Here's
a film that promises to deliver - and it delivers much more than it promised.
The film is the brainchild of Robin Campillo, who
wrote, directed and edited. A one-man-band who comes with serious credentials: the
other film that he wrote, directed and edited was They Came Back (2004), which
was the basis of celebrated French TV series "Les Revenants", itself
the basis of US remake "The Returned". He also edited the acclaimed
"Time Out" (2001), as well as being the writer and editor of
multi-awarded and foreign Oscar nominated "Entre Les Murs" ("The
Class"/2008).
The film employs amazing symmetry. It begins with a
scene which works at a leisurly pace, consisting mainly of long shots. The
scene introduces the protagonists of the story, a gay middle-class professional
in his late 30s or early 40s, Daniel (Olivier Rabourdin) who's observing a
bunch of Eastern European teenagers in the train station of Gare du Nord in
Paris. The framing and pace of the scene allows the audience to closely examin
the behaviour of said teenagers, with the dispassionate interest that an
entomologist would observe a rare insect. One can feel their youthful innocence
at the same measure that one can feel the corruption they need to immerse
themselves in, in order to survive. Are they a gang of male prostitutes or are
they a gang of thieves? Or are they both?
Daniel works up the courage to ask brooding Marek
(Kirill Emelyanov), a boy in his late teens, for a date. They arrange to meet
the following day at Daniel's place. Then the 2nd part begins.
I won't spoil the plot for you by giving too many
details away. I'll say that the 2nd part turns into a chilling psychological
thriller, like a milder "Funny Games". Still, even though it retains
the suspence quite like "Funny Games", it doesn't share the former's
nihilistic view of mankind and existential despair. Daniel is a potential
victim, but he's calm and collected. Marek is rather embarassed with the role
he was made to play, while the gang's boss, a man in his early 20s (Daniil
Vorobyov) is menacing but not in an altogether unlikeable way. We have seen thousands
of scenes of home invasion in the movies, this however manages to feel
original.
The middle part is about the evolution of the
relationship between Daniel and Marek. It feels neither false nor forced, in
fact it flows organically but not predictably. It's good.
The 4th part becomes a thriller once more. This time
it's Daniel who invades the youth's lair, in order to free Marek. It is more
predictable, but its pace is excellent and the artistic choices of the
writer/director all work.
The film part finishes as it began: the last part is
made at leisurly pace and uses lengthy takes and long shots. The audience
becomes immersed in the space where the action is taking place, it's like we
accidentally found ourselves eavesdropping at these people's conversation and
our interest was aroused enough to follow their movements through space as far
as we could see. And then the story continues, shielded from the audience's
gaze. But the film is over, leaving us to fill in the gaps - a mental exercise
that will surely be to our benefit.
As Stephen Holden writes in The New York Times:
"The film explores interlocking themes of sexuality, immigration and power
dynamics with a cleareyed sensitivity and refuses to demonize even its shadiest
characters."
Grade: 9/10
Here's the trailer:
I didn't like this film, because I felt that the middle-aged businessman was incredibly mild and meek. He should've run out of the apartment and knocked on a neighbor's door or run down to the doorman (who, incredibly, let this gang of thieves into the building). So, as far as I am concerned, the film should've never happened. Also, when the young hustler actually shows up afterward and is invited into the middle-aged businessman's life, I felt again that this man was acting very, very stupidly. And that he should've been angry and thrown the boy out. Again, as far as I am concerned, this film should not have happened. And, the big sex scene, the boy just lies there with no emotion while the middle-aged businessman is thrusting himself into the boy's ass. What kind of sex is that? This film was just a big "no-no" for me. Sorry, lionking, but I did want to appreciate it, but I just couldn't do it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, @rayban! I believe that Daniel didn't leave his flat for a number of reasons: a. He was fascinated, as much as he was horrified, by the intrusion. The material damage that he had to suffer was the entrance fee that a well-to-to Western man had to pay to get a taste of the "other half". After all, his apartment was probably insured. b. They used the underage boy as their "insurance policy". Even though he was not in the wrong, Daniel probably wouldn't want to have to deal with the police under these circumstances.
ReplyDeleteAs for inviting the young hustler back into his life, I think it was quite obvious that Daniel was very attracted to him from the start. Also there are hints that although his life is outwardly fine, Daniel is not really satisfied with it and he's looking for change. He feels that the boy will be the agent of this. He is still not sure as to what form this change will eventually take.
As for the sex scene, I think that it was done realistically, considering that the boy is originally a male prostitute and acts as such. It is not meant to be sexy, it is meant to be a character moment. This way, the evolution of the relationship takes on more meaning. If it was filmed as a very hot sex scene, then the conclusion of the film would ring false.
Once again, thanks for your comment: in order to reply, I had to analyze the film even further in my head. So, in fact, you've helped me enrich my understanding of it.
@lionking, well, now, you certainly make a legitimate case for the film.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Daniel is more love-starved than we realize - and he does like boys, too, right? - which would make his circumstances very, very difficult.
Once the sexual relationship got underway, I found that I was much more accepting of the storyline.
But, again, I couldn't buy that Daniel would want to turn this young lover into his son.
However, the ending where we are a part of that vast space and yet confined to a certain vantage point - well, I did find that ending to be mysterious and powerful.
Perhaps, in the end, Daniel discovered a "son" and not a "lover" - and then realized that it was a son that he wanted all along.
Despite my objections to the film, it is an intriguing film
Thank you so much, for choosing it, you do not have run-of-the-mill taste.
Thanks @rayban, your comments are insightful and intelligent. A bit spoiler-y, but that's OK. If you don't mind though, next time that you include spoilers about a movie, please say so in your comment right before they appear, so that people who don't want to know the end of the film can skip that part. Thanks my friend!
ReplyDelete@lionking, you're right, I should have known better.
ReplyDeleteThose "damn spoilers".
By the way, a friend of mine, Bob, thinks that "Eastern Boys" is one of the great love stories.
I should get the two of you together.
That's a great idea, @rayban! :)
ReplyDelete