-Stephen Holden, NEW YORK TIMES
"Ought to be seen, because it's a work of moral and spiritual mystery as stubbornly challenging as GONE IN 60 SECONDS is morally anesthetizing."
-ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
L'HUMANITE begins with the epitome of the abject, a corpse. Investigating the rape and murder of an 11 year-old girl, Pharaon De Winter struggles with himself and the harsh realities of the world. Directed by Bruno Dumont, the film is symbolic and contemplative as it presents the landscape of the body and the body as landscape. Paralleling the investigation, De Winter becomes intertwined in a bizarre love triangle between himself and his neighbors Domino and Joseph. De Winter witnesses a similar crude brutality between Domino and Joseph as he tries to find a murderer. Inbetween police procedural and avant-garde meditation on humanity, L'HUMANITE won three of the biggest prizes at the Cannes Film Festival in 1999.
Suggested Secondary Screenings: MOUCHETTE (Robert Bresson, 1967) and TWENTYNINE PALMS (Dumont, 2003).
After the last week of blood, gore, and scissors, when I read the synopsis of a film that centered around the rape and murder of an 11 year old, I thought that, like Inside, I could never say it was boring. I was wrong. This has been the hardest film to watch this semester, and not because of the random vagina shots, but because I had to fight to stay awake for two and a half hours!
ReplyDeleteThe film had some nice shots, but the overall quality of the film was disappointing. Maybe I missed the point of the film, and that is valid, but the only shot that made me think twice was the final shot of De Winter in the chair and it appears that he is handcuffed. Of course this could just be a figment of my imagination desperately seeking anything from this film. The acting was subpar, and I had no investment in the characters. When the credits began to roll all I could say was "thank god." I would kindly like the last two and a half hours of my life back, but I don't think that is possible. It's safe to say that I will be interested in the class discussion of this film, maybe it will make things more interesting.
I also expected more from the film that was going to kick off the rape section of class. Unless the ultimate goal is to catch us off-guard for Fat Girl and Irreversible (which if it is, bravo!), I can only describe the film as boring.
L'Humanite had one positive result for me, however. For the first time in two weeks I was actually hoping to see a pair of scissors on the screen.
I was struck by the realism of this film and its complete lack of romanticism. Even at their worst, films like Trouble Every Day managed to attach some kind of perverse beauty to the grotesque; this one didn't bother putting the world on any pedestal, focusing instead on the ordinary, the complete mundane. The characters lacked admirable qualities, beginning with the physical; their inner lives did not negate first impressions; these were not people whose place in life were enviable.
ReplyDeleteIf there was one thing the film did well, it was to convey the loneliness that encapsulated each character. Pharaon of course was the most obviously removed from everyone else by his ineffective communication, though there was some lack of meaningful dialogue between other characters as well, as if they lacked introspection. In fact the characters were at some moments unrelatable because their actions were so unmotivated (I'm sure when Milton said he'd rather be a human being dissatisfied, he did not consider such arrested development).
This film was not nearly as disturbing as some of the others we have been watching lately, and was probably a good choice to watch on the same day as Inside. I found myself noticing the length of shots that Dumont used; he used many very long takes, such as when Faraon was walking through the field. The sex scenes were also shot very realistically, which I liked. It was more intimate because it was all very natural and done in one long take, even though Domino and Josef were having rough sex. I was confused by Domino's eventual attraction to Faraon, who did not seem like he was ready to move on after losing his wife and kid. I thought the ending, whether we are lead to believe it is Josef or Faraon, was kind of a cop out. There really aren't any clues provided like in a traditional thriller, and it seems sort of random that they just make Josef confess unprovoked. I thought that Faraon, as a character, and as an actor, were very out of place being cast as a cop. I found myself forgetting what his purpose was several times throughout the film. Besides from never wearing a traditional police uniform, he also went about solving the mystery of the raped girl in a very peculiar way.
ReplyDeleteTo say that I hated L’Humanite would quite possibly be an understatement. I may have abhorred it even. It was so painfully slow, and the lack of dialogue didn’t help the situation. It’s not that I think dialogue makes a film any better; it’s just that this film almost NEEDED better dialogue. On top of the snail’s pace, the minimal dialogue was just too much. I couldn’t stop shifting in my seat, looking at my watch, and each time I looked at my watch it seemed as though time was moving soooo slow. What was ten minutes in movie time felt like five minutes in real time, and I just couldn’t stand it. To top all of that off, the movie was 2 and a half hours long, making the torture prolonged? And not to sound shallow, but geez, those people were not that most attractive people to look at for such a long time. And it’s not to say that realistic portrayals should feature people that look like Michelangelo carved a statue of them, but still…I hated it, plain and simple. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
ReplyDeleteI was glad that this screening was scheduled just a little before Spring Break for two reasons – I feel that it’s one of those movies that you have to reflect on for a while before you actually start to feel its weight and, second, I actually got a chance to see it on a big screen (which I think is important, because I really believe the film is trying to make the audience experience something).
ReplyDeleteThis was probably the most difficult film to sit through from all the films we’ve screened thus far – but, at least for my part, for very different reasons than the others. So far, I’ve had a completely committed and involving relationship with these films – I’ve been enthralled, shocked, and disturbed in equal measure. With Dumont’s film, I really tried to keep my curiosity and interest alive, but I wasn’t as involved with it. I found myself, more than anything, wondering if/when things will take their inevitable turn for the worst. Usually, the films we screen have a sort of “spiraling down” effect that “L’Humanite” could not have been more without. Everything seems to occur in this one plane in the film – where I feel the audience is unaware of what exactly will happen next, but the suspense that goes along with that feeling is mostly muted or deemphasized in the movie.
It was really the last few scenes of the film that helped me realize that this movie should not be written off as excruciatingly boring or impossible to communicate with. There’s such compassion – intertwined with a sense of melancholy and a strange sensation of hope – that really makes this movie stand out from the rest we’ve screened. I had felt that this film didn’t belong with De Van or Ozon films or Noe – although I can find traces of some of the concepts we’ve discussed in class. But to me, the vital “extremity” in content and form wasn’t prevalent. I don’t find the visuals too extreme or even the story (even as it touches on rape). But I do find an extreme longing in the characters and an extreme yearning for humanity in the story (the most extreme instances of both that I feel we’ve seen). This film is extreme on a whole other level – its silence, its inability to completely know its characters, its desire to empathize with these individuals….that’s what makes it extreme (that’s what propels its long takes and wide frames).
So, I feel the film shows a side of our study that doesn’t perhaps get talked about too often or often enough. Aside from their ability to make us have a one-of-a-kind experience (driven by its subject and how it’s presented visually/aurally), why resort to this kind of filmmaking? A film like “Regard La Mer,” or “In My Skin,” is deeply unsettling and unnerving – and I do feel they leave a mark on the audience. But, why leaves this mark? I think a lot of the times, as I walk out of the theater, I am left to ask and answer these questions on my own – it’s very much what I bring to the film. With “L’Humanite,” however, I felt like Dumont was asking and answering these questions for me, the audience, and himself.
I feel somewhat awestruck by Dumont's L'HUMANITE and very moved by it. I understand that it is incredibly indulgent in several parts, and this is definitely the first film of our screening list in which I've really felt the running time. I think Dumont is trying to make a film that accurately expresses pain and sorrow - at the world, at human kind, at oneself - and in doing so, it can become an experience that is exhaustive in its drenched emotion. But in the moments of silence, when all that can be heard is just the whistling of wind or indistinct chatter, when characters just sit beside themselves or let the world encroach upon them, when they simply contemplate, the film is absolutely transporting. The film is really meticulously put together, Dumont playing close attention to the choreography of each scene, how he uses landscapes to paint somber pictures, how his framing incorporates the loneliness of these characters through a vast emptiness or close-ups that reveal their fragility. But perhaps what I was most affected by was those moments in which Pharaon caresses and "smells" a criminal and Joseph. There is such an immediate intimacy and tenderness that I was completely overwhelmed by it. Especially in Pharaon's embrace of Joseph, the amount of compassion and understanding in that physical "closeness" is altogether graceful and breathtaking. The final kiss he shares with Joseph is indicative, I think, of human connection, and how beautiful it is when two people can really hold each other, not just physically but in an emotional way, when relationships can reach a level of transcendence that can transform even the most hideous of things - like rape and murder - into something that unifies. I know I've spoken rather poetically about Dumont's film, but such was the effect it had on me - an unforgettable one.
ReplyDeleteSarah Garcia
ReplyDeleteL’Humanite
Dumont
First of all, just a warning, do not watch this film on a plane. I did not anticipate the length of the sex scenes and had to have an awkward conversation with my dad explaining what I was watching. I did enjoy this movie, but I thought that it was way too long. I honestly got bored while watching it. I loved that the director and the editor held on shots, but sometimes it was a little too long which I think was there intention but there is no need to do that through out the entire film.
Also, I absolutely loved the scenery portrayed in this film. I was road tripping around Oregon after I watched this film and every time I looked around I was just thinking about this film, and how beautiful my surroundings would look on film. I mean the big open spaces juxtaposed against the tight singles of the characters just looked so good cut together. All in all the film was beautiful, which I think it needed to be because the images and themes it was portraying were so gruesome that it needed to lighten the audience with these images.
The plot kept me intrigued, but as soon as those girls got off the bus I knew it was the bus driver because they feared him so much, and then I thought that maybe the cop was involved too. I do not know why he was in hand cuffs in the end, but I think based off the kiss he had with the bus driver that he was involved in the crime as well, because they obviously had some kind of connection.
The thing that I did not like about the film was that I didn’t understand a lot of it. I didn’t understand the garden reference through out I didn’t understand how Dominio was connected to the plot, or if the main character was trying to get with her or her boyfriend. It just really confused me through out and kept throwing me for loops.
Also, I think that a major scene within the film was when he was looking at the piglets and the mother pig that was nursing. I did not understand why he felt so much sadness for her. I think that he felt sad for his mother, and for this mother, and for most women. I think he really did respect women, but then the whole relationship with Dominio through me off because he would watch her have sex with her boyfriend.
Honestly I really do not know what to think of the movie or any of the characters within the movie, because I am just confused. And to top it all off I don’t even know who committed the murder, which I don’t know is central to the film. I think that I am going to have to watch it again as painfully slow as it was to watch it in the first place.
Wow, yea this one is a very interesting movie. I can't say that I ever want to see it again, but it was...interesting nonetheless. I mean I thought that the main character had this weird presence to him that you just couldn't look away, so the movie had that going for it. Also, I like the idea that he is trying to get closer and touch the person who has done a heinous act. I also liked the relationship between the main characters, and how pathetic they were that they couldn't just confess their love and be together. I just thought it was too long and slow. Once their car broke down I gave this huge internal groan because I knew what kind of movie I was in for, one of those that gives you everything in real time like the Romanian movie Police Adj. I was with it for longer than I had expected, but then it eventually lost me, until the last 30-40 minutes. Just like Tiresia (although I liked Tiresia more), the last part of it was really interesting to me. Thing is that in this one, the pay off wasn't quite worth the running time of two and a half hours. Also, there was that image, when the lead woman is crying and then they show a closeup of her genitals. This was just too much. I get why it was there, but it almost became comical in the fact that it essentially was just a weeping vagina. I know that it was about what she feels like and how she is treated, but still, its a crying vagina, which is kind of ridiculous to me. I respect this movie, but it wasn't quite my cup of tea. Also, the last shot with the main character in handcuffs, intriguing and at least it gave me another thing to ponder at the end of the movie.
ReplyDeleteI see Dumont and Godard sitting together. On a red and black checkered table between them sit two empty glasses and an expensive bottle of wine. They're watching their own films, and stroking one another's thriving egos.
ReplyDeleteGodard and Dumont are pretentious in their own unique ways. There are a few commonalities between Godard's "Week End" and Dumont's "L'Humanite," however, that momentarily marries these individuals in my head.
Godard's "Week End" was a painful exercise in tolerance for for some, including myself. Certain scenes (e.g. the long dolly of a traffic jam) were dragged to tortuous lengths. Making these scenes (and the film itself) a more cumbersome experience is the lack of involvement with the characters, and a scatter shot plot that incorporates pseudo philosophy (won't forget you, worm and drum-playing scenes) and references to "high" art.
Dumont's "L'Humanite" also tests the endurance of a man, and also provides the audience with drab characters. The film drags on for a lengthy two and a half hours with no real payoff for its audience. As Dumont is quoted as saying in Tim Palmer's "Style and Sensation": "nothing happens, and this nothingness creates suspense." He's referencing both his films and the work of others within the New French Cinema of Cruelty. I do not doubt his sentiment carries a degree of truth; but I do question its value. When there is a vacancy and dullness to a film, the justification of "suspense" falls short, and begins to sound like the pretentious deconstruction of classical form Godard was noted for. In addition, as evidenced in class, like "Week End" (though in a perhaps unconscious rather than conscious manner), the film also makes reference to high art (even if Dumont shamefully denies it) in the form of shots usually reflective of still-life paintings, landscape shots also common in paintings, or the awkward shot of a female's vagina.
These types of films seem to attract a certain personality type that I--and many others--do not possess. Those that do, may bizarrely find solace in the work of two gentlemen that likely care for them not a jot.
"L'Humanite" was a film I see as chock full of symbolism and expressionistic art. To be quite honest, I did not get it. I tried looking for the deeper meaning in this film, but I just never got it. I thought, maybe it was just this film by Bruno Dumont that was too over my head. So, over the break I tried to watch another film of his, "29 Palms". Well again this went even more over my head. It seems to me after watching two of Dumont's films, he is a man who loves his symbolism. What this symbolism means seems to confuse the likes of everyone and his message never seems to get across to the viewer. While both films dealt with rape, "L'Humanite" was more the act of violence after the matter while "29 Palms" was violence as it happens. One theme that seems to exist within both films is man versus nature. L'Humanite had the oncoming fog that eventually reached our hero, while 29 Palms had a couple returning to Eden by traveling through the desert naked. Both strange films that don't seem to get anywhere nor have much to say. Bruno Dumont seems to have gone off the wall in the same way Jean Luc Godard did back in the late 60's. It's almost as if he doesnt want his audience to like his films. On the other hand, he does get a bunch of awards, so maybe I'm the crazy one.
ReplyDeleteL'Humanite was probably the worst film I've ever seen. And I once watched a Jamie Kennedy movie. At least Malibu's Most Wanted had a narrative structure. This film seemed to try to bore me to death, and if it weren't for the paramedics, it probably would have. The extremely long takes, with very little happening, often holding on someone breathing for an extended period of time just added to my boredom during the film. When I analyze the film, I guess it served a purpose. Maybe the director wanted us to be as bored as it probably is to live in wherever the hell this was shot, but if she wanted to do that she should have written a book. The graphic sex scenes and jump cuts to insanely loud machinery wasn't enough to keep me interested. I fail to see how the sex scenes served any purpose, or why this film needed to be as long as it was. It seemed to completely deconstruct what we're used to in a narrative structure, which I must admit, is admirable in that I would never think to try anything like this in a film, but I just can't lie and say I found this film interesting in the least. One thing I did think was good however, was the lead actor. Whats his name? I think he did an amazing job at playing quite possible the most awkward man on the planet. This guy nailed it. And while I found the entire film incredibly unbearable, something about this guy seemed unique, and at the very least, consistently uncomfortable. When I found out this guy wasn't an actual actor though, I feel like this was an accident. This guy is probably just this awkward. Maybe all those suspects just used really nice shampoo. Though I have bitched about this movie plenty, I do feel it does test what can be done (or not done) in a film, and I do certainly look at filmmaking differently having seen this film.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, L’humanite was one of the hardest films I’ve ever had to watch. Not because of the shocking content or anything like that but because of the painfully long duration of scenes and of the whole movie. In fact, besides for the initial shot of the little girl’s mutilated vagina, nothing else was particularly shocking at all. All of the sex scenes throughout the movie were extremely bland, unemotional, and relatively short (from start to finish). Having said all that, I am very happy that I watched L’huminate. First off, I feel accomplished having sat through the entire thing. Secondly, for some strange reason (which I’m sure was Dumont’s intention) I had a very, very empty feeling after having watched this movie, almost as if I tasted what main character Pharaon had felt all throughout the movie. At first, when Pharaon (who lives with his mom) is watching Domino and Joseph have sex, I thought perhaps Pharaon had some sort of mental disability. My favorite part of this movie definitely had to be when Domino tried to seduce Pharaon, who she knew had feelings for her. Instead of succumbing to physical temptation, Pharaon rejects Domino because he knows it won’t “mean” anything to Domino.
ReplyDelete