MovieChat Forums > Elle est des nôtres (2003) Discussion > Interpretations? SPOILERS

Interpretations? SPOILERS

posted 15 years ago by film_ophile
3 replies | jump to latest

I just finished watching this, was pretty mesmerized, but I am truly surprised that there are no discussions on this board. Surely in this film there is much to talk about for you normally astute and perceptive IMDB foreign film viewers. Where are you?

I will offer that I certainly didn't find the film flawless, but I was really captivated by the cinematography and the character studies. Did anyone think that 'the man that followed her' was herself, her authentic self? He was, after all, an awkward silent 'outsider' temp, like herself; and then there's what he says to her about solitude and never leaving her, and then his red sweater and black jacket, and the hair color.......I think his presence signified that while she was able to pull off the 'success' sham, in her permanent job, it really was just a sham, and the real her was him, and his presence was a constant reminder of who she really was.

My interpretation of the murder was this:
She didn't know how to swim but was too humiliated to reveal that to her 'friend.' She was extremely rattled by the experience of being violently(though accidentally)pushed into the water- from which she dragged herself out of the pool, sputtering and gasping. Alone in the hallway, she was frozen in her embarrasment and rage. Irrationally, without thought, she reflexively struck out at the woman 'responsible' for this situation .Her temporary rage/insanity(?) propelled the murder.

She does not want true friends; she is only comfortable with superficial social interactions. The two women in the film who reveal their neediness to her and attempt emotional depth with her, both end up dead.

In the end , she is alone, first accompanied by her former, pre-socialized, true, self (her follower) and then just her self.

I'm a bit baffled by the amount of attention paid to the police head.And the ending....

But man oh man, what a FIRST film, eh?!!

Ad hoc, Ad loc, Quid pro queeee,
So little time and so much to see

[–] andersonarthur 13 years ago

very good interpretations. Much better than I came up with. That said, IMO, this movie was still simply ridiculous- not to be confused with "artsy".

[–] film_ophile 13 years ago

hi aa, maybe i seem dense, but your comment end confuses me.it seems that you are using 2 negatives- simply ridiculous and 'artsy' but then you say not to confuse them. maybe you don't mean 'artsy' as a negative adjective. you did not like this film, right?

The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.

[–] HorrorMaven 12 years ago

Just finished watching this and really enjoyed it. Loads and loads of symbolism that was both mesmerizing and a bit baffling.

My interpretation is that she was in love with the temp agency woman, and was angered when she saw the woman and her boyfriend at the mall. After their "dinner date" commiserating with the temp woman about her break up, Christine was positive she had a chance with this woman, but seeing her reconciled with the man angered her to the point of murder.

I also agree with you that humiliation came into play in the pool as well. With green swimsuits, perhaps that was symbolic of envy (of the boyfriend/their relationship)?

Did anyone notice the traffic constantly in the background and how the truck from her company kept coming into frame?

I LOVED the cinematography/imagery of this film. Enjoyable, albeit a little confusing. This is one of those films I could discuss with someone for hours afterward, though, which pleases me to no end.