This is possibly my favorite film and I've seen it dozens of times. However, to this day have always wondered about the disturbing "electric shock" scene in the bathroom, in which the female tree expert is seen shaking uncontrollably while holding two bathroom lights. Was it a suicide attempt; a desperate attempt to feel something; some sort self-shock therapy; an epileptic fit while changing a bulb? Would be grateful for any insights or comments!!
share[deleted]
Thanks. I've always had trouble with the "accident" theory, because the scene shows her poised in front of the mirror in a bathrobe gripping the two bathroom lights, torch-style - one in each hand. These are the sort of lights that are attached to a bathroom mirror. It's hard to imagine it being an accident. Should you watch it again, please let me know what you think!
share[deleted]
It's very possible...after all, when the tree expert picks up Mona the hitch-hiker, she doesn't do so entirely out of charity. She's repulsed and repelled by her ... her fascination with Mona stems from some sort of conflict or longing at least.
share[deleted]
Thanks. I think I agree with you. Did you watch the whole film? My favorite scene is the one with the grandmother, who mistakes Mona for Yolonde. I also like the scenes with the Moroccan vine-cutter, and the goat farmers.
share[deleted]
Yes, the grim landscape is indeed a character in this film. (Enhanced by that haunting cello.) Have always wondered where it was filmed - in the Massif Central, maybe? Agnes V. is good with 'outsiders.' Have you seen her very good documentary on people who live on other peoples' garbage?
share[deleted]
<<I have looked at it. I think it is a rather half-hearted suicide attempt. >>
Why would you think that? You think that she would have her student come over and go into the bathroom to commit suicide in that bizarre way, be rescued by her student, then never admit she made a suicide attempt? Sorry, but I don't see the logic in that.
<<It's hard to imagine it being an accident.>>
It's even harder to imagine it being a suicide attempt. She may have been adjusting or moving the lights so she could dry her hair, plug in the hair dryer, something like that, and got electrocuted. That makes a whole lot more sense than the idea that she was trying to commit suicide in a bizarre and complicated way for absolutely no reason when her student was in the house.
There is nothing to indicate the character is suicidal. If one is suicidal, well, I imagine there are better, easier ways to commit suicide, or even make a cry for help, than electrocuting oneself.
She was fine when her student came over and went to the bathroom to, I assume, dry her hair and maybe put on some make-up. Then she had an accident. If she was trying to kill herself, or even make a cry for help, why do it in such a difficult way? Why not tell the student, "I tried to kill myself?" After all, if she did it for attention, you think she would have mentioned it. Again, however, there is NOTHING to indicate this woman is suicidal. NOTHING.
<<I thought she merely had some kind of accident. >>
You were right. I can't imagine how anyone could think otherwise. There is NOTHING to indicate that the professor is suicidal. She answers the door, calm and happy to see her student. She has just come from the shower, so she's wet (that helps with the accidental electrocution theory), and she wants to go back into the bathroom to dry her hair and dry off. Everything seems completely fine. There is no reason to think the character wants to die, to cry for help, nothing. I think she just wants to dry her hair.
Then, well, she's wet and handling electronic stuff, a short somewhere gets her and shocks her.
That is a lot easier to believe than to think someone who was suicidal would plan to kill themselves by electric shock. I'd have to say that almost never happens. There are easier and more effective (it you are serious) or more dramatic (if you are just making a cry for help) ways to commit or attempt suicide.
Hello. I've reread all the previous posts and watched the scene again. I must say, I'm still leaning toward the suicide theory. I think that, in a moment of despair, she saw the lights and decided to go for it. I can't imagine any other reason why she'd be gripping both lamps in that manner. I think meeting Mona stirred up feelings of guilt and loneliness in her life. She may not display obvious suicidal tendencies earlier in the film, although I believe Varda reveals enough about her to where we can safely say she is feeling lonely and lost. She wants to help Mona, like she wants to help the ailing trees. Perhaps the sequence of events is not so obvious: ie she "gave up" on her tree project and decided to top herself. Rather, the trees and Mona illuminated feelings she already had about the futility of existing/suffering. Ok, I should probably put away my Penguin Freud and go to bed!
share<<Hello. I've reread all the previous posts and watched the scene again. I must say, I'm still leaning toward the suicide theory. I think that, in a moment of despair, she saw the lights and decided to go for it.>>
Uh, in general, if you grab both lights above the mirror in your bathroom, you will not be electrocuted. There was clearly a short or something wrong that the professor didn't know about. Had she known about it, she would have had it fixed. People don't leave stuff like that unfixed, not unless they want their house to burn down.
Furthermore, if you are in a bathroom and all of a sudden decide to "go for it," there are easier ways. Bathrooms have pills. They have razors. So, no, I don't buy it. Also, the professor is a considerate woman. Why would she do that to her student?
<<I can't imagine any other reason why she'd be gripping both lamps in that manner.>>
I agree it was awkward. However, I have to unplug the lights in my bathroom if I want to plug in my hairdryer. I immediately thought of that. It's awkward as a suicide attempt. Maybe she was trying to screw in new bulbs or adjust the brightness -- that makes more sense than suicide. Again, a person should be able to touch the light bulbs in their bathroom without being electrocuted.
<<I think meeting Mona stirred up feelings of guilt and loneliness in her life.>>
You think? That's nice. Does the text support it? We all feel loneliness and guilt, by the way. We don't all attempt suicide. Nothing in the text points to a suicide attempt.
<<She may not display obvious suicidal tendencies earlier in the film,>>
She doesn't. Not at all.
<<although I believe Varda reveals enough about her to where we can safely say she is feeling lonely and lost.>>
Again, you may believe that, but does the text support it? Point to a line. Prove your theory. And again, we all feel lonely and lost at times. Feeling that way does not lead to suicide for most of us. However, I don't even know that we can say that the professor was feeling lonely and lost.
<<She wants to help Mona, like she wants to help the ailing trees. Perhaps the sequence of events is not so obvious: ie she "gave up" on her tree project and decided to top herself.>>
When did she give up on her tree project? I don't remember that. I might have missed it -- please refresh my memory. However, people generally don't decide to "top" themselves in the course of one minute and go through it. Nothing about the character indicated she was thinking about it at all. Why have her student over to visit if she was going to "top" herself? Don't tell me she was fine when she answered the door (and she was) and then in the course of seconds decided to attempt suicide by electrocution by doing something that 999 times out of 1000 would not lead to electrocution. That's ridiculous.
<<Rather, the trees and Mona illuminated feelings she already had about the futility of existing/suffering.>>
How do we know she had feelings about the futility of existing/suffering? Where is that in the text?
<<Ok, I should probably put away my Penguin Freud and go to bed!>>
No, you should put away your Penguin Freud and brush up on the rules for proving a thesis. Your opinion doesn't matter -- textual proof and analysis does. You have just given me your opinion with no proof whatsoever. I am happy to listen to your theory if you provide proof and analyze it, but you haven't done that.
Lighten up. I am not trying to prove an academic thesis here. However, had we agreed up front to attempt to do that, I'd say your arguments are as rife with speculation - and opinion - as mine. And in most cases, “uh”, I don't agree with you.
For starters, lots of people commit/attempt suicide hoping someone will find them. (Many attempt knowing someone will.) And otherwise normally "considerate" people are capable of inconsiderate behavior, especially if they are in the throes of depression.
I also think it reasonable to assume most people would at least fear - let alone expect - electric shock to result from removing mounted wall lamps when they've just stepped out of the shower. She did not merely unplug a cord to dry her hair, as you say you have to.
It is not possible to critique the film in the manner you accuse me of failing to. To "point to a line" or provide "textual proof" is in most cases impossible because the film is extremely thin on dialogue. The viewer is left to speculate in many cases. For example, if I were to attempt to explain why I believe the professor was lonely, I only could do so mostly by describing the plot, visual and musical cues that led me to that belief.
If it's an accident, why did Varda include it? I support the suicide idea (I'm going to stay away from the word theory) because I think the film is about Mona's response to people she meets on the road and their response to meeting her. I can't see the point of this scene being an accident, unless you can somehow convince me otherwise.
<<Lighten up. I am not trying to prove an academic thesis here.>>
That may be. However, I would like to read a real discussion of what is going on in the film, not just a bunch of conjecture.
<<However, had we agreed up front to attempt to do that, I'd say your arguments are as rife with speculation - and your opinion - as mine.>>
Well, I am not speculating on anything other than why she would be holding both lightbulbs. I have provided an analysis of why I don't think that points to suicide. It's a pretty sensible analysis. You may not agree. I don't know what the stats are on the number of people who kill themselves by electrocution, but I would imagine its small.
<<And in most cases, “uh”, I don't agree with you. For starters, lots of people commit attempt/suicide hoping someone will find them.>>
True.
<< (Many attempt knowing someone will.) And otherwise normally "considerate" people are capable of inconsiderate behavior, especially if they are in the throes of depression.>>
True again. However, as I have said repeatedly, there was NOTHING in the film to indicate the professor was in the throes of depression. NOTHING. I have seen the throes of depression and been there and boy did the professor not exhibit it.
<<I also think it reasonable to assume that most people would at least fear - let alone expect - electric shock to result from removing mounted wall lamps when they've just stepped out of the shower. She did not merely unplug a cord to dry her hair, as you say you have to.>>
My husband has built houses from the ground up, electricity and plumbing, the works, and I asked him about that scene. He said he thought it was odd -- he really didn't see how she could electrocute herself, unless the lights were wired incorrectly. He said it was very improbable that it was an accident, but almost impossible to believe it was a suicide attempt. Since such a thing shouldn't have happened unless the wiring was bad, the professor would not have known there was any problem to begin with.
<<It is not possible to critique the film in the manner you accuse me of failing to do. To "point to a line" or provide "textual proof" is in most cases impossible because the film is extremely thin on dialogue.>>
If you can't prove something using the text, you can't prove it. I can say, for example, that Huckleberry Finn is about space aliens, but if I can't use the text to prove it, well, that shows my idea is ridiculous. I CAN, using the text (or lack thereof) prove certain things about other characters in the film, for example. We know, obviously, the student/nephew is in a frustrated marriage with a woman who won't have sex with him, and that he puts his aunt in an old age home so his wife will sleep with him again. It's there.
<<The viewer is left to speculate in many cases. For example, if I were to attempt to explain why I believe the professor was lonely, I only could do so mostly by describing the visual and musical cues that led me to that belief.>>
Fine. Then DO IT. You may be onto something. However, you haven't shown me a thing. I think I have shown many reasons why the bathroom scene is not a suicide attempt. Show me something that indicates the professor is lonely and suicidal.
Just to recap why I don't think the bathroom scene is suicide:
1. There is no indication that the professor is suicidal.
2. There is no reason for her to believe that touching the lights will electrocute her.
3. She never says that she made a suicide attempt -- if she were doing it for attention, she would have.
4. If she wanted to kill herself, there are better ways in any bathroom to do it than an attempted electrocution -- razors, pills, etc.
<<If it's an accident, why did Varda include it?>>
Because that is when the professor has the vision of Mona. It took a near-death experience to make her examine her life and realize she had failed Mona. It also nicely shows the difference between what happens when you have an accident and you are an employed professor with friends (you are saved) and when you are a homeless, friendless nobody (you die).
<<I support the suicide idea (I'm going to stay away from the word theory) because I think the film is about Mona's response to people she meets on the road and their response to meeting her. I can't see the point of this scene being an accident, unless you can somehow convince me otherwise. >>
I can't see the point of it being a suicide attempt. Why would this woman try to commit suicide in such an odd way for no apparent reason? It makes no sense. None at all. That would just be unsupported bad drama -- stupid -- it wouldn't belong in this film. I agree that the film is about Mona's response to the people she meets and their response to her. Why you think that somehow supports the suicide idea I don't know. I think it is far more likely that Varda set up this accident to juxtapose with Mona's accident. It also gives the professor a reason to seek Mona -- NDEs can really affect people.
"Because that is when the professor has the vision of Mona. It took a near-death experience to make her examine her life and realize she had failed Mona. It also nicely shows the difference between what happens when you have an accident and you are an employed professor with friends (you are saved) and when you are a homeless, friendless nobody (you die)."
This idea is extremely interesting to me. I've seen the film at least a dozen times and, I must say, I've never interpreted the scene this way. I'll have to watch the film again and get back to you.
<<This idea is extremely interesting to me. I've seen the film at least a dozen times and, I must say, I've never interpreted the scene this way. I'll have to watch the film again and get back to you>>
Oh, I am thrilled! I am glad you find my idea thought-provoking enough to watch the film again. Please do and get back to me -- I am interested to know what you think, how viewing that scene with the new idea affects your interpretation of it- if it does. Thanks!
I just wanted to say a few things about your post coolbluegreen
<<If you can't prove something using the text, you can't prove it. I can say, for example, that Huckleberry Finn is about space aliens, but if I can't use the text to prove it, well, that shows my idea is ridiculous. I CAN, using the text (or lack thereof) prove certain things about other characters in the film >>
I have to disagree with this, movies don't always provide specific text to prove something, some use other techniques to imply certain things. I have to say that your analogy with the book is pretty weak as a book has only text to express itself while movies have more means to do what they want.
I know that really had nothing to do with anything but I just needed to respond
<<Because that is when the professor has the vision of Mona. It took a near-death experience to make her examine her life and realize she had failed Mona. It also nicely shows the difference between what happens when you have an accident and you are an employed professor with friends (you are saved) and when you are a homeless, friendless nobody (you die).>>
I never thought of it like this, I recently saw the movie and paid no attention to the scene but after reading this thread I was thinking maybe she tried to shock herself to feel more free and alive like her perception of Mona, but I think that your idea of the scene makes a lot more sense.
crazedcrayzed wrote:
<<I have to disagree with this, movies don't always provide specific text to prove something, some use other techniques to imply certain things. I have to say that your analogy with the book is pretty weak as a book has only text to express itself while movies have more means to do what they want. >>
___________________________________________________________________________________
Fine. I won't use a book in my analogy. I will use a movie. If, for example, I wanted to say that Star Wars is really about how hard it is to be a substitute teacher in an inner city high school, well, there is NOTHING in the movie's text (script, music, editing, etc. -- all of it) to support that theory. Nothing. So, if there is nothing in the text (which term, again, is inclusive of all the elements that go into the creation of a film) to support your theory, that theory cannot be proven and isn't valid.
crazedcrayzed wrote:
<<I never thought of it like this, I recently saw the movie and paid no attention to the scene but after reading this thread I was thinking maybe she tried to shock herself to feel more free and alive like her perception of Mona, but I think that your idea of the scene makes a lot more sense.>>
___________________________________________________________________________________
As I have already said, there is nothing to indicate she shocks herself on purpose and a whole lot to indicate that it is just an accident. Ask yourself this -- have you ever heard of anyone intentionally shocking themselves to <<feel more free and alive>>? I have to say, that sounds really silly.
That may be why my interpretation of the scene makes more sense to you -- the idea that the professor intentionally shocked herself or attempted suicide in that way just doesn't make sense. However, the professor's accidental shocking does juxtapose well with Mona's accidental death and it gives the professor a reason to seek Mona.
I don't buy the whole suicide theory either. Watching that scene, all I could think of is the fact that she was simply readjusting the direction of the lights when she got electrocuted. This keeps with the tone of the film. It would be much sillier if the director suddenly turned this otherwise cold and austere film into this deeply melodramatic one no? Her life flashed before her eyes and made her realize she should have helped Mona.
I find that the ladies fascination with Mona is in the same line as her wanting to save the trees. This is her cause in life and she believes she should have done the same with Mona. Just like the trees in the film are diseased (by some sort of fungus) and endangered, so is Mona, but her disease is an existential one. Something in the line of society being behind youth's desperation with life and turning to the streets. Just as she says that something should be done about the trees before it's too late, the same goes for Mona.
I just saw this on IFC and was really enchanted by it.. but I also found the electrocution scene sort of confusing. To me, the accident scenario makes more sense, based on m_duval76's reasoning, though I can also see the suicide argument.
I just wanted to say that I doubt it really matters what exactly happened... as Steve_Kaczynski already pointed out, "we do not really see the internal world of these characters - not even Mona's." I don't think we were meant to analyze what was going on in the tree expert's mind, it seems to just go along with the eerie bizarreness of the rest of the film, evoking a response along the line of "huh?", "okaaaayy...", that's odd", or "that sucks" which is I think what Mona said when learning about the tree disease.
I don't think we're really supposed to know or understand the rationale of the characters; it seems more like it's just food for thought, something to ponder, not argue over, though it's interesting to discuss. Why would these people take Mona in, help her along her way, but then kick her out, or try to find her again, or not really care about her at all... Who knows... Why is Mona so reluctant to settle down and clean up, what is it about "normal life" that she finds so repulsive? Yet why do so many others find her so repulsive? Most of us can connect with Mona's repulsion, as well as the repulsion of the other characters, but for a myriad of different reasons. I think the characters' underlying motivations are best left vague so it's easier for us to connect with them in whatever way is best for us--each individual member of the audience. I dunno... I preferred just going along with the numbing, cold, strangeness of the entire film as opposed to trying to really figure the characters out or interpret their behavior...
I DVR'd this and deleted it as soon as it was done so I can't go back and check exactly what she said verbatim, but I'm almost positive Mme Landier said something to the effect of "I could have killed myself" or "I could have died" when she was laying on the sofa after the mishap...this comment, along with the shocked (no pun intended) and bewildered state she was in, would seem to imply that it was most certainly a freak accident. Why would she say something like that if she was *intentionally* trying to kill herself? Doesn't make sense - not in a writing sense nor in a real-world situation...
"I think it is far more likely that Varda set up this accident to juxtapose with Mona's accident. It also gives the professor a reason to seek Mona -- NDEs can really affect people." - coolbluegreen nailed it on the head!
...besides that, just from a simple story structure standpoint, her NDE serves as a clever segue back to Mona. A failed suicide attempt just seems disjointed and out of place as, like coolbluegreen stated, there is nothing up to this point to support it in the character of Mme Landier. At best you could say she seems pensive, possibly self-reflective - and most certainly regretful - at certain parts of the story, but nothing *remotely* close to depressed or suicidal. It would be a jump of chasm-like proportions for someone to infer this with no direct evidence. Good writing is about careful construction: there is a logical explanation for everything that transpires (structurally speaking!). A failed suicide attempt is clearly illogical at that juncture of the story.
"Now... where was I?" - Leonard Shelby
I believe it was an accident, she had just left the shower and was wet, if you looks at the lights they rotate around, so maybe she was adjusting the lights?
If I cold be anyman, I'd be a peliman
I just saw this again, and it's clearly an accident. The tree expert touches the lights probably with wet hands. There is no reason whatsoever to think the expert would be suicidal.
The meaning of the scene--and of the film--is that we need others in our lives, we need human contact. If her student had not been there to switch off the electric current, the expert might have died. "I almost died!" she says, "It's true that you see scenes from you life, and I kept thinking of the hitch-hiker". She thinks of the hitch-hiker because that girl has no human connections in her life, she wanders around taking advantage of others' generosity and moves on when she's told to leave or is asked to reciprocate in some way. The expert asks her student to track down the girl and help her in some way. At the end of the film he spots her in the bus station and he calls someone:
"If you could see her,
she's revolting, a wreck
Makes me sick
I'm telling you,
but I'll never tell Mrs. Landier [the tree expert]"
So he does not help the hitch-hiker. Of course the film raises many questions and one of them is, Does the hitch-hiker want to be helped, really? She does not want to live in the 'real world' as the goat farmer tells her before kicking her out. She hates conventional life, but does not want to make any effort on her own behalf aside from begging, stealing and squatting. I am not saying she is without sympathy--the film has many brief moments in which the girl clearly regrets her miserable existence. For example, one freezing night she sleeps in a radish patch, unable to get warm. "If Mama Louise [her mother?] saw me here in my radish house! They're so small I can't eat them!" We can feel human sympathy for someone who has disconnected herself from normal life in this way, but the film says that you must make some kind of effort to connect with others and to take care of yourself. The cold, harsh reality is that Life won't take care of you on its own.
//////I am not saying she is without sympathy/////
Very right, indeed. The observant spectator may spot her love for children, and for the animals. Maybe she loved them because they were the only ones who didn't "bug" her, but anyway it makes Mona's image somewhat "warmer".
Thanks God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel
Yeah, that was a truly weird scene, particularly since the film, in every other respect, strives for realism. You might read the "Ebert" review. He says that the movie is about the way people interact, but never get below the surface, and therefor never truly get to know someone, ultimately dying alone as Mona does. In this case, my first thought was that this was a suicide attempt. The more I thought about it, however, it became just the opposite: an attempt to wake up. Perhaps the professor realized that there was something unfulfilled in her time with Mona. Following the shock, she immediately changes from a detached observer to someone who genuinely cares and is worried about her premonition of Mona's demise. It is as if she has suddenly seen herself (in the mirror) as Mona and awakened, sadly, too late.
shareTwo things come to mind:
When Mrs Landier shows Mona the plane trees and explains about the fungus destroying them there is a single shot of a plane tree with two branches ravaged from within. Mrs Landier's pose as she clutches the bathroom lamps resembles the ravaged tree and an electric current would burn from within.
Later Mona dies from an accident, falling in the ditch and then freezing to death. Mrs Landier almost dies in an accident. What prevents Mrs Landier's death is the presence of another person from whom she cries for help. Mona has no such person she can call for; recalling her choice of total loneliness.
Movement ends, intent continues;share
Intent ends, spirit continues
Wow, very interesting. Never noticed them before but can well imagine the parallel you describe between the trees and the saving of Professor Landier. Unfortunately I have just lent the film to a friend. When I get it back I am going to have a look!
shareWhen you get the film back and watch it again, please come back with your comments after viewing.
I think this is a great film.
I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.share
It seemed pretty clear to me she was shocked accidently. She had shown no inclination for suicide. Why the scene was included I'm not sure.
share