · 08-08-2004, 03:34 AM

Research into written reviews of L'humanite proved fascinating but didn't lead to any Kubrick reference (off the mark indeed). This is the type of film that can help one decide who are the critics worth reading and whom one must avoid.

The majority of critics who dismiss the film took a very concrete approach, unable to deal with the film as something other than a police procedural directed by an artsy-fartsy Frenchie. Do they think this must be how cops behave in France? One individual actually complains about Pharaon's lack of "snooping skills". How can a critic insist on treating L'humanite as a genre flick when confronted with a scene in which the protagonist levitates a foot off the ground?
Interestingly, Ebert also takes a mostly concrete approach to interpretation, but he liked the film ( ***1/2). The bulk of the review involves providing examples of how endearing and eccentric Pharaon is. There's little analysis; he simply loves the protagonist.
Some reviews by prominent critics were quite revelatory. Sarris states categorically that Pharaon's "wife and child left him". In actuality, his mother exclaims that "he lost his girlfriend and child". Pure carelesness. Sarris also characterizes Domino as "nymphomaniacal", which leads me to suspect Sarris is either a puritan or a misogynist, or both.
Rosenbaum considers the film a "must-see" and, as usual, has many interesting things to say, such as the apt comparison between Pharaon and the "Chinaman" character in DW Griffith's Broken Blossoms. Then again, Rosenbaum writes "I hasten to add that the mistery is solved at the end, and maybe it shouldn't have been". If so, Dumont would have to do without the crucial scene in which Pharaon confronts the killer. The whole film, in my opinion, seems to be leading towards this act of pure compassion.
The director's name that keeps coming up in reviews of L'humanite is Robert Bresson; it can be argued that Dumont's themes and Bresson's overlap. But what truly strikes me as Bressonian is the casting and the direction of these "performers".

So the title implies that the characters that populate the film represent "humanity", a microcosm of humanity, humanity reduced to a few archetypes, for the purpose of presenting a model of the ideal human response to tragedy and suffering.

**Chris Knipp** · 08-08-2004, 01:00 PM

Bresson is totally the most relevant comparison for casting and direction, style you might say rather than theme, though in view of Dumont's lack of interest in cinema, Bresson is an analogy rather than influence. I strongly agree there are touchstone films by which we can evaluate critics and I welcome your analysis of the treatment of L’Humanité by several--with the caveat that we can't find agreement on everything ever and a critic can be worthwhile despite blind spots which we all have. I also agree that apart from their looking for the wrong things in the wrong movies, careful reading will unearth a lot of errors in reviewers' basic summaries of what they've seen. That's one reason why they don't agree: they've literally seen different movies. Prejudices and limitations like Sarris's possible puritanism are also common. It's better when these are out front.As the evaluation of critics procedes, I see the goal not so much as avoidance but as a seeking out of the winners; referring back to a critic proven unreliable to know common misreadings of a movie can be useful too. While Rosenbaum may be over-worshipped by today's American film buffs, he does speak from a profound knowledge and has valuable things to say about just about whatever new movies he comments on. It's only when he starts taking the grand view and dismissing his rivals that he alienates.

**Chris Knipp** · 08-08-2004, 04:12 PM

I agree. That's why I rephrased it as "there are touchstone films", not to say that there is any one unique touchstone film. Since I write reviews, I have no contempt for review critics. I do it because I like to and because I think it worthwhile. I too like Manohla Dargis a lot -- I was impressed that she "got" Gerry when few others did -- and am delighted she has come to the NYTimes because the LATimes online is paid subscription only. She did not completely dismiss L’Humanité; it would be a complete dismissal maybe that Oscar meant would indicate a critic was unworthy of his attention. Her first review, of Michael Mann's Collateral, is beautifully written. I used to read Film Comment. I could come around to it again.

**arsaib4** · 08-08-2004, 04:47 PM

Yeah, i liked her review of 'Collateral' also, it's kismet that her first review is of a film that can easily be titled 'Los Angeles.'

One other thing i forgot to mention earlier was a review of Sean Penn's brilliant 'The Pledge' where Times critic Stephen Holden brought 'L ' humanite' up refering to the interrogation sequences and how both films treat them as almost intimate. I thought that was kind of interesting.

**oscar jubis** · 08-09-2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by arsaib4
I'm not sure if that's a fair statement. There are some fine critics here and elsewhere who don't feel as enthusiastic about L'HUMANITE as we do.

I take pride in writing precisely what I mean. I assume you realize by now that one cannot logically interpret my quoted statement as meaning that "fine critics" are those who feel as enthusiastic about a given film as I do. I even mentioned Ebert, who likes L'humanite as much as I do (***1/2) but wasted my time, at least in this occasion. There are indeed "touchstone films by which we can evaluate critics" and "critics can be worthwhile despite blind spots"(Knipp).

I read a lot of art criticism in general, film criticism in particular. I have learned a lot by doing so, and by listening to running commentaries by critics on dvd. I read Film Comment, Cineaste and Variety at the library (at least here, a good place to rent for free). I read the Chicago Reader and the Village Voice on line. I probably find myself agreeing most often with Todd McCarthy. But it's Rosenbaum, Hoberman and Jones, in that order, who have taught me the most.

**Chris Knipp** · 08-09-2004, 12:56 AM

Good point about Dargis debuting with a movie about L.A., arsaib4, I should have thought of that. Oscar: I wasn't aware of McCarthy--because you have to go to the library to read him. He seems to be generally very positive judging by the RottenTomatoes selections. Forgive my ignorance: who is Jones? I agree also in relying on Hoberman, if not the almost too authoritative Rosenbaum (who could preempt my own reviewing). Overall film criticsm has seemed more helpful to me than art criticism, though of the latter there is some that's very smart. I like Peter Schjeldahl.

**oscar jubis** · 08-09-2004, 01:03 AM

Kent Jones

**Chris Knipp** · 08-09-2004, 01:57 AM

Kent Jones: I'll read him. He passes the touchstone test with flying colors on Fahrenheit 9/11 http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/7-8-2004/fahr911.htm. The man's heart is in the right place. I also see he's fluent in French, which also appeals to me. Thank you. I gather Todd McCarthy is more mainstream. But to find any film critic whose tastes closely correspond to one's own is encouraging. With Hoberman I don't agree all the time but I very often do. Rosenbaum is a very astute and knowledgeable critic but the affinity isn't there as often; to me when he's off, he's way off.

**Chris Knipp** · 08-09-2004, 02:12 AM

P.s. I'll look for Scott Foundas too. The LA Weekly can be very good. They ran a piece about two years ago on Anthony Lane apropos of the publication of his book, Nobody's Perfect ,that's a definitive statement. By John Powers: "The Rise of Anthony Lane: Andy and Pauline get laid." http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/43/on-powers.php.

**arsaib4** · 08-09-2004, 02:27 AM

Your link isn't working properly, atleast for me but i do get your point. Thanks for reading the article by Kent Jones on 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and as you can see he wasn't a big fan of his earlier work. Kent has written detailed articles in the past appreciating the likes of Assayas, Garrel, Pialat, Egoyan, Eastwood and such and he is the first i've read who disputed the point when another writer in 'film comment' called Woody Allen a 'great' director.'

**Chris Knipp** · 08-09-2004, 02:38 AM

I'll try the John Powers link again, because the article is worth reading: http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=38328
or http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/43/on-powers.php. Lane was stung by it, and it was much discussed. Just look up "Anthony Lane" + "LA Weekly" on Google and you'll get it. Kent Jones is clearly one for me to know about. How do I miss these things? I feel woefully uninformed about current French films, by the way, despite my "elitist" situation.

**oscar jubis** · 08-09-2004, 02:43 AM

I wish Jonathan Rosenbaum's essay "Notes Toward the Devaluation of Woody Allen" written for Tikkun magazine in 1990 was available on line. It has been reprinted in Rosenbaum's book "Placing Movies: The Practice of Film Criticism". By the late 80s, I began to realize I had overrated the Allen films I watched when I was a teenager ('74 to '80). But I couldn't find such opinions expressed so convincingly until "Placing Movies" was published in 1995.