Then, at the beginning there were really shocking and unnecessary scenes of the dead woman
They were meant to be shocking, it was necessary to shock viewers into feeling what Pharaon De Winter
was feeling. It was necessary to force viewers to empty themselves to the point of nothing, but a nothingness that would be entirely receptive to everything that followed. It was an act of kenosis because it immediately stripped viewers of their will and forced them to be receptive to, and feel
, the physical and emotional fossilization of Pharaon.
combined with a terminally slow pace
Shock and emotional pain and hopelessness and emptiness are terminally slow. They creep in at a slow pace and invade the mind and heart and soul at an even slower rate, and it takes an even slower pace before they're eradicated. Life can be terminally slow when you're completely empty inside.
The pacing is relaxed and recalcitrant because it serves as narrative metaphor for the arrested state of being of Pharaon, and his seerish receptiveness to everything around him, the pacing is a symbol for the static, banal landscape, and the pacing is a common trope for the film's pervading theme of life's futility. Human struggle, human life, the pace of life, always operates in correlation to the "pacing" of the landscape, and in L'Humanité, the little French town trudges along slower than time.
The pacing represents the character's interiour landscape (Pharaon's emotional arrest and inertia, combined with his sense of trying to decipher, seer-like, all of his observations, a tendency that obviously contrasts with how we the viewers expect an investigator to decode a crime), and in turn, the interiour landscape represents the physical environment of the character. The pacing draws back and the city roads are empty, the pacing is normal as the characters spend a day at the beach, the pacing speeds forward as Pharaon cycles through the country on an undulating ribboned road resembling the shape of vaginal lips (and he's raced the full course: he's triumphed over the path he took, the workout, the sex, is complete, conquered, but he gained no sanctification from the feat...), the pacing turns to humanity suffocating viewers as both Pharaon and the police chief feel immeasurably helpless and powerless towards solving the rape/murder (you're screaming at the screen, "do something! start interviewing people! re-interview those kids! go and track down the other bus driver and haul him in immediately! don't just stand there! ahhhhh! ahhhhhhhh!").
The pacing was a careful agencement, as pristinely assembled as the compositionally orchestrated images, whatever was right there in front of Dumont at that place and time, and whatever he brought to the place and time, a heterogeneous collection of sounds and colors and words and things, the detritus of everyday life woven with the richness of the natural environment woven with the furnishings, the bowls and cups and bones and ocean foam, the medieval architecture chaunting the timelessness of time as the waves foam and the tourists make an entire day of visiting a forte, the static field yielding death (dead girl) and life (Pharaon's garden), the Eurostar flashing past the buses and bikes and cars and human life, the rudimentary dialogue of Pharaon, Domino, Joseph and the police chief stratified into the sounds of shoes on gravel and hot collars chafing skin and the shuffling of legs and the sound of sex and the inhuman sound of factory machinery, moments in the material world once painted and cast as a picture unto itself and the pride of a museum exhibit now recast as immaterial moments representing nothing more than mere mechanical refrains, left to hang in a bedroom.
There is a clear rhythm for those who observe and listen and feel carefully.
but the movie incompetantly loses its rhythm
I thought you said the film was terminally slow? Now it has rhythm, but lost it's rhythm? The rhythm and continuity were metrically perfect, came full circle, and never missed a beat at all.
Finally at the end
Whoa Wait What happened to the other 99% of the film? [jawdrop]
what we do see is the big breakthrough, that murdered of the girl is the Pharoan's best pal, and Pharoan kisses him full on the lips while he does nothing.
Joseph was doing something. He was crying and breaking down, and he looked at Pharaon in a mixture of shock and disgust, then emptiness, when Pharaon walked away. Pharaon not only tasted the taste of crime, but sucked it right out of Joseph
I guess I do not get it, because in what fool's mind would a scene or movie play out like this.
You don't understand why a scene in a movie plays out like it's a scene in a movie?
What this seems like to me is the gay agenda being thrown up in the faces of the audience.
It's Pharaon literally tasting the crime and taking on the crime himself. That is why he is handcuffed in the final scene. Earlier, he smelled a suspect because he was trying to smell the crime.
All through the movie the very unattractive girlfriend of the murderer is shown as vulgar and stupid apparently representing women
Domino wasn't unattractive, she looked like what women really look like, and she was pretty, and she was not shown as vulgar or stupid, she was shown as victimized (we saw Joseph mistreat her and use excessive force against he during sex) and sensitive (we saw her trying to make an emotional connection with Pharaon multiple times) and observant of life around her, and clearly bored with it but unable to change the pace, and she was representing low-income working women in small cities that skirt cosmopolitan cities, not the entirety of womankind.
while the men are either cruel or stupid and dull.
Pharaon was in a state of shock but profoundly in tune with the natural environment and people around him, he was never cruel and never acted stupidly; Joseph was insensitive and aggressive, but he tried to make the best of a monotonous existence; the police chief never acted cruelly, and he was trying to solve a case with virtually no evidence and minimal resources in an old, insignificant small town; the guys at the café singing the songs were not cruel, they were just too drunk, and they were trying to make the best of a monotonous existence.
that I would say have no redeeming value or anything of interest.
That is what Pharaon thought about life. And the film does have plenty of redeeming values and interest, it's depicting a real person who despite feeling dispossessed of himself and the world, despite feeling empty and hopeless and powerless, despite feeling like he is incapable of formulating proper responses to the inhumanity he witnesses, despite his inability to make a tangible difference, he edges away from absolute nihilism and instead retains the pain he feels and handcuffs himself, he symbolically takes on and carries the wounds of humanity himself, he becomes another in a long line of biblical patriarchs whom remains hebraistic (obedient, ethical) and hieratic (self-consciously formal) in spite of the inhumanity and banality of the world, continues to till the garden and watch it blossom, challenges G-d over the inhumanity of the world, and regardless of G-d's response or lack thereof, decides to take on the weight of the crimes himself, to signify that we're all individually and collectively responsible for l'humanité.
The people interested in films like this are people who like to think for themselves, care deeply for meaningful film constructions that require intense thought, and care deeply about humanity and the meaning of life.
Your whole post is length BS designed to look semi-scholarly and intellectual.
The thesis that a movie is meant to show how someone feels has a certain
validity to it, but there is a judgement to be made in art, ie. cinema about
how to make whatever statement.
For example, I don't need to know how a person feels when they are murdered
by having every gruesome detail shown, in fact that is a game these days.
We have ever more bloody, and "realistic" scenes of gore, but they are not real,
they do not show or add depth to the act of violence they are there to
titillate and show peolpe something that will raise their blood pressure.
Then, when a movie like this one, and like you do, claims some higher purpose
its foolish and stupid, like the last line of your post, paraphrases, I feel guilty
as hell watching and enjoying seeing the murdered body a woman, so I am going
to claim that people who also enjoy watching these kinds of images are extra
senstitive and think more about the meaning of life ... which you could not possibly
know even if there was any truth in it.
I didn't expect anything less from you than a group of words randomly stirred together.
Just go back to the Lost board where you belong.
Do you remember what the first image of the dead woman was? Can you describe it
and maybe come up with a reason why that image was used? Then, can you say that
image was not gratuitious to shock just for effect? Come down off your airs of
pomposity and just admit you are pervert who only likes to look at dirty pictures
and wants to justify that by calling it art and giving it deeper meaning.
I'm sure it will be very llberating to see yourself as you really are and admit it. ;-)
I already did.
If you read what I originally said, you'd know that.
But you are what IMDb labels an internet troll, which means I have nothing more to say to you.
People on the Lost board might feed you, but nobody here will.
> But you are what IMDb labels an internet troll, which means I have nothing more to say to you.
Translation: Now i am going declare victory and retreat to cry, pout and feel bad because i lost the argument I started, boo hoo!
Geez! Bruce... can you EVER simply give your arguments without insulting everyone else who doesn't agree with you!? You do this ALL THE TIME!!!! And then you wonder why he/she is labeling you a troll!?
I'm fairly selective in who I insult, but you are over-generalizing me from one post. And I am not wondering anything, I could care less, how long does it take to use the "art" defense that any shocking thing is some kind of brilliant art. It isn't.