Christi Weinhuff

February 12, 2010

FILM201: Rattner

Midterm Paper

The Formative Tradition and Reality in Paris, Je T’aime

In an effort the catch the essence of love so frequently associated with the city of Paris, television producer Tristan Carne came up with an interesting concept. He recruited twenty directors of international recognition to each direct a short film about an individual arrondissement of Paris. The ensemble of directors was given only two rules: make your segment five minutes, and try to show love through the eyes of that particular neighborhood. Though the premise may seem realist- to show love in a distinct area of a real place- it is through analyzing the distinctly different modes of execution Paris, Je T’aime can be viewed from a formalist perspective. Through applying the ideas of formalist theorists Sergei Eisenstein and Béla Balázs to two of the short films, I will discuss the relationship of reality and technical devices of film that plays such an important role in the formative tradition.

While each of the formalist theorists has unique ideas, I want to establish some general beliefs about formalism before proceeding to Eisenstein and Balázs separately. The formative tradition has long attempted to elevate cinema to the stature of a fine art by making claims to set it apart from other phenomena that recreate the world. Formalists are staunchly opposed to the direct retelling of reality, and urge the importance of transforming things as they transcend from the realm of reality to cinema.

Sergei Eisenstein’s theoretical writing is characterized by a lot of erraticism and several contradictions. His double view of film’s form and purpose stems from the tension between the mechanical process of making a film, and the mental process of experiencing a film. At the core of his theory is the idea that film is composed of building blocks (each of which exist in their own world), which must be put together in meticulously organized sequences. These sequences must utilize every element to involve the spectators. Andrew says of Eisenstein’s ideas that “If the filmmaker is truly creative he will construct his own sense out of this raw material; he will build relations which aren’t implicit in the ‘meaning’ of the shot. He will create rather than direct meaning” (51). Eisenstein claims that the dominant attraction of any shot must be stripped of it’s artificially accepted meanings in reality (a process he calls neutralization), and then inserted into a system of relationships that assign it new meaning in the mind of the viewer. Every technical element of these shots must work symbiotically, and on a commensurate level. The assembly of appropriately manipulated shots finally achieves cinematic meaning “only when the mind leaps to their comprehension by attending to the collision of these attractions” (Andrew 52).

Béla Balázs believed that the technical elements of filmmaking must be carefully manipulated to create a film that could not actually exist in the real world, but the source of which is still readily identifiable to a spectator. He said that cinema as a true art form treats things drawn from the chaos and human dramas of the world in a way that no other medium can, and therefore reaches the level of art. His theory is characterized by much subjectivity, and involves the struggle with representing truth. “Each art deals with reality in its own manner and takes for its subjects just those aspects of reality which can be readily transformed by its special means” (Andrew, 87). These subjects need to interact with nature and setting, and he calls attention to cultural patterns that produce them and their meanings. Like Eisenstein’s neutralization idea, Balázs says we must humanize these objects by simplifying them and transforming them to a state where they accept new meaning when put into the context of a film.

As a whole, the concept of Paris, Je T’aime is more in congress with Eisenstein’s idea’s than those of Balázs. First, the very structure of the film is subsumed under his idea that films should be created out of individual building blocks. Each short story within the film is a building block is made of smaller building blocks (shots) that contribute to its overall message. The short films are strung together by beautiful shots of Paris that serve a montage-like purpose. Each short film is the same amount of time, which means that they all operate on a fairly commensurable level; yet each has a different meaning. The short amount of time allowed between each film gives the viewer ample time for consideration of what has just been seen, and allows their mind to consider the collisions of the individual attractions. Furthermore, Andrew states, “the story itself emerges from numerous such metaphors, the mind creating an interplay between specific workers struggling against a specific managerial system” (63). When the viewer considers the metaphor of each short film, the myth of Paris as a city so dominated by love emerges. This is in essence the goal that producer Tristan Carne had in mind when he developed the concept of this film.

Moving on to the individual short films, we begin with the “Tuileries” segment directed by American brothers Joel and Ethan Cohen. The segment stars Steve Buscemi as an American traveler who becomes the unfortunate pawn of a hot-blooded Parisian couple in the Tuileries metro station. The film opens on a long-shot of a nearly empty station followed by an extreme close up of Buscemi, who sits on a bench in an unnaturally symmetrical frame. Buscemi flips open his guidebook, which continues throughout the film to operate as a narrative device: after it tells us that Paris is a city for lovers, we immediately see a Parisian couple engages in an incredibly amorous kiss on the other side of the track. Then it tells us that eye contact should be avoided in the Metro Stations, and a series of extremely quick cuts directs us to an extreme close ups of Buscemi’s eyes, the Julie’s (the girlfriend), and then Axel (her boyfriend). Though Buscemi does not understand French, the guidebook informs that the Jealous Axel is threatening him in French slang. As Axel and his girlfriend Julie’s argument escalates, a train pulls in and obscures them, and within a moment she is next to Buscemi (yet we never see her cross over). Axel stands fuming on the other side of the tracks and watches as Julie kisses the pathetic American tourist and taunt him. Impossibly, Axel is suddenly on their side of the tracks continuously hitting Buscemi. The tourist lies defeated on the ground as his souvenirs are dumped onto him from the malicious Frenchman above, and the couple then saunters off completely in love again.

This way the segment is filmed is completely hyper-real: the lights and darks are enhanced, colors are distorted, and the close up shots are so outside the capacity of what one could actually witness in the real world that it almost seems the viewer is watching this activity unfold in a completely new dimension. It is disorienting in a way, yet this rendering is what both Balázs and Eisenstein would consider the essential manipulation of reality in order for it to be depicted in film. The story itself is what Balázs considers appropriate filmic material that is essential to the purpose of film: to “narrativize” the world in a way that only film can by manipulating technical modes. The Cohens have taken fragments of the individual human drama being depicted, broken them up, translated them, and communicated them in a cinematic way.

Furthermore, devices such as the train separate the spectator from the reality of what is occurring on either sides of the tracks; and it is a filmic device that also serves a narrative function in that it is what allows Julia to cross the train tracks. Buscemi’s guidebook is another of these devices that has a double function. As Eisenstein would say, the filmmakers have rendered each element of each shot equally important to the overall message as a whole- each of their functions are carefully thought out. Eisenstein and Balázs wrote at a time where every single element was incredibly important to the film as a whole. Today, this is not necessarily so true- in many films, unnecessary dialogue, images, and devices are seen all the time. Yet the time constraint and premise of the film that the Cohen brothers were working with essentially forced them to work in a manner very similar to the formative way: they made sure that every single element was relevant. Moreover, one danger of formalist theory is that the basis on technique can lead to a strict formula of how things should be shown, and the theory falls apart without support of form and purpose. This film, then, serves as an example of the relationship that technical devices have with their purpose. The various devices utilized here have been done so to serve a purpose that is inherent in the structure, and even title, of the film: to portray love in Paris.

The next short film segment from Paris, Je T’aime considered is the “Faubord Saint-Denis” short, directed by Tom Tykwer and starring Natalie Portman as Francine, an aspiring American actress in Paris, and Melchior Beslon as Thomas, her blind French boyfriend. The scene opens on Thomas answering his phone only to hear Francine recite a dramatic speech that makes us believe they are breaking up. Thomas is heard narrating and as the segment progresses, the dialogue varies between this narration and actual remembered converstaions. Scenes of their relationship are shown in extreme fast forward, as well as slow motion. Separated by random scenes are reoccurring scenes in of places where everyone and everything around the couple movse in slow motion as the couple stands in real time- but their position changes upon each return to that place: first they are hugging, next standing facing each other but distanced, then standing with space between them and their backs together, and finally, we see these places without them at all. Then, a quick cut brings up back to real time, and we realize from Francine’s voice on the line that she was merely practicing a monologue, and they are still very much in love.

This segment is what Eisenstein would consider extremely stylized. The use of extreme fast forward, slow motion, close ups and long shots are all examples of how things are manipulated in a way to take them out of reality. We saw this in the Cohen’s short, but here it is infinitely more dramatic. These filmic devices function on many levels to indicate temporal, physical, and emotional relationships. Everything around the two lovers has been distorted to such an extreme degree that it forces the viewer to focus on them while also considering the function of their surrounding environment. Eisenstein’s theory of montage stressed the importance of the viewer interacting with what they see and considering what is occurring. Andrew summarizes his idea: “Montage is the instrument of this heightened consciousness... it takes inarticulate or banal elements and fused them into ideas too rich for words. At its best, montage shapes these felt ideas into a grand syncretic emotional event, an event capable of reorienting out thought and our action” (57). This montage in this segment does incite an emotional reaction in the viewer: it leads them to believe that this couple has separated, and you feel sympathy for Thomas until we learn the truth. Similarly, Balázs believes that cinema should exist as an aesthetic device whose main purpose is extreme contemplation. He urges the filmmaker to twist reality in a way that is cinematic, but only to a degree that is still recognizable by the viewer. Tykwer has more than adequately done all of the above in this five-minute short. Therefore, cinematic purpose and form according to both Eisenstein and Balázs’ individual theories have been achieved and justified in this segment.

In his invaluable book, Theory of the Film, Balazs says, “It is not the substance but the form that constitutes the difference between them” (Theory of the Film, p. 161). I believe this quote is applicable on several levels to Paris, Je T’aime. First, the execution of each of the short films is what constitutes the difference between several love stories set in Paris. Additionally, Love universally acknowledged as one of the most powerful emotions in the world. Each filmmaker involved in this project has created meaning through their respective portrayal of love. Eisenstein considers the creation of meaning paramount to filmmaking. The various types of love we see in this film illuminate the different forms it can assume. When given the instruction to make a short film about love, each filmmaker showed it in a different way, which supports the endless possibilities that a filmmaker working in a formative manner can transform elements of “real” life into something entirely unique.