france Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Like many of his colleagues, André Téchiné reviewed films for Cahiers du cinema, championing the work of auteur filmmakers the world over, before becoming a director. But unlike his colleagues, he never really became an auteur himself. He has his supporters, and actresses love working with him, but he has yet to define his cinematic personality, or create a real, enduring masterpiece. Just a few months ago, Kino Video (under its Kimstim wing) released an older Téchiné film, Scene of the Crime (1986), starring Catherine Deneuve. I happened to see it just before watching Téchiné's new film, The Witnesses. There was no real stylistic connection between the films; the former played like a Claude Chabrol thriller and the latter was more like an Eric Rohmer character study. But the most notable difference is that Scene of the Crime was made in the 1980s, and The Witnesses is set in the 1980s, but they actually have no visual similarity. Téchiné's new film uses lots of handheld cinematography, whereas Scene of the Crime was far more patient and steady.

It might help to know who Téchiné is before attempting to decipher The Witnesses. The picture goes in as many different directions as its maker's filmography. It begins as a Rohmer-like comedy of errors, albeit a stiff and half-baked one, starring five characters. Sarah (Emmanuelle Béart, gorgeous, even with a ridiculous haircut) is a writer and new mom who finds that she doesn't like motherhood; ironic, given that she has published several children's books. Her husband, Mehdi (Sami Bouajila) is a cop who likes flying planes in his off hours. Sarah's best friend is Adrien (the extraordinary Michel Blanc), a gay, middle-aged doctor who goes cruising in the parks for sex. He picks up Manu (Johan Libereau), and lets the young, carefree fellow stay with him, although Manu isn't interested in sex with his benefactor. Manu's sister is Julie (Julie Depardieu), a rising opera star who lives in a sleazy hotel mainly populated by hookers. It also looks as if there might have been a sixth character; Sarah's editor is mentioned more than just in passing, but he is only seen once. (For some reason, French movies, such as Va Savoir and Private Fears in Public Places, prefer the number six.)

(Note: This interview was originally conducted back in October when Persepolis was screening at the New York Film Festival. We are publishing it now to coincide with the film's theatrical release this week.)

Based on the popular graphic novel, Persepolis tells the story of a young girl coming of age during the Islamic Revolution. The film was France's selection for the best foreign language Oscar, and Persepolis was just recently nominated for a best foreign language Golden Globe. Originally written by Marjane Satrapi (based on her own life growing up), the brilliant adaptation was penned by Satrapi and her best friend Vincent Paronnaud, both of whom also directed.

On screen and in the books, Marjane comes off as a lively gal full of questions and good-natured spirit. In real life, she's exactly the same way; she speaks fast, with passion and brutal honesty, and makes sure to remind you that she's an artist first and foremost. Cinematical sat down with both Satrapi and Paronnaud shortly after France announced Persepolis was their Oscar submission, and what follows is our conversation. Keep in mind their accents are thick (Paronnaud spoke only in French, which was then translated for me by Satrapi), and so the transcription is a bit rough around the edges.

Cinematical: Congrats on being selected by France as their submission for a best foreign language Oscar. How does that feel?

Marjane Satrapi: Well, it was incredible. Out of the fact that you're always happy you're movie is selected, it's very nice. It also means this border -- this line between who is French and who is not -- it becomes more international in a way. If you live in a country, you can come from a different background and still be French. Which I think is a very good thing. In this time of life when everyone is extremely nationalist, and you know, is going back to the roots, it's very archaic in a way to have countries deciding that even if a movie doesn't happen in their country, it can come from their country. This is a very good thing.

Cinematical: How did the graphic novel originally come about? Why the decision to write about your life in that form?

MS: It's not so much about my life, you know, I use myself as a basis to talk about the other one. If I didn't use myself, it would become like a political or a sociological or a historical statement, and I'm none of that. I'm just one person, and you see what I saw. It's not a statement. This is an artistic work. The graphic novel form became an obvious choice because words are not enough for me. I love to use the image -- ya know, I make art school. And why not? So yeah, it was an obvious choice.

I saw Michael Moore's Sicko (1 screen) yesterday. But rather than talk about Moore's good points and bad points, or the nature of propaganda, or the broken health care system, or liberals vs. conservatives, I'd like to pick one small moment from the film and expand upon it. After surveying the French health care system and finding it good, Moore asks why the American government and American media want us to hate France so much. "Is it because they're afraid we'll like it?" he wonders?

He has a point. The anti-France sentiment of the last decade or so is based mostly on stupid insults and jokes about surrendering (see last year's brain-dead Flushed Away for an example). It's the type of stuff the class bully comes up with and everyone just goes along. But if we stop for a moment and use our common sense, the French have it pretty good. Aside from the free health care depicted in Sicko, and their apparent longevity (despite their taste for wine, cigarettes and fatty foods), they've got one of the most beautiful cities in the world, great food, landmarks, music, and some of the finest filmmakers in the world.

Two separate documentaries to be shown on French television display some controversial concerns for world travelers. They appear to be unrelated, each set to appear on different stations, but they share the common interest of safety and security as related to 9/11.

The first film, airing this Friday, is about airport security at French airports. A reporter named Laurent Richard tested the security by seeing just how easy it would be to get different weapons onto a plane. It turned out to be very easy. With hidden cameras, he shows himself sneaking on box-cutters and de-activated explosives, plus he presents footage of himself driving a truck into secure, restricted areas. It is imaginable that beginning this weekend, wait times will be longer and security measures will be stronger all over France.

The second documentary, which doesn't yet have an air date, reports that French soldiers could have killed Osama Bin Laden, but were not ordered to do so by the U.S. military. Bin Laden: Failings of a Manhunt presents the testimony of four anonymous soldiers who were part of a special forces unit commanded by the U.S. in Afghanistan. They all claim that they had Bin Laden in their rifle scopes in 2003 and 2004 but were never permitted or ordered to fire. The French defense ministry, however, denies there is any truth to the story.

Both films reek of American fear-monger journalism, and if it weren't for the weak performance of Death of a President here, I'd be surprised if American distributors or television stations didn't pick up rights to show either of them in the U.S. Surely there are some viewers over here that would love to see them.

You'd think the news that French censors have refused to allow Saw 3 to be screened in front of minors would throw me into violent frenzy. "How dare they separate free citizens from their god-given right to gore!" is what you might expect from me. But nope; I actually quite agree that movies like Saw 3 should probably be kept away from young kids. What's weird is that the French rule-makers didn't seem to have much of a problem with what went down in Saw and Saw 2.

Yep, bad news for young French horror freaks: Saw 3 has been slapped with the little-seen yet dreaded "18" rating, which I guess means it's been saddled with the French version of the NC-17. So to all you French parents who were planning to bring your nine-year-olds to see Saw 3, I'd recommend something like Happy Feet or Jackass 2. Apparently, the French are notoriously permissive with their movie ratings. According to reliable sources, the last under-18 ban came attached to the 2000 film Baise-moi (aka Rape Me), and IMDb research tells me that the "18" rating is indeed doled out quite sparingly.

Other films deemed "absolutely" unfit for French youth include Caligula (1979), Cannibal Holocaust (1980) and ... The Warriors (1979)? And yet Haute Tension got away with only a "16" rating? I mean, when we're talking about horror flicks, is there really THAT much difference between a 16-year-old viewer and an 18-year-old one? Do those 700 additional days really add all that much perspective? Perhaps, but I've been watching Friday the 13th sequels since I was nine years old, and I grew up to enjoy perfect mental health. At least that's what my brainvoices tell me.

Back in December, Karina reported on a vote by the French Parliament, sneaking in passing an amendment that would legalize downloads of music and movies for a flat fee. The amendment would have had users pay a flat tax to their ISP, which would then distribute the funds to an umbrella organization set up to disburse artists' royalties. Sounds -pretty cool, n'est-ce pas? Yeah, well, don't start packing that French-Engtish dictionary and other worldly possessions into your carry-on duffel bag just yet. Seems that  little vote back in December has really raised the ire of Gallic politicians and media industry folk. The media industry's take? Shockingly enough, they oppose the move to make downloads more freely accessible, claiming the flat tax wouldn't appropriately reimburse them for their "investment in the recording industry".

Even within political parties, folks can't seem to agree on what to do, though according to Variety, one deputy from President Jacques Chirac's party recently expressed support for the amendment, comparing the issue of pirated downloads to trying to stop people drinking alcohol during Prohibition. Interesting, given Chirac's stance on wanting tough laws to protect copyright - wonder if that deputy is now out of a job? At any rate, it's back in the hands of the politicians, and if French politics are anything like US politics, that means the likelihood  of consensus on the issue in the near future is pretty much nil. So might as well resume your regularly scheduled illegal downloading - hah! hah!  - just kidding! We at Cinematical would never encourage anyone to do anything illegal, even in France.

Mon Dieu! It appears that the French are losing their taste for homegrown films - just as demand for them outside of the country is growing. According to the AFP, France rode the international success of films such as March of the Penguins to the tune of $453M this year, representing a 50 percent increase in foreign audience appreciation. At the same time, domestic consumption of French flicks dropped over 14 percent. Penguins itself accounts for over $70M in box office sales internationally, with over 16 million people having seen the story about Emperor penguins doing it all for the nookie. In France, however, the penguins only tempted 1.2 million people to waddle their butts into theater seats.

So, what have YOU done for French cinema lately? What's the last French flick you watched? I went through a phase several years back where I attempted to bone up on some classics of French cinema, getting addicted to Truffault along the way. But I have to admit I've been a Parisian slacker as of late. And "slacker" is generous: the last French flick I can remember watching is Amelie. Before that, it was Romance, which probably deserves an award for being the world's most depressing porn flick. (Um, not that I have tons of expertise in that area...)

French lawmakers voted early this morning to open up restrictions on peer-to-peer downloads, paving the way for legal and (almost) free online sharing of music and movies the nation over. It's all dependent on one ammendment to an intellectual copyright bill that' s moving through the French legal system, which states that studios and recording companies can't legally stop users from sharing their works online, as long as the users aren't commericailly exploiting the materials they download, and procure media only for private use. The ammendment would have French internet users pay a still-unspecified download tax to their Internet provider, who would then pass the money on to an umbrella organization set up to disseminate artist's royalites. So essentially, under this model, internet access would become more expensive for everyone, but media could be shared for free and without the idea of "piracy" (or prosecution) ever entering into it. The ammendment passed this morning by a vote of 30-28, but most of the French legislature was not present. It can be overturned if the majority decides to vote the bill down to the senate, or reopen the debate.