MovieChat Forums > Ne touchez pas la hache (2007) Discussion > Comments, Questions, and Balzac

Comments, Questions, and Balzac


Dear fellow movie lovers,

This is my first time ever posting on an IMDB message board, so forgive me if I offend anyone. I am not here to incite an argument, as seems to be the trend on many of these boards, but merely to get some constructive criticism from anyone willing to offer it :)

*WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*

I just saw this film today at a local arthouse theater and came out of it with mixed feelings, nearly all of which were positive. This was my first time seeing any of Rivette's work, so I dare not compare it to anything else. That being said, it was clear to me that this film was made by a master, or at the very least made masterfully. I thought the direction, cinematography, sound, acting, and editing were all sensitively and exquisitely done. I loved the lack of a musical soundtrack. I absolutely adored the little blocks of text in between choice scenes, as they added an interiority to the characters that is often sorely lacking in filmic adaptations of literature. Neither did I feel that the film was overly long or too slow-paced. I could expound at length upon the film's virtues, but will refrain from doing so here.

What I found to be borderline intolerable was the story itself. It was not the characters that I took issue with so much as the inexplicable ways in which they were portrayed. The ending I also found to be rather offensive toward women, but perhaps I am reading too deeply into the story in this regard. What particularly irked me was that I was unclear if Antoinette was in fact dead at the end or whether she was faking it in order to seal an inescapable fate. This would not have been an issue for me had her eyes not clearly been moving under her eyelids in the final closeup of her face. Whether this was intentional (which I assume it was), or just a mistake of Jeanne Balibar's understandable inability to keep still for the duration of the shot is beyond me.

I have never read any of Balzac's works and would like to hear from those of you who have, and especially those who are familiar with the novel upon which this film was based. Somehow, I feel like I missed an important subtext to Rivette's intriguing film, which ultimately barred me from enjoying it as completely as I wanted to. If anyone is willing to do so, graciously fill me in on the following:

1. What are the politics behind this film? My knowledge of French history is minimal at best and somehow I feel like the period in which Balzac set the story must have symbolic and metaphorical implications for these characters.

2. Is Antoinette indeed alive at the end of the book? I ask this not because I desire a tidy ending, but only so that I can contextualize Rivette's interpretation of the text. A film's ending is, for me, integral to interpreting the film as a whole. I don't care whether the ending is unresolved or not, but I do feel more comfortable when I can at least grasp the possible intentions therein.

3. How do you think Antoinette comes across in the novel? In the film, I felt like she was a strong character (not that a character must be strong, of course) up until the end, which seemed anithetical to me because of the ambiguity of her sacrifice.

I am grateful to anyone who has read this far and hope to get some answers and/or comments on these issues as time allows.

Thank you,
Tyran Grillo

Massachusetts, USA

reply

[deleted]

Thanks so much for the response!

I have seen many "art" films over the years and have thoroughly enjoyed nearly all of them. For some reason, I just found myself stumbling a bit on this one. But I am grateful for your thoughts and opinions. Perhaps I will check out some of Rivette's other films and then pay a visit to the Duchess again. I think it's always a bit jarring to encounter a director for the first time late in her/his career.

I saw Colonel Chabert way back in high school and loved it. I never realized it was also an adaptation of Balzac...I will have to watch it again. That would be a great film to own if it is as good as I remember it.

And yes, I am also glad to see Guillaume taking a bite into his roles. I remember seeing him way back in Tous les matin du monde and hoping he would follow in his father's footsteps and then some.

Tyran

reply

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/Balzac/Duchesse-Langeais.pdf

Honoré de Balzac’s "The Duchesse de Langeais" is the second part of his trilogy "History of the Thirteen", which are three stories of the rich and powerful men that formed the secret society in the 19th Century France. All three stories are concerned with various forms of love and desire that involve struggle of wills, misunderstanding, revenge, and eventually lead to death. In this regard, "The Duchesse de Langeais" is not an exception, and yes, Antoinette dies in the end of the book:


Montriveau, down in the cabin, was left alone with Antoinette de Navarreins. For some hours it seemed as if her dead face was transfigured for him by that unearthly beauty which the calm of death gives to the body before it perishes. “Look here,” said Ronquerolles when Montriveau reappeared on deck, “that was a woman once, now it is nothing. Let us tie a cannon ball to both feet and throw the body overboard; and if ever you think of her again, think of her as of some book that you read as a boy.”
“Yes,” assented Montriveau, “it is nothing now but a dream.” “That is sensible of you. Now, after this, have passions; but as for love, a man ought to know how to place it wisely; it is only a woman’s last love that can satisfy a man’s first
love.”


Two more stories that involve 13, are Ferragus http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/Balzac/Ferragus.pdf
which I confess I don't remember too well and "The Girl with the Golden Eyes”: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/Balzac/Golden-Eyes.pdf
that I remember very well for it is perhaps Balzac’s most exotic, dark, cruel, and explicit work that was considered shocking when it was first released. The rather short novella has so many dark secrets, passions and revelations that it could be enough for a novel in several volumes.

Just like three stories are the part of "History of Thirteen", the trilogy itself is the part of Balzac's monumental literature project, "Human Comedy”, the collection of almost 100 linked novels and short stories with the many characters reappearing in the more than one story. They could be supporting players in multiple works and the main heroes in one or two. In Human Comedy, Balzac attempted to portray and analyze the life and society in the different settings. His works is divided to Scenes From Private Life, Scenes From Provincial Life, Scenes From Parisian Life, Scenes From Political Life, Scenes From Country Life, and Philosophical Studies. I have collection of his writings in 15 volumes. He is truly one of the great writers. The first words that come to mind are Powerful Talent.

"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

reply

Let me first say I was profoundly moved by this film. Rivette created something remarkable here. I do have many questions, however, and share your concern about its portrayal of Antoinette. In what sense is its expression of female subjectivity a male fantasy? Obsession is investigated brilliantly here as a product of codependency, frustrated/renewed desire, sado-masochism and power. I'm just not sure I buy Antoinette's response to Armand's rejection. One thought, which might turn out to be naive, is this: in the space of aristocratic etiquette, Antoinette's options for expressing her desire were limited and imposed upon by impossible demands. Given this, she demanded back, upon her love object, that it renounce itself to an equal degree, took the form of sadism, while also tempting Armand to become (or not) an embodiment of patriarchal culture and take her by force. This was probably also to some extent a desire of hers. When he refused to rape her, and instead denied her, she was shaken up. Unable to hide her desire/love behind a view of the impossibility of a 'good object', she was now vulnerable and had injured the good object beyond repair. So, she retreats to complete renunciation and a renewal of the fantasy of a perfect union with the father (God). There is a
sense in which her denial of sexual union with Armand throughout the movie entails the protection of her union with the father. As long as Armand was the choice representative of the bad father culture (and always on the verge of rape) she could split off the good father God while punishing the bad object. Of course this fantasy is inadequate for many reasons, and when Armand returns, this inadequacy is brought out within her as well as the adaptational inadequacies of the convent. So far, a simplistic Freudian reading. Well, anyway, what a great movie, with incredible insights into (at least) male obsession/love. Any other thoughts?

reply