MovieChat Forums > L'inconnu du lac (2013) Discussion > Odd reactions

Odd reactions

posted 8 years ago by jonhopper217
6 replies | jump to latest

I haven't read any reviews, but I'm shocked this film was revered at Cannes and has me wondering if it was simply, because it was French. I would love to know if gay men are offended by this film, as it depicts sex as their definition of love and love comes and goes, much like the oft filmed winds. Personally, I hate the film, but appreciated the concept and the way it was filmed, which is why I gave it 3 stars. I felt this film could have been much better at 80 minutes, giving the viewers credit for understanding the sexual aspects, but drawing it's strength from Franck and Henri's exchanges, which were truly the best scenes in the movie. I knew what was coming for Henri, but felt it needed greater depth and definitely more love. I'm sure most American audiences will cringe at the sex scenes, but for me it was simply unnecessary after the first meeting, between Franck and Michel. I did however like the ambiguous ending, only because it played perfectly with the rest of the film.

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

You didn't see the film as an allegory? The severe irony for me was whether Franck would have come to the ugly beach at all if not for Henri; Henri was like a father-figure Franck could "show off" for. I don't necessarily think Henri was suicidal; I think he was lonely enough to risk his life for love of a son-substitute.

When Henri dies, Franck is totally alone. As others have noted, this film is about aching, total loneliness. It is not about sex. If anything, it's about how casual sex doesn't lead to--in fact repels--love. The ending is fantastic because we don't know if Franck lives to cruise another day, and maybe meet someone who would love him, sexually or platonically.

[–] jonhopper217 8 years ago

I didn't see the relationship as a father-son relationship at all. I do understand it's about loneliness, but there is no doubt that Henri simply wanted to be missed when he's gone. He also wanted to "save" Franck, which he did.

My big issue with the ending is it ends with us understanding that sex, is Franck's only version of love. Michel might kill him or he might spare him, but it doesn't matter, because he will be with him til the end.

Interesting notes. Someone told me the end was originally supposed very clear and very obvious, which I still think it was. Also, there were 40 minutes cut out, almost all sex scenes. So the movie was completely about this version of love and not true love, between Franck and Michel.

[–] bliss66 8 years ago

I wouldn't be so judgemental. It's clear the characters are not experiencing a deep, abiding love because the film only has one locale without which their connection does not exist. This is made very cakes and challenged regularly. Also, don't know if you noticed but one half of the couple is a murderous sociopath while the other is so lonely and shallow that it makes him a terrible judge of character - he only wants to externalise the relationship with the character with whom he has no chance of leaving the lake with, dead or alive, but is careless with his actual burgeoning friendship with the man who could help overcome his loneliness and lack of confidence. The film is also about society's fascination with serial killers and, though it doesn't explore it in depth, it does tacitly acknowledge Franck's attraction to Michel as an almost involuntary titilation, certainly as a heady mix of risk-taking and sexual activity beyond the obvious (though in ways similar) risk of anonymous sexual encounters. As a gay man, I felt some surprise, perhaps even a little discomfort, at the combination of gay cruising site and the acts of murder, even Franck's attraction to Michel knowing he drowned his previous pickup, but the film is so formalised and narrow in its convictions that it, for a time at least, feels like an entertainment, almost like a Highsmith novel but alas without the social scope and insight, into society or humanity. It is a deeply contrived genre film, highly formalised through its repetition and one locale. It succeeds mostly in exploring artful ways of composition to dodge penetration during otherwise explicit sex scenes. If it intrigues as a mystery (it certainly fails as a thriller), great, but it's clearly not a realistic representation of gay people; it's more about nature and its inhabitants, if anything. And there is a point where one of those cruising is looking for the opposite sex, suggesting that they have their own cruising spots, which we all know they do. The film is to slight in its concerns to take seriously and therefore any real offence to; it is clearly a cinematic exercise whose rigorous devotion to said exercise is its ultimate undoing, leaving the viewer too much time to consider the contrivance that all of these men are the same (in ignoring the car, the belongings left on the beach), the idea that spending all day, every day at a cruising spot is somehow discreet or separate from another life that clearly has no time to exist or even why these men have so much time on their hands. We know one is on holiday but do the others not have jobs? Is everyone on holiday? What budgetary constraints have lead to the poor representation of the law, the very unconvincing character who wanders alone in plain clothes through the woods? Is it not considered a scene of a crime? It is all very contrived and ultimately unsatisfying.

The moment Henri was murdered (well, really earlier when he disappeared on the beach as Franck spoke with the inspector) and Michel went on his killing spree was when it really fell apart for me. Up until then the film and its characters maintained some ambiguity. But, as it often is with these things, there was no reveal. The whole thing was just a tease. And the fade to black at the end would've been infuriating if only I'd expected anything less from this shallow exercise.

[–] bliss66 8 years ago

"This is made very cakes..." = "This is made very clear..." autocorrect error

Also: SPOILERS!

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

As a gay man, I felt some surprise, perhaps even a little discomfort, at the combination of gay cruising site and the acts of murder, even Franck's attraction to Michel knowing he drowned his previous pickup, but the film is so formalised and narrow in its convictions that it, for a time at least, feels like an entertainment, almost like a Highsmith novel but alas without the social scope and insight, into society or humanity.

I think you miss the point. First, the role a beach in summer plays in this film is just as important as any of the characters. As other reviews have said, the beach is ugly, mediocre, no draw for guys with money. But the fact that it nevertheless attracts so many different types of guys indicates how secure, not to mention fantastical, the spot is. Summertime is always fantastical (in northern climates).

Second, you seem to make Henri of little importance to the narrative. I don't think Franck would ever have made a fetish of Michel if not for Henri; Henri was just as much an object of immature and callow Franck's infatuation as Michel. With Henri at the beach daily, something as foul as a murder somehow loses its ugliness, because, after all, it's summer, and old, chubby men are there to envy young beautiful ones, and--wow, the beach is a magical place where all kinds of love (fraternal, parental, and sexual) can happen in tall wild grass.

You underestimate Stranger by the Lake, I think.

[–] filmfancy 7 years ago

and--wow, the beach is a magical place where all kinds of love (fraternal, parental, and sexual) can happen in tall wild grass.

So what are you saying, that the film is more fantastical than realistic--or are you just being sarcastic?

I suppose the film could be seen as fantastical seeing as the characters rarely act realistically. As a previous poster mentioned, it's as if no crime had been committed, the beach isn't even cordoned off as a crime scene, and there is only one detective investigating.

Then again, the underlying themes of loneliness, boredom, promiscuity give the story some grounding. It's difficult to get a read on Franck, Henri, and Michel because they aren't fully developed, but that reflects the characters' desires to not get too attached, which would involve getting to better know one another. There is mention of Franck and Henri possibly getting together for dinner, but we never see it. Others mention going out for drinks, but again we never see it.

So we get back to that one location again--the beach. Why is it so important? My take is that that's the only place these men can be themselves--outwardly gay. They are literally naked. They prefer not to acknowledge that someone has died, that there is danger, because they don't want their special place to be ruined. They don't want to be alone again, they prefer the illusion that the beach is safe. I don't think the police inspector understood the significance of that beach when he spoke harshly to Franck.

The irony of course is that these characters are intrinsically alone. Their 'relationships' revolve around sex. The one relationship that could have deepened was between Franck and Henri. They could have become better friends, but Franck was too obsessed with his fantasy of Michel. Even at the end he is still calling out for Michel despite what he has witnessed. Don't know what will happen to Franck, but I don't think it can be very good.

And all the pieces matter (The Wire)