 |
 |
| Directed by Benoît Jacquot; Starring Isabelle Huppert, Vincent Martinez, Vincent Lindon, Marthe Keller, François Berléand, and Danièle Dubroux |
As much as I truly hate to admit this, it is quite a rarity that I see a movie without any prior knowledge about it. I see most films in first run, so I’m there for many viewings of many trailers. Anyone that has kept an eye on trailers lately would notice that they are getting as bad as back in the forties and fifties and giving away the entire film. Recent films like Pleasantville and Arlington Road have given away the endings to their films (in the case of Pleasantville, the audience is practically shown the final scene in its entirety!). Sure this has angered me, but still I remain in the seat as the previews begin before the films. I see this as giving more information than I need to know before I see a film. I actually would rather not known anything about a film. Before I see a film, I often check the critical consensus on http://www.rotten-tomatoes.com, but I rarely read any print reviews (one must recall that Gene Siskel gave away the big twist in The Crying Game in his review). The only things that really fill me with information are trailers and watching Siskel & Ebert every week.
What does all this have to do with The School of Flesh (L’ École de la chair)? Well, School is one of those very few films. It was never trailered at any screenings I visited and I do not remember it ever being reviewed on Siskel & Ebert (though it very well may have been). I entered the theatre and only knew the name of the director and the lead actress. I knew none of the plot, none of the twists, and none of the ending. It was actually refreshing to see a film and actually learn something with every frame instead of just awaiting the film to get beyond the furthest its trailer delved. I enjoyed the film very much, though I think that I would have liked it just as much had I seen it already knowing what it was about.
So that leads me to exactly what the film is about (as usual I do not believe that I go beyond anything that one should not know before seeing the film). Dominique (Huppert) is a wealthy woman in France who has been less than lucky in dealing with relationships since leaving her husband. Though in her sixties, she begins a relationship with a very young hustler she met at a bar named Quentin (Martinez; looking alarmingly like a shaven Vincent Gallo). They begin a torrid romance that seems inevitably doomed. He cannot settle down his rogue and ungentlemanly ways, while she cannot stand the slightest deviation from neatness and eloquence.
The film uses its rare nudity (rare considering its American title) in the same way that Eyes Wide Shut used its nudity. There is no real erotic scene in the film, it is pretty much all characters. The film is what could easily be considered the quintessential filmmakers’ film: a film that gets to show off the ability of its director, cinematographer, editor, writer, and actors without being filled with constant explosions and atrocious distractions. The film is all talk and thought. Much of what is said in the film is simply told through body movement (in other words, if subtitles distract you, stay away from the film) and that only causes the actors to show off more prowess than a script that just draws a map of the film. The actors are brilliant, with Huppert shining beyond any English language performance from a female this year. Jacquot shows himself as a very refined and interesting director and writer, with Caroline Champetier’s cinematography and Luc Barnier’s editing also looking rather impressive. Still there are lulls in the story and the film somewhat falls apart at the end. The film on a whole works, even though I thought that its ending was rather weak. A thought provoking and haunting journey into the minds of two different individuals that impressed me in a visual sense and a mental sense throughout.
