L'Enfant

[w/o horse]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456396/
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/lenfant/

The French are starting to make me think that a soundtrackless movie is a great fucking idea.

I couldn't help but think of Breathless during this one.  Bruno is the same kind of detached criminal, but his face is scarred, his story his very uncool, and his travels through the city concern not only his girl but a boy thief and a baby named Jimmy.  What's he say, "Only fuckers work."  Shortly thereafter he covers himself in cardboard boxes and goes to sleep by the river.  What dialogue there was, and there wasn't much, echoed through the characters' lives, through the story.  A lean film that knows what it has to do to fairly and accurately present the character Bruno.

I liked it a lot.

[Pubrick]

and what about sonia?



from the opening shot we know that it's in her arms that things are gonna be made right.



she was astonishing. beautiful too. the bulk of the story, while dealing with Bruno's plight, ultimately brings us to a new appreciation of her and his role as a father. SPOILER the most responsible thing he does is as father figure of the thief kid, when he turns himself in. END SPOILER

i felt some clear parallels to Pickpocket, which ties in (superficially) to what SNT said about the Dardennes in their thread, especially SPOILERS FOR PICKPOCKET AND L'ENFANT at the end, when he's in jail and they meet up, don't u think it's a bit reminiscent of the final scene in pickpocket? you could even play the interior monologue of Pickpocket's protagonist at that point and it would match up perfectly to Bruno's situation.. "what a path i had to take.." END SPOILERS FOR L'ENFANT AND PICKPOCKET

beyond all that, i hav to say it's a difficult film for anyone unaccustomed to the dardenne style (or lack thereof). both ppl i saw it with hated it, one fell asleep. some jerks we talked to outside, one of them fabio, only talked shit.. and they're making a documentary on underwater chess so they should know.

i'll watch The Son and revisit this.

[bonanzataz]

i wish i knew what to say about this movie. it was just so good. from the opening shot i had tears in my eyes and i didn't know why. i love movies like this. it was so minimalist, but there was never a boring part. one review described it as literary, and i think that's accurate. so much of the emotion is internalized but the audience is aware of what's going on inside the characters. that's just good acting and directing. it was beautifully shot as well. i wonder if they used natural lighting or what, but they got some really pretty stuff. it looked like the way i try to make my pictures look - real but vibrant.

oh, and they showed a trailer for drawing restraint 9 as well and i nearly pooed myself. that movie should be fucking awesome.

[Ghostboy]

It's definitely the finest film I've seen in a long time. I think ultimately I liked The Son a little bit more, just because it took me longer to figure out where that one was going, but they're both masterpieces, and there's no point in pitting them against each other. I think it's actually far more accessible than The Son and their Dardenne films, and watching it in the theater last week, I had fantasies about mainstream audiences being able to get into this and appreciate it. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

The Pickpocket comparisons were definitely astute, Pubrick. I was thinking about that film the entire time.

[pete]

I just saw it and was really engaged and the last scene was really moving.  however, from the getgo I already knew how the film was going to play: they were setting the guy up for a long fall and it's all building up to a scene where the guy loses it and the movie is going to end there just because some of the film's depiction of realism and its pacing and such seemed to carefully strategized, its style was too transparent for me.  from the very beginning the film seemed to know that it was a "serious" film that was "gritty" and such and such, everything seemed quite deliberate, the film was very skillfully made and about 100 times less obnoxious than a gus vansant "truthfest", but still had that sense of artificiality in there.  it just seemed too detached for a film like that in the very beginning.  it seemed like the director witnessed a mugging and began imagining where the mugger came from and where he'd go or something. 
but anyways, last scene was haunting, and since the whole thing was building towards that last scene, it was all good.

[modage]

Title: L'enfant
Released: 15th August 2006
SRP: $24.96

Further Details:
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has announced L'enfant (The Child) which stars Jeremie Renier and Deborah Francois. The film - from renowned directing and writing team of the Dardenne brothers - will be available to own from the 15th August. Retail will be around $24.96. The film will be presented in 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen, along with a French Dolby Digital 5.1 track. English subtitles will also be provided. The only extra material will be some New York Film Festival Footage and Conversations.
http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/lenfant.html

[Gold Trumpet]

I've heralded the Dardennes before as the premiere filmmakers in the world. Their progression, starting with La Promesse, seemed to come to total fruition with The Son. The Son was the film of the decade (so far). L'Enfant proves there were even able to go beyond that film.

The progression, filmically, is simple. La Promesse was the simple storytelling of a simple story. The camera work was documentarian (emphasized by the filmmakers previous work as documentarians), the story had great characterization to make it memorable enough, but the film was still lacking. It contained the nuances of good storytelling, but lacked the excellent use of camera work to distinguish the story and also did not have excellent sound to elevate the story; all the qualities outside of good story and good acting to make a great film. When the Dardennes did Rosetta, they committed to an experimental technique: allow the camera to follow the protaganist only. The viewpoint was mainly from behind her and allowed the camera to gage her anger without spelling it out in character interaction. The film was a major development from La Promesse in that it showed the Dardennes were able to utilize film language to their story, but the film lacked because it did not have the same power that La Promesse had with characterization.

The Son was a revelation. It was their first film to achieve the depths of a character portait that was equal to La Promesse but also had the experimental touch of Rosetta. When the film begins, it plays with audience expectation by detailing a relationship with an older man and a boy. At first, the relationship is suspect, but soon the revelation is that it goes much deeper than expected. At the beginning though the camera use is excellent because it captures voyeurism so well without explicitly detailing the intentions of the characters. The audience instead wonders about the details of their actions. By the end of the film it is able to achieves depths that are not only found in a well executed drama, but a human story equivalent of greater comment. When the Guardian was making Biblical comparisons in their review, they were not far off.

But, The Son had a few shortcomings. On multiple viewings I found myself growing impatient for the revelation toward the end and begin to wonder if the audience not knowing makes for a successful first viewing, but a lackluster third and fourth viewing. The Dardennes are notorious for avvoiding the pitfalls of film trickey, but playing the game of keeping the audience guessing did almost come off as that. Though this is a valid complaint, it is only a small complaint. The film is still grandly successful in every department and holds up a personal experience of walking through a great tract of realism and able to still be great storytelling.

L'Enfant, though, is just perfection. It is a story that is as simple as La Promesse but of great depth because the Dardennes are excellent in using everything they know about filmmaking to lift the story. The sound not only registers with beauty of the urban lifestyle, but plays a large part in the storytelling with the exchange of the baby during a few scenes. The camera work in earlier films was able to give a characters' point of view and again does it here with the great uncertainty that Bruno goes through in a few key scenes. All these aspects make for detailed scenes that could only be made possible in film. I've heard this film compared to Russian literature and other literary elements and I agree because I've never seen another filmmaker be able to detail scenes that look so simple but yet resonate deeply in true character portraits.

The Son had a few misgivings on multiple viewings. I feel L'Enfant will continue to suffice on many more viewings because it hones the story in as tightly and greatly as I've seen the Dardennes ever do. The feeling is that the human element of this film will continue to pervade through. The back of the DVD said that this film was a fairy tale. The only comment on that is whether to agree with it or not. I do, but am stunned I do considering how brutal the storytelling was but how uplifting it was able to be without taking any short cuts. I remember when I was 17, I watched Breaking the Waves and I loved it, but the film looks ridiculous now. Von Trier tried to make a fairy tale out of similar shooting style, but was forced to use a Disney answer to the heavenly feel that the film had. It had no place being acclaimed by everyone the way it was. I'm only happy to have L'Enfant now to replace any former admiration for that film.

Just like when I watched the Son, I wondered: What can the Dardennes do now to top this? I have no clue, but I am thrilled about the possibilities. It looks like they will not cave into the easy desires to change filmmaking speeds and start exploring other genres. It seems every filmmaker, even the best, give in to that. I was happy when the Dardennes were asked of their influences and said David Croenenberg and laughed. It shows they are on the tract to keep exploring the uniqueness of vision they have built. It is easy to differentiate the Lars Von Trier who made Breaking the Waves and the one who made Dogville, but the facts of those differences can only be superficial truths. The Dardennes may be able to foster a career where trying to distinguish the differences of each of their films forces a true search of meaning into their stories. It looks like their future will continue to be challenging.

I've always had unpopular opinions, but I think the Dardennes are the best filmmakers going right now. While I do believe Oliver Stone is the most complete filmmaker I've ever seen (my gf and many others laugh at me for that comment), Stone has always been very hit and miss. In the case of the Dardennes, I have never seen four perfectly made films start out a career as the ones I've seen by them. Every film they have done, while maybe better or less successful than another, all are still perfectly recommendable and special in their own way. 

[Xx]

...

[Sunrise]

I've always had unpopular opinions, but I think the Dardennes are the best filmmakers going right now...In the case of the Dardennes, I have never seen four perfectly made films start out a career as the ones I've seen by them. Every film they have done, while maybe better or less successful than another, all are still perfectly recommendable and special in their own way.

I don't think anointing the Dardennes would be that unpopular...maybe just a little obscure (and probably not even that). Their talent, however, is evident, and much of it is touched upon by your review.

While I do believe Oliver Stone is the most complete filmmaker I've ever seen (my gf and many others laugh at me for that comment), Stone has always been very hit and miss.

GT, you've obviously seen hundreds of GREAT films and followed the bodies of work of many filmmakers...there is no way you believe this...is there?

[Xx]

...

[Pubrick]

just talk to us and leave the other shit out of it.

what other shit? this is the most bizarre attack i've ever seen on a member.

GT does great things in his reviews that others (including you) never do:
-he allows for readers to explore the context in which he wrote the review
-he backs up his points with references to other films and his impressions of them, which while it might seem "pretentious" is actually done for our benefit. pretentious would be if he didn't back up anything.
-unlike you, his reviews are personal reflections that nevertheless DON'T feel like someone rambling about half-remembered impressions.
-he uses paragraphs.

seriously if we're gonna confront ppl in massive paragraphs that go nowhere, we should address the fact that all your reviews end with you not being sure how you felt about the movie and saying how you're gonna have to see it again --- interspersed with long passages of painfully boring autobiographical information. "i liked this movie. oh i'm not sure if i did, i liked this stuff and didn't like this stuff, the cinematographer was, then i remembered i had to pay rent that day, don't take this the wrong way - don't take this to mean what i meant at the beginning, i'll have to watch it again." -- ALWAYS.


whatever.. GT talking about the dardennes as he sees them within the greater context of modern cinema, and actually making a decision and clearly expressing why he believes these things, is a million times more insightful, and less pretentious, than name dropping some goddamn lighting cameraman.. or whatever it is you wish he would include at the expense of leaving "the other shit" out.

[Gold Trumpet]

OK OK, I consider FlagpoleSpecial a friend and he was kind enough to send me a PM reasserting he meant no harm in his post and would delete it if I felt it was attacking me.

It isn't. So, to answer:

1.) My tone - yea, its been mentioned before. Cecil, in the beginning days of xixax, took liberty with it saying that I spoke of everything like it was fact instead of just an opinion. I said everything I did mean was an opinion and nothing more and if someone felt inclined to take issue with anything I said, they certainly should speak up. It promotes discussion of my points, but if I do come off as arrogant, then apologies, but with a writing style comes a voice and I don't mean to be anything but that.

2) The length - Overdoing it, maybe, but I am thrilled when movies spark my imagination to search out my thoughts. My lengthy piece on Apocalypto came 20 minutes after seeing it and this review on L'Enfant came weeks afterword. 1.) I am trying to promote discussion so anyone who just does disagree can't only disagree and get away with it. They will have to really reason it out so its good for the board 2.) I am going to begin publishing articles and essays on Green Screen and I see my reviews of films as short hand versions of those pieces, more conversational in tone, but still somewhat thought out. But I am still being opportunistic and selfish in trying to write my opinions in more complete ways. It's better practice. In reality I am very soft spoken about my opinion and usually never discuss films beyond the casual. Thus I'm criticized for liking too many dumb movies and not being critical enough to those who don't know me on here.


Sunrise -- "Complete filmmaker" does not insuniate the best, but yes, I do think he is the most complete filmmaker I've ever seen.

Consider his progression: when he began directing, he made films on a straight and narrow path like everyone else. Then in the 90s he grew immensely by making films that had different styles of editing from Nixon to Natural Born Killers and even Heaven and Earth. People love to simplify that his filmmaking became erratic, but all three of those films are completely different in nature of storytelling approach and show a guidance to illustrate different narratives. And Stone wasn't doing this to just habit new genres, he was doing this to progress the depths of his storytelling

Then there are deeper threads to consider. Parker Tyler, a novelist and poet who also was an art critic and writer of books on film, said that the four main things to consider in making films was the historical, political, philosophical (personal) and structural nature of a film. Oliver Stone is the only filmmaker I know who searched the depths of every portion with his very best films. He never wrote prefaces for his films, but his commentaries feel like that and when the book, Oliver Stone's USA, came out. It was essays by scholarly historians taking exception to many of the ideas in his films and then Oliver Stone refuting those claims. He never did so simply, but wrote lengthy pieces with great confidence and intelligence. He fleshed out the vision of his films and did so with great skill that he comes off as more convincing than most of his critics.

The thing is, Oliver Stone wanted to make films that invited thought on all those levels. Even personal works by him have the ring of a greater focus around them. As his famous quote goes:

"I don't set out to make movies about big controversial themes, I just make movies about what has happened to my life...I have to keep digging into our history to find out what happened to me and my generation."

The idea to give to the greatest filmmakers is that they are personal with focus. Ignmar Bergman never grew out of the obsession that many says haunts great artists: a fascination with their own mother or father. He made a career out of making very personal films, but while Bergman is a genius, he never sufficed the limits of what filmmaking could technically and with storytelling. Many filmmakers just do not have that focus at all. Michelangelo Antonioni, while developing in the 50s take deeper breaths with his films than anyone else would in the 60s, made less satisfactory work by the 70s. Hans Jurgen Syberberg, a vastly unknown film great, was highly focused on the philosophical and political but his films were theater bound works, utilizing the depths of acting without taking advantage of the technical bravado inherent in filmmaking.

People love to mystify the artist. To hail aspects of his talent as amazing, but look the other way when looking at the other parts. Shakespeare, to give an example, is still hailed as the greatest but many only look at the nuance of his language without logically deciphering the political and historical nature of his works. Bernard Shaw said he would give six of his plays away for one preface from Shakespeare to see what his complete thoughts were on a single play considering, as Shaw puts it, he was indifferent to many aspects that made great storytelling for some of his plays.

Certain filmmakers will go down in divisions of greatness for being the best at different things, but no filmmaker will go down as being the best in every category. Oliver Stone just suffices me on the most levels and I know many people do not like him on the board (I'm still waiting for actual reasons), I still stand firm with my opinion.

[Alexandro]

I guess I had a different experience with L'Enfant. I had completely forgotten about the existence of this movie until I saw it at the rental place as winner of the palme d'or. I didn't even checked who was the director. I didn't care for some reason. I just took it.

I gotta say I really liked it. From the very first shot I felt enthralled by it. And this went ont for a while. I was very excited about the "language" the film uses, and how the sound works perfectly matching the urban atmosphere in which the film takes place. But the main story became a problem to me. Forget about Pickpocket, which inmediatly came to mind. This type of "childlike" character, uncapable of understanding other people's pain and unable to give and feel love has been seen before. The problem was the predictability of the whole thing. After a few scenes it became clear that this was another movie in which SPOILERS FOR L'ENFANT AND SWEET AND LOWDOWN the main character fucks it up real good one time and another until he reaches bottom and has final scene in which he shows, if not redemption, at least some sort of emotional release that seemed impossible for him before . the film that kept constantly coming to mind was woody allen's Sweet & Lowdown, in which Sean Penn has avery similar progresion and ends pretty much in the same way as the character here. END OF SPOILER

When it ended, I felt I've seen a very good movie, but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece by far.

[Pubrick]

l'qui?

[SoNowThen]

I could try to make a top 10 list, and there are certainly at least 3 other films from 2006 that I wouldn't be embarrassed to call "better than good"... but, after all, what's the fuckin' point?

This film is a masterpiece, certainly the greatest film of 2006, and probably the best movie (as, perhaps, No Direction Home is removed from the list because of its doc-status) since the Dardennes last one. They are ABSOLUTELY the most important filmmakers of our time.

Bergman is dead. Antonioni is dead. Godard and Rohmer and Rivette are not getting any younger. In ten years will there be "cinema" anymore? I mean, a cinema that is not completely genre rigid or event/hype bajillion dollars + book/videogame tie-in? Will there be any truly GREAT filmmakers left? Will any truly great film artists find any kind of real forum to develop a body of work like those we admired from the 50's - 70's? Probably only the Dardenne Bros, and even then (unfortunately) to a vastly lesser degree. They are the 'second Miles Davis quintet' of the cinematic world.

I've been trying to find some time these last few weeks (before my wedding) to watch as many recent films as possible. I wanted to at least contribute a top ten list. Which sounds pretty stupid, actually, upon reading what I just typed. Anyway -- as I said before, fuck it, make my list 1 - 10 "L'Enfant". I've had the chance to see it twice since it was released on dvd last year. Nothing else even came close.

_{Actually, so I don't feel completely like a nay-sayer, I should footnote that Death Of Mr Lazarescu was really fantastic... but then it fits into that "dedication to reality" type school, and that makes it look like those are the only movies I can now enjoy... oh dear me, dear me, what a labyrinthine web of cyber babble this is all becoming...}