Carnages
Directed by the very young first time French director Delphine Gleize, this film at best can be described as an oddity. Initially trained as a screenwriter at the Ferris film school in 1997, it is clear what the strengths of this film are. However, although clarity doesn’t always make good cinema, a tight grip on what you are being shown is pretty important if the film is to be accessible. If....
Directed by the very young first time French director Delphine Gleize, this film at best can be described as an oddity. Initially trained as a screenwriter at the Ferris film school in 1997, it is clear what the strengths of this film are. However, although clarity doesn’t always make good cinema, a tight grip on what you are being shown is pretty important if the film is to be accessible. If that is not the case, then we get taken down the Peter Greenaway route of high art and in my opinion the worst crime of all – elitism. Although I may be doing an injustice to the film, as it does without doubt have some very interesting passages and characters, as well as many intimate knowing moments, I have no idea what this film was about. Hoping for an elaboration, I thought that the extras, specifically the director interview, would highlight my idiocy and make me see the light. However, the clouds failed to part and reveal a blue sky, as it was an interview that focused on her 3 short films. When she did discuss working methods and CARNAGES, we are presented with 3 minutes of words that could be ordered in any way that would result in the same conclusion;- although this is a film about people, it is not a film for the people.
The film is set up around a series of coincidences and moments that connect all the films primary characters. Initially this fusion takes place around a Spanish bull fight but soon connects French characters to the event, through a series of cleverly edited character introductory sequences. The bull fight is under the microscope, even down to the bull being taken to the slaughter house and by the end of the film, its recycling back into life in the form of a dog bone that ends up causing the coincidental meeting of 4 of the films main characters. As the whole film relies on these coincidences and chance meetings, one recalls the more successful exploration of this subject in Polish master Krzysztof Kieslowski’s films, who ploughed this field almost invisibly, making it seem fluid and not as contrived as it does in CARNAGES. As every event or chance meeting connects the characters together, the theme seems hidden from view. The idea of life and death and their interconnectivity is very ordinary fare for cinema, in the past, present and will remain so in the future but the theme itself is nothing if the director is not saying anything interesting about it. We do though have a disparate spread of characters, from the lonely actress, the mother and son taxi-demists, the suicidal philosopher, through to the confused teacher to the injured bull fighter. We also get many humorous and surreal moments, as well as some uncomfortable confrontations with dead meat, but the film remains fragmentary, contrived and rather pointless.
The extras include the aforementioned director interview with the pretty Delphine Gleize, a fact obviously noted by this segments director. Running in at 10 minutes, we are introduced to her brief film history, especially her first 3 shorts, of which we see many clips. The discussion of CARNAGES though, remains relatively useless for unlocking any of its mysteries, especially when she is being filmed in such a way that you are sat there thinking would I or wouldn’t I. Anyway, it is a shame that the 3 shorts weren’t included in there entirety, then maybe we would be able to notice some thematic similarities in her work that might provide us with a framework for understanding CARNAGES.
There is also the addition of OUTTAKES. These run for about 5 minutes and centre solely on the one scene where the dog has just died after munching on the aforementioned bull’s bone. Considering the complexity of the film itself this seems like a relatively pointless extra, even though we also get a 1 and a half minute text from the director saying why she has included them. Again though, this text comes across as cinematic drivel.
All in all, I really wanted to like this film. At some points I started to enjoy it, then at others the button was switched and I was again thinking about how the talentless, rich and privileged are the only lot who are allowed to make films. Then quickly, Mike Leigh, Lynne Ramsey, Ken Loach, Truffaut and the like popped into my head and assured me that I only had another hour to go before it will be over. As the film is about ordinary people, I am sure that this film will be quite popular, but on a philosophical level, why film ordinary folk in such a manner that ordinary folk watching the film will be excluded? Content and style have to inform each other. For me, this is this films contradiction and one that angers me just thinking about it. High art should be a crime and those perpetrating it condemned to life on a housing estate for 3 years. In the same way that Zhang Yimou had to work and live in a village as a part of his film course, so that he would understand the problems of ‘the people’. The DVD transfer and sound are all flawless, the extras rather disappointing and the film itself a crime against humanity. That said, it is engaging on a certain level and I’m sure will have many defenders. Good luck!
This page has been read:
1947
times