Innocence (the 2004 French film)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I couldn't find a thread about this movie... I saw it yesterday, and liked it quite a lot, though with a few reservations. The cinematography and the mis-en-scène were immensely beatiful, the whole film was just a thrill to watch. Lucile Hadzihalilovic, the director, is Gaspar Noé's producer-editor and wife, and I couldn't help finding some similarities to his films - mainly the circling camera and the sourceless low frequency noises used to create a sense of menace. However, Hadzihalilovic used these effect more sparingly and to better effect than Noé in Irreversible.

I've read several reviews that say the film is hard to get and open to interpretation. I didn't really feel this was the case; Innocence is about growing up as a woman (and the concomitant loss of "innocence", whatever that is), right? The dance practices were sort of a rehearsal to look and act properly feminine (the scene with the headmistress made this rather clear), and the unseen audience in theater seemed to be preparing the girls to when they'll be judged by their feminity (or the lack of it), even by people they don't know. Actually, I thought the final scene with the fountain spelled out the theme of the movie rather too blatantly; the symbolism was so obvious it felt crude, though I guess the water imagery made the cycle presented in the film (intercourse - birth - growing up - intercourse - etc.) complete. I liked how the film made the viewer identify with the process of growing up. At first the we saw thing through the eyes of Iris, and the things outside the park (outside innocence) felt really mysterious and downright scary. But gradually things began to get clearer, and when Bianca got out of the park, pieces had fallen into their place, and the outside wasn't scary anymore.

The only thing I felt the film was ambiguous about, was the sort of a forced innocence in it a good or a bad thing? On one hand, the way the girls were treated felt coercive and conservative (you shouldn't lose your innocence before it's inevitable), on the other hand the teachers weren't really that strict (it felt more like they were trying to soften the impact the girls would have to feel once they step outside the park), and they seemed to enjoy themselves too, outside the gaze of judgemental eyes (that they'd nevertheless had to face later on). And, continuing on the thought, was the loss of innocence a good or a bad thing? The preparations for it certainly felt worse than what happened once the girls go outside. I guess the film wasn't about morality rather than inevitability, though the exact inevitability of how girls were/are judged was put under a critical eye. Anyway, one question that was left totally open was, what happened to the two girls who wanted to leave the park before their time? The first one seemingly died, but if the film is accepted as pure metaphor, did that merely mean that she lost her innocence "too soon"? What about the other one, who climbed over the fall? Her fate was left open, though the woods she entered certainly felt ominous, with dog barks, and what seemed to be gunshots (was there a hunt going on?).

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 11:25 (twenty years ago)

Has no one seen this?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 21 November 2005 08:16 (twenty years ago)

I guess not.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:48 (twenty years ago)

three weeks pass...

never realized we had a thread for it.

― Klaus Darko (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 14 December 2005 19:27 (twenty years ago)

Well, maybe you could say somethinbg about it?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 14 December 2005 19:47 (twenty years ago)

three weeks pass...

out tomorrow, here

― cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 5 January 2006 20:42 (twenty years ago)

Everyone should see this... And please don't read my original post if you're going to, it's better to view the film with it's mystery intact. It's not a perfect movie, but it has a an atmosphere and quality that's quite unique and spellbinding. I've seen so many movies in my life that these days it's rare to catch one that feels new, that does something with the media no one's ever done before, but Innocence I think was such a film.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 6 January 2006 12:38 (twenty years ago)

Wonderful film. Just saw it today. I wonder if it is pure metaphor like you say, Tuomas. What an atomsphere! (Though, a lame couple in front of us sniggered for 15 minutes and left, which spoiled the atmosphere somewhat.

A terrific debut if you understand me. Not a perfect film, I agree (who cares about perfection!) but I'm eager to see her next move. I might go again on Sunday.

Anyway, I had seen a few references to Angela Carter, but having actually watched the film (and being no fan of Carter), I feel that they're a bit of a red herring. cf. the title: taken as a whole, this isn't (totally) about awakening adolescence so much as how sad and lonely and frightening and disappointing childhood can be--for children and those who care for them.

Cozen, please do go and see it. It is very deliberately paced, but stick with it. It opens up, wonderfully.

I think it was edited by Gaspar Noe; was this apparent to anyone?

It's funny, I watched Michael Powell's The Red Shoes last night, and the two complement each other so well.

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:30 (twenty years ago)

Also, you undersell her ability to handle symbolism: when is visual symbolism ever done perfectly?

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:31 (twenty years ago)

tomorrow is going to be one hell of a day, I fear

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:32 (twenty years ago)

In fact, I felt the moments when the camera was immersed in water and then sprang suddenly to the surface quite powerful.

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:34 (twenty years ago)

Shame. It really is worth your time. It's only on for three days here. Travesty!

x-post

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:35 (twenty years ago)

oh I just have a v.v. busy day is all; I'll definitely go see this

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:36 (twenty years ago)

me too - text me coz.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:38 (twenty years ago)

fkn e-mailed you three times

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:39 (twenty years ago)

but yeah

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:39 (twenty years ago)

and then come talk about it!

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:45 (twenty years ago)

ok ok!

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 6 January 2006 16:52 (twenty years ago)

Three days only? I find it odd this film hasn't gotten more attention. It's exactly the sort of film the art house crowd should love, and it isn't really difficult, in the sense that is a pleasure to watch, even if you don't "get" it.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 6 January 2006 17:01 (twenty years ago)

Yeah. There is only one 'arthouse' cinema where I come from, and it's choice of films is uniformly dull.

The girl who sold us our tickets told me that "there were just so many other films to show"--presumably one of these is some absolute disaster with Steve Coogan, which was shown as a trailer beforehand.

*sigh*

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Friday, 6 January 2006 17:06 (twenty years ago)

Well actually, I lie, it isn't the only arthouse cinema, but its the biggest anyway.

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Friday, 6 January 2006 17:07 (twenty years ago)

Did you see it, Cozen?

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Saturday, 7 January 2006 23:47 (twenty years ago)

trying to read this thread to see if people liked it without reading spoilers. please post key phrases in bold.

― [tuvan throat singer's profound lyric sheet-must read again] (nordicskilla), Saturday, 7 January 2006 23:49 (twenty years ago)

Yes, I enjoyed it!

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Saturday, 7 January 2006 23:53 (twenty years ago)

i thought this was not very good.

― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 8 January 2006 04:49 (twenty years ago)

Why's that?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 8 January 2006 17:37 (twenty years ago)

I went to see it; with jed

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:16 (twenty years ago)

"there is something ineluctably precise about lucile hadzihalilovi's images: a rigor and circumscription of composition, light, line, and sound, that limns meticulously visible forms of the mysterious, the unheard, and the yet-to-come - all this, however, without filling in any "definitive" content. precise, rigorous, meticulous, hadzhihalilovic's films are simultaneously oneiric, haunting, and disconcertingly vague. indeed, watching her work, one has the sense that both everything and nothing is given. what we see and hear is thoughtfully chosen and intensely meaningful, but at the same time, it absolutely belies (and belittles) any intepretation that would go beyond (or beneath) its own literal premises and presence before us. as if listening to a foreign language that we do not understand but know has meaning, given both everything and nothing through its form and cadence, we find ourselves anxious about missing something - leaning forward and looking and listening (with more intensity that if we were fluent) for those few images or sounds that suggest something known and familiar, that allow us to locate ourselves, even if for a moment, in a situation that largely eludes our grasp. likewise, watching hadzhihalilovic's films, it becomes extremely difficult to relax our gaze or to look away from the screen. the intensity of our experience thus emerges not from our engagement with story or a character's psychology, or an emotional identification with her situations, but rather from what gaston bachelard [...] called "dream devices known to us as seeing and hearing." given form and voice by hadzhihalilovic's poetic images, these dream devices intensify our senses into an ultra-seeing and ultra-hearing, a "hearing oneself seeing... [and] hear[ing] ourselves listen."" [vivian sobchack, "waking life: on the experience of innocence", filmcomment]

"ineluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes." [james joyce]

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 18:33 (twenty years ago)

I'm not certain if that first comment is supposed to be negative or positive, but I don't agree that it lacks a "definitive" content or a meaning beyond what we see on the screen. At least everyone I went to see it with agreed upon the same basic interpretation of the film, though obviously the vagueness, the freedom to fill the metaphor with your own experience was a big part of it's charm.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 19:08 (twenty years ago)

against the intepretative SICKNESS:
"it is not surprising, then, that speaking to audience members before a screening of innocence, hadzhihalilovic asked that they not try to figure out the film but instead immerse themselves in it."

I love love loved the titles! they could have gone on forever and I'd have been happy; esp. the title screen

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 19:12 (twenty years ago)

ditto cozen.

tho my friend, unused, perhaps, to seeing the credits upfront, laughed. couldn't 'immerse' properly obv.

did you like it?

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 20:49 (twenty years ago)

i also liked the fountain cutting to 'a gaspar' cutting to the lights coming up in the cinema.

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 20:50 (twenty years ago)

I... am conflicted, as ever

I had read the filmcomment article a few days before - hadn't heard of the film till then, in fact - so was loaded with expectations of being shown this half world between what is and what's not - which the film delivered upon in patches of enchantment... didn't feel like reading the film but then as I said I was already loaded (and am already loaded) against interpretation so, it's difficult to say, again

I wouldn't recommend it to many, if I'm being honest; one of those films I wished my SO had seen (haha so she cd 'explain' it to me!)

I liked it; and I didn't not like it, but

: ) sorry

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 20:53 (twenty years ago)

yes; had the film just been its titles it would have been perfection itself.

perhaps I can self-release a fan's cut

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 20:54 (twenty years ago)

im sorry, too, tuomas, in that im rather anti-interpretation too: esp. of visual 'art'. partly 'cos im shallow and partly 'cos im lazy and partly 'cos don't want to analyse away my enjoyment and partly 'cos i couldnt and partly 'cos i think its 'meaning' would actually be silly and lame.

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 21:05 (twenty years ago)

'two thumbs up'

― steviespitfire (steviespitfire), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 21:06 (twenty years ago)

But movies are a narrative as well a visual form of art, and Innocence certainly had a more firm dramatic arch than some of the artsier (less narrative) films I've seen. I thought there was a rather clear logic to what happened in the movie (at least the three friends I saw it with seemed to agree), though not everything was there to "get", and in general things didn't have one precise interpretation. I don't feel thinking about the meaning took anything away from the film, quite the opposite, otherwise I'd just ended up with the sort of vague thoughts lined out in Cozen's first quote.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 21:19 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

Innocence (the 2004 French film) - SPOILERS!