A little behind the ball on this one

Eric Rohmer passed away on January 11^th, 2010 and I didn’t even know about it until Friday February 19^th, at 3:48pm. How did this happen? One of the most influential and creative minds in the film world, and there wasn’t even a single blip on my radar for an entire month… I could actually see myself still going on blindly until another month from now when the Oscars annual tribute to those who have passed is screened. But what the hell!? Really? How did I not know about this?

Do I not read enough news? Yes, I can honestly say I don’t follow the news as much as I’d like. Do I not watch enough television? Certainly not. Although I don’t watch much news, I do watch entertainment channels. Even they cover important details about people like Rohmer…. Or so I thought… So what happened? Was his death simply washed over by more important and significant information like Tiger Woods’ pending apology (which was a disappointment as expected anyway)? Or Kourtney Kardashian’s baby’s father being an insolent prick? Or the Olympics for that matter? Was everyone so caught up in the hype of international athleticism that this incredible man’s death was just swept under the rug with all the other things I feel I should know?

The New York Times published a lovely obituary. But why didn’t I receive an email update when it was put out!? I got an email when Bill Clinton went to the hospital. I got an email when Sean White won a gold medal. I get an email every time civilians are injured in the Middle East. So how is it that Eric Rohmer wasn’t considered important enough to warrant an email alert?

I feel confident saying that this clearly isn’t just a case of my laziness to collect and absorb news. There was a serious case of inactivity on the media’s part which allowed this information to go unnoticed for over a month. This particular situation leads me to believe that there is something terribly wrong with today’s media priorities. Obviously I don’t believe a singular man’s death is more significant than the crisis in Haiti, or our country’s internal battle over healthcare reform. However, how is it that even entertainment news – “news” which is supposed to cover important details about the inner workings of the industry – did not make any significant mention of Rohmer’s passing? This boggles my mind. There’s something terribly wrong with the system if one of the men who led the way for today’s filmmakers is overlooked. Forty years from now, will Almodivar be so overlooked by American media? Will Quentin Tarantino’s films be all that’s left when he dies?

Okay kids, bold statement… Today’s media doesn’t have the respect for amazingly talented people like Rohmer.

In His Honor

In honor of the late Éric Rohmer, two film responses from my French Cinema Class first semester senior year.

L'Anglaise Et Le Duke (The Lady and the Duke) 2000

The most striking feature of L’anglaise et le duc is the strong reference to 16^th – 18^th century art, particularly in the sets and scenery. At the very opening of the film the painting comes to life and becomes an active scene. If one were to stop at any point throughout the film, the image would resemble a well-framed portrait or landscape. The staging of the scenes are extremely and obviously calculated to reflect the artistic style of the time period. The muted and pale tones in the environment, as well as the characters’ dress, also serve to enhance the feeling that we are observing period artwork and not simply watching a film. The sense of artistry is not limited to the framing, or even the costumes. All of the interiors and exteriors are characterized by trompe-l’oeil style painting and construction. Meaning (loosely) “to trick the eye,” this technique is characterized by extreme detail and realism, creating the optical illusion of three dimensions. It is obvious throughout the film that the sets are painted and fake, however they are incredibly well done and at some points are relatively realistic. This use of painting within the scenes enhances the sense that each scene is a painting or piece of art in itself. It is these characteristics which give the film such a “strange” look, as well as creating a sense of fantasy and nostalgia.

Le Genou de Claire (Claire's Knee) 1970

The concept and definition of desire is played with in “Le Genou de Claire.” This is most clearly demonstrated by the camera work, paired with the content of Jerome’s dialogue and behavior. Jerome constantly reminds Aurora (as well as the audience) that he is engaged and no longer interested in other women. However, his reasoning behind his devotion to his fiancé is weak – that they should remain together because they are still happy with one another after six years. He shows no real emotion or affection when talking about the woman he should be in love with, as reflected in the shots used. When Jerome and Aurora first meet on the bridge, the camera remains at a comfortable distance from them despite their intimacy and closeness. He tells her about his fiancé, but because of our physical distance from Jerome, we aren’t able to see any emotion on his face. Our distance, I feel, reflects his separation from his own emotions, and is effective in foreshadowing his lack of control over his own desires.

His actual desires are not displayed in dialogue or interactions with others, but in the shots and techniques used. In regards to Claire and her knee, the only time the camera is every really close to Jerome is when he is talking to her – specifically in the scene when she gets injured playing volleyball. He sits close to her, and the camera angle is often a tight shot of both characters, or of her – sitting with her knee up against her chest. When we first become aware of his fascination with her knee, we see her from his point of view and there is a close up of this awkward body part while she’s on the ladder picking cherries. By turning the camera into the eyes of Jerome, we are able to see exactly what he desires and even get a sense of his thoughts and emotions at the time.

When we first meet Laura, the camera plays similar tricks on the audience. At first, it seems as if her entrance is just like any other – the camera focuses on her as she sits at the table with the adults – however it lingers and closes in on her. It becomes clear that we are seeing through Jerome’s eyes, and although he claims he does not feel anything for her later in the film, it is clear that he is drawn to her for some reason. His relationship with Laura again shows the dichotomy between his actions/words and the way the scenes are shot. He constantly tells Aurora about his disinterest in Laura, and there are also scenes in which he reminds the young woman about his wife-to-be. He distances himself from Laura emotionally, yet physically they are always close. They hold hands, she rests against him as if they were a couple, and the camera is always very close to them when they are together. Unlike the scene on the bridge, the proximity of the camera reflects the physical closeness as well as the overall intimacy of the scenes between Laura and Jerome.

What I think is most interesting about the film, however, is the fact that the woman he does desire – Claire – is never very close to him physically, nor does she open up to him at all in their conversations. However, with Laura, they have mature and personal conversations while almost always remaining physically connected.