MovieChat Forums > Le mari de la coiffeuse (1990) Discussion > Isn't there ANYone who agrees with this ...

Isn't there ANYone who agrees with this POV?

posted 14 years ago by Bob Pr.
19 replies | jump to latest

I think this is an utterly charming movie. I saw it 11 years ago and it's still a favorite. (Roger Ebert currently lists it among his "Great Movies")

The director, Patrice Leconte, (IMO) is superb at giving us views of how others see life (e.g., his "Man on the Train" and others) and this is another one.

In "The Hairdresser's Husband" I think Leconte is giving us the fantasy of a 12 year old boy (Antoine) on the cusp of puberty, of what his adult life would be like if married to a lady barber; this is sparked by Antoine's delight whenever his head is pressed against his lady barber's bosom as she cuts his hair.

This movie follows much of the structure of the very famous children's picture book "Where the Wild Things Are." In that, when Max acted too (over the top) wild, his mother sent him to bed without his supper. There, in his fantasy, Max becomes king of the Wild Things. ETA: "Where the Wild Things Are" was originally published in English in 1963 and was soon translated into other languages & published in other countries, French & France among them. So it could very well have been an influence on Leconte. (By 2013, the count had risen to this book being published in 23 languages and with over 20 million copies sold.)

In this 1990 film, the over the top point is Antoine saying he wants to marry a lady barber when his father asks him at supper what he wants to be when he grows up: the father over-reacts to his son's answer, slaps him, and sends him to his room. Once there, we don't see Antoine crying, hurt or angry -- rather, we see him (pleasantly?) reveling in his fantasy of being married to a lady barber.

As 12 year olds have imperfect views of real adult life, in Antoine's fantasy it's as if love & marriage happen almost instantly, as if he needs no job, as if he's constantly in his wife's shop, as if his wife would prefer death to ever seeing their intense romantic relationship even momentarily falter. The older Antoine's odd, recurring dance underscores the non-reality of his fantasy.

Is there NO ONE else who shares this view?

[–] chiodoesque 13 years ago

I was so caught up in the story that this never occurred to me. Leconte draws us in like a fairy tale, but this could also be seen as an elaborate fantasy from a 12 year old, especially in light of the frequent intercutting between the boy and the man. However, the ending is not something the boy would desire to happen.
I prefer to believe he really did get his wish.

[–] Bob Pr. 13 years ago

"However, the ending is not something the boy would desire to happen."

Really?

That 12 year old Antoine would never fantasize that his wife would love him SO much and she'd feel his absolute, eternal, ever present sexual desire for her would be SO important to her that she'd choose the action she did at her first encounter with E.D. (Erectile Dysfunction)?

I disagree.

I think it's part of the MANY unrealities of Antoine's fantasy, such as:
-- that Antoine's marriage happens almost instantaneously (w/o courtship),
-- his lack of any career or any need for money,
-- his viewing himself as so old,
-- his spending all his time in his wife's shop,
-- his bizarre little dance,
-- the sexual play with his wife while she's working on a customer, and
-- the way he spends his time after his wife's action.

[–] sasha99 13 years ago

[SPOILERS]

This is a VERY clever and insightful take on the film, and frankly, it makes a lot of sense. The fact that the couple never leave the shop, don't have any friends, don't have children, don't seem to need money, although clearly she doesn't have enough customers to make any money- all these things add up. Also, her death doesn't really hit him all that hard- not in a realistic way. I'm a widow, and your spouse's death- let alone from suicide- would be devastating and emotionally crippling. Her death is, well, a 12-year old's romanticized ideal of death... something tragic, but my life pretty much goes on as always. That's NOT what the death of your loved one is really like- not even close. Your whole world is destroyed. His world went on, but without her. The dance scene at the end with the customer added to the dreamlike quality of the aftermath.

Bob, my hat is off to you. Very good analysis. :)

[–] Bob Pr. 12 years ago

sasha99 said: "Bob, my hat is off to you. Very good analysis. :) "

Thank YOU very much, especially for contributing your own experiences and insights.

I'm a retired clinical psychologist and, over the years, I've done a lot of play therapy with kids. Along with my toys & art supplies for them were also books for us to read together--among them Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are." I've read it with young kids so often, I can still recite most parts of it from memory.

For those not familiar with it--give yourselves a treat and read it in the children's section of a bookstore OR in your public library. It's a classic with which everyone should be as familiar as "Little Red Riding Hood," "Goldilocks & the 3 Bears," or maybe Dr. Seuss's "Cat in the Hat." And you can read it in less than 3 minutes and savor the story and its equally marvellous pictures for hours (and years) afterward. :)

'Wild Things' (the book) was published in English in 1963, then translated into 15 languages (French in 1977); 1977 was 13 years before "The Hairdresser's Husband" was written and filmed. When I was SO struck by the close kissing-cousin relation between the book and film, I searched for (and found!) some interviews of and comments by the director's (Patrice Leconte) about "Hairdresser."

I found NOTHING in Leconte's comments to indicate ANY relationship between these two.

BUT I DID see SO MANY adulations, bravos, kudos, awards all based on a literal interpretation of "Hairdresser" (i.e., as if it tells the tale of actual adult lives/happenings rather than being a film about a young boy's fantasy) that my extremely strong impression is that Leconte would (should) NEVER be able to say to SUCH an appreciative tidal wave: "you're all wrong; you've missed that my intended meaning of this film is that it's a 12 year old boy's fantasy."

When many experts are praising you for your work--who would be ungrateful (or stupid) enough to say, "Ahh, but you've missed my point!" ???

However, to me THIS (my) view of the parallel between the two is so strong, it's inescapable.

FWIW, in a monthly Great Films series which I help run, we showed "Hairdresser" since Roger Ebert's recent inclusion of it as one of his "Great Movies" made it eligible to choose by our selection criteria (we draw only from those in IMDb's top 250 or/& Ebert's Great Movies list).

I told our audience about these 2 differing views before showing the film and read the short 'Wild Things' book to them.

With that prompting (coaching?/biassing?), after viewing the movie, everyone was unanimous in saying it was a version of 'Wild Things,' a boy's fantasy AND--if NOT actually based on or inspired by 'Wild Things'--it was definitely based on VERY similar observations about children and their fantasies.

(ETA 25Mar14 to correct publication date (1963 not '67)

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

Also, her death doesn't really hit him all that hard- not in a realistic way.

I'm not dismissing the idea that what we watch is the boy's fantasy but I disagree that he doesn't mourn her death. He seemed shocked and wistful as a child might ... the music cuts through all of this and is so keen it hurts. The music is his grief just as it has been his expression of who he is at lots of points in the film.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

[–] BlueMoon80 12 years ago

I was thinking the same thing as I watched it and it's the only explenation that makes any sense really. the problem for me is that the writers never hint that you might look at it as the boys fantasy. if anything, the last scene dosen't really fit this interpetation. I can't see that this was intended but it would make the movie a lot better. As it is, I don't like it at all.

[–] Bob Pr. 11 years ago

the problem for me is that the writers never hint that you might look at it as the boys fantasy.

Well, there ARE all the unrealities already mentioned and listed in the posts above.

PLUS, something you may have missed -- I did, too, in my first couple of viewings of this film -- is that 12 year old Antoine briefly reappears a couple(?) times in the life of the older Antoine, as if coming back/going forward for a quick "look see."

(I say "couple", I think that's right, but it might be once or 3 times. And possibly it could've been edited out of subsequent editions although these appearances are so very brief, just a few seconds long -- if you turn your attention away only momentarily, they're very easily missed.)

Such time travel in which the younger self looks in on the older self has to be fantasy.

[–] Midgegirl 11 years ago

Thank you so much for this new -to me- take on the film. I've always felt highly ambivalent about this film; loving the story-telling and the atmosphere, and yet finding the actual plot unsatisfying. I could never buy what Mathilde did at the end, or the actual relationship between her and her husband. But seeing it as a fantasy makes so much more sense to me that I can now enjoy the film fully.

[–] Bob Pr. 11 years ago

You're very welcome.

And thank YOU, very much for taking the time to express your change of heart. That gives me considerable gratification for having dared propose such a minority point of view.

ETA-- But you'll do an even greater favor if you'll take the 3 minutes time to read the "Where the Wild Things Are" children's book by Maurice Sendak.

This should be available in ANY/ALL public libraries OR bookstores in their children's sections.

Then, after reading it, I'd appreciate your comments on the extent to which YOU see a resemblance between book and film.

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wild-Things-Maurice-Sendak/dp/0064431789

[–] ranran-001 11 years ago

This film does not need a convoluted reason to make sense or be a good movie. Had Leconte picked a younger actor to play Antoine, you wouldn't have written this post. Just the simple action of replacing one actor for another, is proof enough to me that the screenplay never hints or suggests that it was only a dream.

[–] Bob Pr. 11 years ago

Had Leconte picked a younger actor to play Antoine, you wouldn't have written this post.

Why? What in the world difference does it make whether Antoine's twelve years old or seven? None to me. Don't children younger than twelve also have fantasies of their lives in adult years? [Although I'll grant that fantasizing oneself as an adult is more common among older children and adolescents.]

Also, possibly you missed my earlier comment in this thread:

PLUS, something you may have missed -- I did, too, in my first couple of viewings of this film -- is that 12 year old Antoine briefly reappears a couple(?) times in the life of the older Antoine, as if coming back/going forward for a quick "look see."

(I say "couple", I think that's right, but it might be once or 3 times. And possibly it could've been edited out of subsequent editions although these appearances are so very brief, just a few seconds long -- if you turn your attention away only momentarily, they're very easily missed.)

Such time travel in which the younger self looks in on the older self has to be fantasy.

IMO, THESE reappearance episodes are much more difficult to explain in a "realistic" version. Don't you have to take a position that an older adult man conjures up a memory of a much younger adolescent self as if saying, "if my younger me could only see me now."? While I've done therapy with hundreds of adults and never heard any express such a thought, I'll grant it's certainly a remote possibility.

One of this movie's great charm is that it leaves its interpretation somewhat open. And if you prefer it your way, you're certainly entitled. My version may possibly be more appealing to those who've seen it but are puzzled by it as well as those who, from it's first viewing, see it this way.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bob Pr. 10 years ago

This film was shown yesterday to a group of retired KU profs/wives/&c. in our twice monthly film series.

Our film group's leader graciously allowed me to project Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are" page by page just before we saw the film as the basis for my alternative view of the narrative. After the movie, we had a show of hands among the 30 people attending. IIRC, about 10 people raised hands when asked how many preferred my interpretation while about 5 people preferred the traditional view that it's the narrative of Antoine's actual marriage with Mathilde.

But this morning I heard of a 3rd view by one of those attending -- that the film is the elderly Antoine's distorted memory of his marriage to Mathilde.

So -- this film is open to a variety of legitimate views.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JJHermans 9 years ago

Just watched this movie again (saw it for the first time around '92 or so).

Remarkable how some parts of the film became strong images in my mind for 20+ years. Watching it again, I forgot how pleasant and 'small' the film is (as in locations, pacing,et cetera).

I enjoyed watching it for the second time with your interpretation of 'Where the wild things are' in mind, but I side with the third view: the distorted memories of an elderly Antoine. Strong suggestions for this view were (mho, helped by a dutch review of the film):

1. The start of the movie, we see an old Antoine cutting his own hair
2. Some scenes that are intercut with and old Antoine just staring at the camera and looking sideways
3. The rather talkative and long scene of their visit to the previous owner, who talks about being senile and all.

Just to be sure: I think this movie is so nice and strong because one can watch at so many levels in this film. Enjoyment for everyone!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flaiky 9 years ago

The idea didn't occur to me while watching but yes, I like your interpretation. It explains why the relationship between Antoine and Mathilde is a bit odd and idealistic. Then perhaps the man we see at the end is the "real" middle-aged Antoine, who has taken up a lousy job in a hairdressers just to be as close as possible to his fantasy...It actually adds weight and pathos to the story (which otherwise seemed fairly unrealistic), as we see how lonely, and actually pretty pathetic, Antoine was all along. Yes, I like it.

That is a masterpiece of understatement.

[–] Painbow 8 years ago

I don't believe it's a child's fantasy. I think the young boy became so obsessed that he failed to successfully develop relations with women as an adult.

I think Mathilde is a fantasy but she's the fantasy of an ageing man who's fantasies have dominated his life -- so much so that he hasn't ever been with a woman.

He then kills the fantasy off as even fantasies become dull. But she'll be back.