Back to movies – Paris Je T’aime

I’m sorry, but the start of this post is going to be choc-full of clichés. But trust me here: The movie that this post is about exists to extend a person’s mind beyond them, and to make the audience think. Well, not just think, but I’m sure that’s one intent.

Paris is colloquially known as the ‘City of Love’. Whether you choose to believe this or not doesn’t matter – it’s affectionately known as this. Many, many films set in Paris are of the romance genre and end happily ever after. Amelie is one of those films that springs to mind straight away. There are many others, and we all know them. Even with films not set in Paris, though characters venture there, it’s a place of deep emotions and sustained love.

But what is love? If Paris is the city of love, surely you expect more. More depth and breadth. More interpretation of the word itself. Let’s face it: There are many different types of ‘love’.

Paris, Je T’aime (Paris, I love you) is a film set in Paris. But it’s no regular film. With directors like Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, Wes Craven, Gérard Depardieu, and Gus Van Sant (to name a few) and stars like Steve Buscemi, Miranda Richardson, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bob Hoskins, Elijah Wood, Rufus Sewell, Gena Rowlands, and Natalie Portman, you expect to see the H-word: Hollywood. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’d classify this film as an art-house contribution film. Art-house because of what and how it deals with its themes and questions. Contribution because the film is 18 5-minute films from 18 different directors/pairs of.

Each director, to best describe it, has five minutes to explore the theme of love and present Paris in their own unique way. It would be rather pointless to outline and summarise each segment, so instead I’ll just dawdle through the movie and pick out some of the best.

This film is a film concerned with emotions. It thrives on them and it places with yours. Sadness and joy, confusion and ecstasy, love and separation. Each contribution to the film has its own emotion, touch, and approach. From the metaphorical to the basic ‘what you see’, everything has received much thought and deliberation. And why shouldn’t it – they are trying to tell a two-hour story in five minutes. Because that’s the case: each segment could be a movie on its own. They all have the depth and degree of intrigue that doesn’t just make you think they could stand alone on the silver screen – they make you demand that they have a film each. There was one that had me bamboozled, and another having to really think about it – but not one that didn’t leave me wanting to know more. More about where the characters had come from, and more about where they were headed.

But an extension on the five minutes, ultimately, would kill this movie. Each contribution is a snap-shot, and moment in time, in Paris. They are woven together to make a three day story spread over two hours. Each part dealt with its story in an appropriate part of the day. This fed into the mood – couple meeting late at night were often cloaked in mystery, or dealt with issues of staleness and tiredness. The morning rendezvous had a crisp and new feel. It was a masterful way to get more story told, and more investment from the audience, by the directors.

The way colours are used are also very interesting. I’ll take the first contribution – director and written by Bruno Podalydè. It is set in Montmartre. Anyone who has seen Amelie knows that this film too is set in Montmartre. In earlier posts I’ve shown you images of, and talked about, the colours used in Amelie – how warm and vibrant they are. The Montmartre in this film is dead, dry and cold. I’ll get images of it at a later point in time. They are both dealing with love – but they both have different ideas about the word. The character from this segment is single. He laments the fact and wonders why all the women have been ‘taken’, and also why no women seem to fall for him. All this changes, of course, but for the moment where he is speaking to himself, wondering in sorrow about this problem of his, Montmartre is a cold and sad place in image.

The emotions, again, are thick and heavy in this film. The most evoking (it made me well-up) is the segment set in Place des Victoires, written and directed by Nobuhiro Suwa. Suwa is a Japanese director with not too many films under his belt, but you wouldn’t know it. Anyway, this segment deals with a love no one wants to touch – the love of a mother (Juliette Binoche) for the child who has died. This segment is absolutely gut-wrenching for the entire five minutes. There’s something else to it as well – I want to say relieving, but it’s not going to make sense when you haven’t seen it. In fact, it might sound mean. But it isn’t if you see the film. And the statement ‘finding comfort in a cowboy’ will make sense.
Another emotional one is the Loin du 16 esegment, written and directed by Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas. It is concerned with the love between a mother (Catalina Sandino Moreno) and her child too – though this is quite the opposite to the previous segment I spoke about. This mother’s child is but a few months old. And yet, she leaves him in the care of others only to commute across Paris on a long (it really did seem longer than five minutes) trip to a wealthy employer’s home, where we see her job is to take care of another baby. Here she sings to the employer’s restless child a Spanish lullaby with entertaining hand actions – the same song that she sings to her own baby at the start of the segment. However, the actual pain you feel for this woman is brought on by the difference in hand actions – when she is tending to her employer’s child, the hand gestures are muted, almost forced. With her own, they are alive, active, and finish with a touch to the child’s nose (something she doesn’t do with the child she is tending across town). You feel sorry for this woman – really sorry for her.

Of course, I expect people rolled their eyes when the saw the name “Natalie Portman” earlier. I reckon you’re thinking that I’m about to give her another raving and glowing review – say that she’s the stand-out of the entire film. I’m not. In fact, I can’t. There is no single actor that carries this film in terms of performance. I’m hesitant to say that there are even weak performances – because I can’t think of one. Each aspect of this movie was a chance for everyone involved to show their talent – without constraints and more of the reigns. Additionally, there are a lot more demands on an actor in a project like this. Tell a story in five minutes as best you can. Some actors have the help of filming techniques envisaged by the directors – and in every case they work. But some directors obviously felt that the cast could deliver the performances needed. And in every case they stepped up to the plate.

The bonus of having so many varied approaches to such a vast amount of themes is that, as a person, there is much relatability. I found myself empathising with some characters, encouraging others, wanting to speak to some, all because I could relate to them. And having never been in love myself, it should show the breadth that the term love is dealt with, and the varying ways in which it is shown to us.

The directors each bring their own flavour to their segment as well. Flavour in the sense of ‘theme’. We have personal monologues, single-shot segments, wide-shots telling the story, narrators. We even have a fantasy horror segment about vampires in love. That last one was quite interesting – a big mix amongst the rest of the contributions. Each has a distinct voice to it – a unique feel, taste, and temperature. None are the same in any regard. And that’s why this film is such a roller coaster for the viewer. Especially someone like me who has to pull every scene apart. The person in it just for the ride will probably have got more out of it than me to be truthful.

To bring all this to a close: Paris, Je T’aime is a fantastic film. I recommend it to anyone who can see it. Assuming that the list of readers has whittled down as of late, to those sojourners who want to see it, I have the DVD. It’s got a lot of subtitles parts (being a part-French film and all), but don’t let that distract you. Mitchell, I know that you enjoyed Amelie – put this on your list to see. You have holidays coming up. And it would make a great supplementary text for an English student (though I was thinking about it in terms of journeys) because of all the themes and technicals of the film. Of course, that invite to borrow the DVD extends beyond Mitchell alone sojourn group.

Thomas.

Second Job

Today I started a second job. At the golf course I work at, the owner has been trying and trying and trying to get a clubhouse built. In the hierarchy of money-making at golf courses, the course makes the most, then a clubhouse, then sales in stock at the pro shop. So, considering we had one and three, it was only time till two became a feature at our course.

It is a clubhouse/ function centre. A smart move seeings that golf isn’t a 24 hours sport. The clubhouse allows us to tap into the ‘night market’. You can book it out, drop in for a meal etc. The prices are reasonable, the food is very good, and there is a bar.

I’ve worked in the pro sho (in one form or another) since Year 11 – five years. It’s been my first job and I quite like it (despite the grumblings I’ve had in the past). Then when the clubhouse was opened on Thursday, I told my boss (seeings I have my R.S.A.) that I was more than happy to work any day, any hours, at the bar or milling around in the kitchen – washing up, cleaning, doing anything I was able. My boss asked me to work Sunday and bada-bing bada-boom I started working in a restaurant.

First thing I did was start behind the bar. I’d done my R.S.A. some time ago and I’d never poured a beer for a customer before. And knowing every customer who walked through the door (and how I’d be given a hell of a time if I screwed up) to say I was nervous is quite an understatement. And, to compound the problem, my first customer was my father. Now if anyone reading this knows me I quite enjoy having a joke when people stuff things up. I get this from my father. But my father is ten times worse (or better?) at it. He asked for a schooner of New. I managed to poor it with little trouble.

The next two were atrocious! Then I started to get the hang of it when another staff member showed me a few tips. More practice is required, but I think I’ll get the hang of it eventually.

I did some work in the kitchen too. A lot of it was washing up – which I enjoy – because I failed miserably at cutting a bread-roll in half. One of my hobbies is woodworking (woodturning especially), so my ‘touch’ isn’t quite suited to cutting rolls. They came out looking like slices of bread. Considering the rest of the food preparation required home economic skills, I washed. Then I was taught how to use one of those coffee machines that look like they can read minds – you know the ones. The size of a small house. Not so hard, but it might take a few to get the hang of it. You need to measure temperatures – that’s over-the-top in my coffee-making books. Mine recipe is:

coffee grind + hot water + sugar + cup = coffee!

Apparently not everyone is as basic in taste as me. Anyway, with that done (and in between tasks) I did rounds to pick up empties glasses and plates. There weren’t many people there which made it good because I wouldn’t want to be ‘learning on the job’.

Anyway, I mustn’t have been that bad because I got asked to come in again – and for longer. I think I prefer it more than the pro shop because the there are so many little, annoying, minute things to do there, as well as the rest of the job, as well as that being where all customers go to complain. But I still want to do both. Considering I’m off till March, I’ll be asking to work every day.

Thomas.