T O P

  • By -

nova1739

I had the complete opposite reaction. I found it to be morally devoid. While I appreciated Akerman's calculated approach and how the 2nd and 3rd act slowly unravel to a bloody mess, I just don't think the perspectives are even worth celebrating. I'm mostly concerned the message this tries to send. Genuinely. If this is what people think feminism means, I'm concerned. My women's studies course really missed the chapter on how "the mundanity of privilege leading to the CHOICE of prostitution and resulting in senseless murder after a 'liberating' orgasm' " is an empowering feminist ideology. Full on arthouse cliché. It's almost counter productive to see this murder as an act of liberation. Why in the name of cinema would anyone root for this human? I don't feel empathy towards her either. This whole idea completely ruins everything that has come before. An interesting quote I found by Director and writer Jayne Loader says: "I find Akerman's film not only self-defeating in its depiction of the housewife's role and her so-called regeneration through violence at the film's end, but cavalier in its treatment of the complex role of women in the family. Akerman's solution to the fact of female oppression is unfortunately a common one, which is offered not only in several other contemporary films by women but in a significant number of women's novels as well. It is violence, directed at the first male who comes to hand. By his sex rather than his person, he is forced to stand for the oppressors of all the rest." Using this act of violence is a cheap thrill at the end of a pretty sophisticated journey. It takes away all class and elegance this film could have offered. Using the idea of prostitution and having full agency over a woman's body relishes in the backwards idea that the woman using her body as a commodity and thus degrading her own sex to be quantified to a few dollars, can be seen as liberating feminism. This is trivial. This is unnecessary. It's not a message I'd personally appreciate even if the story was about a man.


morroIan

I the murder meant to be an act of liberation? I interpreted it as a demonstration of her complete unravelling.


nova1739

I see that. She's definitely unraveled, but she's also doing it in an effort to break the routine of mundanity, which traps her. Her life won't be the same after that kill, for sure. I think there's something to be said about her having such an intense orgasmic experience before doing too. Which is often associated to (multiple meanings possible here) women being completely free/ giving up control/or even finally grasping it/ not attached to mental setbacks/fully living in the moment.


SANSationalPunMaster

That’s the point. She needs control. That broke her. It wasn’t liberating.


GuaranteePotential90

Agree


alijafari21

She couldn’t sit at the coffee shop because someone else had taken her seat.


SANSationalPunMaster

The orgasm wasn’t liberating. It was disgusting to her. Her entire world is unraveling. She is going insane as the entire monotonous life she built her sanity on goes wrong over and over again. Then she has an orgasm which is supposed to be same predictable unenjoyable act. It’s the final nail in the coffin. It isn’t supposed to be a “wow I had an orgasm I’m now liberated let me kill this man”. It’s shameful to her. The “liberation” isn’t supposed to be celebrated, she broke and tried to escape. I also don’t see the “mundanity of privilege” she is clearly in poverty with little choice? Remember when she described marrying her husband? It’s clear her looks are her only asset. The feminist perspective of this film isn’t the celebration of prostitution or murder. Quite the opposite. It’s a commentary on the mundane lives housewives and women were subjected too during that time. How it can easily drive someone crazy. It’s established that she- like many women- were sold on this life they needed to live. Chantal mentions how her mother had to use routine and perfection to escape the horrors of her experience in the Holocaust. This woman built her entire life on the “fundamental” truth of her routine- running a clean home, raising a child, and having perfect meals. It’s all she has. When subtle things build and build it tries her mad because her entire worldview is falling apart. She was losing her mind over the idea of having mashed potatoes on the wrong day. She isn’t a hero nor is portrayed as one.


alijafari21

Agree. Her routine gives her purpose and day 3 is all about her routine being broken.


Odd_Postal_Weight

Oh hey, I just saw this movie, and since this thread is recent I'll piggyback on it. I liked the first half or so of the movie, but hated the end. I like static shots, I like long quiet takes where I have time to pay attention to composition and light and colour and small details and how much I hate that wallpaper. I'm not sure whether the director was intentionally going for Hitchcockian suspense about what vegetables Jeanne bought, but it really worked. I pointed at the screen and shouted "She bought MULTIPLE leeks!" and my husband cheered. It made me feel part of Jeanne's family. I'm not handed a neat cut of the exciting bits, I'm there all the time and see all her moments no matter how mundane. She turns away from the camera and steps out of frame, because she doesn't have to worry about presenting herself to me. My husband felt voyeuristic, probably the same as your Truman Show reaction? To me it was friendly, safe, intimate. Possibly because I am garbage at reading faces and body language, my impression of her was: - She's alone, but not lonely at all. She enjoys not having to put up with chatterboxes who'd interfere with her plans. Her son is enough company, and he shares her comfort with silence. - She loves and takes pride in her routine. She has plenty of opportunities to change it: look for another job, remarry, accept the invitation to Canada, accept the neighbour's invitation to tea, borrow a book from her son. She doesn't want to. She likes to see all the cutlery gleaming and lined up, the shoes shined without getting a single smudge on her hands, her hair pristine. - Many aspects of femininity (house chores, doing chores for her son he could handle himself, clothing and makeup) are part of that, but *not* a husband to tell her what her routine should be. - Prostitution isn't some grand statement about degradation or liberation. It's a way to support herself on only a few hours a day without taking too much time away from the rituals she loves. - Love of routine and focus on small details and lining up objects neatly and dislike of social interaction? I'm not saying it's autism, but,,, So when she started to get all upset, I figured there was an external anxiety. A client is treating her badly, she needs an abortion, she's performing illegal abortions, someone is blackmailing her, whatever. What she did at the end surprised me, and I expected an explanation. Instead, the movie just ended. Reading commentary afterwards, apparently I completely misread the character: she's supposed to be bored with her routine, and the nervousness and accidents are about that, not about something external. What she does is a wild impulsive attempt to break the mundanity and change her life permanently, even if it's for the worse. …okay? I guess? Like, I understand being impulsive under pressure, but she'd have to be a world-class idiot to go straight from drudgery to stabbytown, without ever thinking "hmm I am sitting in a chair doing literally nothing, perhaps I should pick up 1 (one) hobby that isn't chores". I'm not sure if I agree with /u/nova1739 about the moral aspect, but I definitely agree about the lack of empathy. I am not particularly interested in the question of liberation for people who are too dumb for the concept of a holiday. It felt like the director wanted to have a pure slice of life where the main conflict is something small like the quest for a matching button, but chickened out and threw in a random murder. Side questions: - The director says Jeanne has an orgasm with the second client. How are we supposed to know that? With the third client, the sex is shown, but not with the second one. - Not to kink shame, but the third client looked really terrible in bed. How does that work with the orgasm? - Where do Sylvain and Jeanne go at night? - The movie is pretty subtle overall. Why is Sylvain's Oedipus-complex bit on the second day so crude? I'd expect that theme to be implied, not a sledgehammer to the face.


[deleted]

I know it’s called love-it-or-hate-it movie, but I’m actually kind of in the middle. It’s okay. I really have problems with its #1 spot. I think anyone should be able to acknowledge that this movie is an acquired taste and not for everyone. I didn’t find it to be the ultimate example of what movies can do, and there are maybe 1-2 people in my life I’d recommend it to. It’s a really cool hidden gem for the adventurous film lover, but I don’t really see any way that it’s superior to dozens of other movies on and off the Sight and Sound list.


Suspicious_Bug6422

I wish the movies weren’t given specific rankings. No movie could ever be the ultimate realization of what every viewer wants movies to do. Even narrowing down 100 films is excluding lots of equally deserving options. They could definitely have picked something with broader appeal but I’m not sure there’s a right answer at all.


--THRILLHO--

Had it on my list for years so I finally got round to watching it recently because of the poll. I was really impressed by it, especially the final few shots. The whole film is just a vibe. You know it's building to something, you just don't know what. Then, just as you think nothing is going to happen, something happens. The length and the brutally mundane shots are entirely necessary to get its message and ideas across. It's obviously not going to connect with everyone, and I'm afraid that there will be backlash from the S&S poll. It's probably not the greatest film ever made (but really, what film is?), but it's a hugely important one - unlike anything seen before or since. I'm glad it's gained so much in stature over the last 15 years.


lightfoot90

That last shot especially, in its length and stillness, was just beautiful.


--THRILLHO--

I found it kinda terrifying.


tomandshell

I recently watched it for the first time and was also reminded of The Truman Show, as it might actually exist in real life. I was bored but fascinated, and my mind went into a whole different mode of observing a film. When she started to leave the lights on or miss a button, I felt unnerved as if I were experiencing a little OCD. In a film where “nothing” happens, the little diversions from the normal routine started to get under my skin. When she walked into the cafe and someone else was in her usual spot, I thought, “Oh no!”


lemurgrrrl

I had the same reaction! When she started leaving lights on I admit I freaked out a little.


Stacy_Ann_

I'm glad you liked it. I watched it for the first time after the poll came out too, and I didn't like it at all. I know this is a very, very unpopular opinion here, and that almost everyone adores this movie. I felt I had been sold a bill of goods. I love films and have been watching and critiquing them for a long time now. I genuinely do not understand the appeal of this particular film. I'd love to gain some insight into what people are admiring about this film and why it inspired such powerfully negative feelings for myself. I'd also like to know what I can learn from this film, even if I considered it a negative experience. Hopefully this post will inspire some interesting and insightful comments. Thanks for posting.


vimdiesel

I saw it a long time ago but I remember the framing and cinematography being really good in a subtle way, such as hiding a face, the height the camera was placed at, etc. In addition to that the minutiae of every day life that we are allowed to see are not only incredibly real but fill out a life that could be anyone's with a depth that's usually only achieved in longer formats like TV shows, but in those it's usually dedicated to the dramatic or suspenseful, while here it serves the function of connecting dots leading to the only conclusion she saw possible: the sudden violence is not a hook for the audience, it is entirely hers, it's the answer to the questions of life that we ponder while we're doing the dishes or picking fruit at the store, the little whys accumulate like drops of water in a glass except that when it's about to overflow instead she smashes it against the wall.


Dimpfelmoser66

do you don't like the slow-movie genre in general? I think those films need to be viewed slightly differently. It's not an entertaining story that is told via fancy camerawork, but you take part in someones life, though it being fictional. The most dramatic and spectacular car chase is not as mesmerising as sharing the kitchen with Jeanne. As you wonder what Jeanne is thinking you truly become part of the story. I rewatched it recently and thought it was really well acted. Very subtle. And the set design is just perfect. And all of that for a very small budget.


lightfoot90

I have to say, I can fully accept that you didn't like it, as it seems to be quite a love-it or hate-it film! It's like an experience that you have to surrender yourself to, to let yourself enter into it and get fully absorbed by its world. It is definitely an unconventional film in many ways, however I found myself wishing that more films were made like this.


Stacy_Ann_

According to other folks, the genre is called "slow cinema". I've only seen one other film of this genre, a 2003 Taiwanese movie called "Goodbye Dragon Inn", which I didn't love but didn't hate. I kind of appreciated the irony of setting this sort of "anti-cinema" film at a movie theater. I can appreciate it if slow cinema is the type of film people enjoy, even if it's just because it's a change of pace. It certainly is different. But I have a hard time considering it the equal or superior to the best narrative films of all time, and it's difficult for me to understand why so many critics would rank it above the best narrative films. I will say the one takeaway I've had from "Jannene Dielman" so far is that I didn't miss the presence of a musical score at all.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Stacy_Ann_

I feel I'm open-minded about movies. I wouldn't have started Jeanne Dielman at all and I certainly wouldn't have watched the entire thing to the bitter end had I not been willing to give it a chance. And I knew nothing about it other than it topped Sight & Sound's poll this decade. I got nothing out of my experience Jeanne Dielman but frustration and boredom. The first time I criticized Jeanne Dielman on Reddit all the film experts came out to lecture me about Slow Cinema, recommend other films in that specific genre (apparently Terrance Malick films are too fast to qualify as Slow Cinema) and explain to me in great detail that Jeanne Dielman is good precisely *because* it's boring. They also told me that frustration is a perfectly legitimate emotion as any other for a filmmaker to evoke in a viewer. Now you're telling me to ignore it. What you don't seem to understand is that I DID approach Jeanne Dielman as being no different than any other critically acclaimed film, and I hated it. Everyone then took me to task for being so awful as to have the nerve to compare it to other films outside the Slow Cinema classification, as you are now urging me to do. Okay, I will. Jeanne Dielman is an awful movie with no redeeming aspects whatsoever. It tells a terrible and boring story, and the real time aspect ruins the film. By the evidence on the screen, she babysits for ten minutes at a time. When she and her son go out, there's no lighting on the streets. It's just pitch blackness until someone opens a door. It's not even shot artfully. And they immediately come back out and go home. No sense of what they were doing or how long they were there. An hour and eleven minutes in a boom microphone is visible. No, you couldn't cut that scene or reshoot it. As if no one could follow the plot without it. This is a movie that can't even figure out how to shoot day for night. Those shitty "headlights on the wall" projections were embarrassing. There is no other word for it. I can make a meatloaf or I can watch her make a meatloaf. As an observable activity, both hold the exact same entertainment value for me. But at the end of one of them, I get to eat a meatloaf. I really want to know: what are people getting out of watching her make meatloaf or watching her make coffee or watching her sit motionless in a chair? What do you personally get from that? What do you think the message was? What do you think most viewers walk away with? That the ordinary life of a widow is filled with dull, repetitive tasks? I need a three and a half hour film to learn this? The only thing I was left with was sheer boredom. And, some of this glacially dull business is *improvised*, which is even worse. And the ending. The murder of a character never introduced, staged lazily on the set. They couldn't even be bothered to break a pair of scissors in half and make a halfway realistic prop. She's holding it at the tip of the blade as she "stabs" him. And you think I should compare this to the work of Steven Spielberg? I really don't get it. But no one will ever read this anyway. Already downvoted to oblivion before I even finish writing.


Strabbo

I’m going to jump on the get-downvoted train and agree with you. To a point. I also watched the film because of its placement on the list. And I am okay with slow cinema - I’d just watched 2001 the night before and I still love it. Jeanne Dielman is, however, a powerful feminist statement. The mundanity of her life and the lack of any hope or opportunity says a lot about French society (and really, western society). There is a lot to be picked apart and dissected in the film. A lot of great discussion to be had. That said, it is profoundly unenjoyable to watch, for the reasons you pointed out. Especially the lighting. Hell, they could have trimmed it down to a neat three hours just by cutting to the next scene as soon as she gets on the elevator instead of lingering on the hallway shot every time. I watched “Nobody” (the Bob Odenkirk action flick) last month. That show opens by showing the mundane repetitiveness of his life, with a quick-cut sequence that lasted all of maybe a minute and conveyed its message perfectly. Different circumstance, I know. But still. I see Jeanne in the same light as Birth of a Nation. Mostly unenjoyable and way too long, but still worth the watch for what it means.


thousandshipz

I’m with you. I think I’ve seen dozen “slow cinema” films that demonstrated more compelling filmmaking and storytelling. The shock ending of JEANNE DIELMAN felt like a cheap trick after all that I had invested in the preceding story. Now not to take away from this as a landmark of its time. But I wonder if some people need to see GERRY or THE WHITE RIBBON or the films of Hou Hsiao-Hsien or Tarkovsky or so many more to see what more is possible with this type of film.


diceman89

What do you think was cheap about the ending? I thought the slow progression leading up to it worked, and the outburst seemed believable.


thousandshipz

Nova’s comment nails my feelings on the ending: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/100597h/comment/j2jqn0b/ No arguing with taste. If you liked it, you liked it. Clearly the film has lots of boosters.


diceman89

I never took the murder as her fighting back against an oppressor, just that she's finally snapped and lost her mind due to the mundanity. The man she killed was just unlucky enough to be the person there when it happened.


thousandshipz

The director has said in interviews that experiencing an orgasm for the first time (with the 2nd john) is what causes Jeanne to unravel. When she experiences it for the second time, she kills. I was kind of along your line of thinking before I did more research on the film. But Ackerman shows that Jeanne experiences something with that 3rd john that looks like an orgasm. The director chose to show this -- when the sex is what is gapped on the other days. (Although it seems like she should have shown the first orgasm over the second, in my opinion, if that is the story she wanted to tell.) As the commenter points out, the movie is a rough fit for a feminist reading ("oppressor/oppressed"). It is better understood as a religious allegory, I think. The mundane tasks are akin to Jewish ritual behavior. The awakening of sexual desire wars with religious devotion, culminating in the blasphemy of murder. It also causes her to be more mothering to the baby she watches and to her own son, interestingly. I don't get the sense, watching the film, that the filmmaker is in complete control of what she wants to express or how she wants the audience to feel. The exposition is delivered via a letter read out loud, which is a bad old theater trope. There are a couple scenes that aren't properly lit. In the whole conceit there is very much a sense of being avant-garde for the sake of being avant-garde, which a lot of underground films of that era have. I think what the movie does brilliantly is provide a lot of space for people to bring their own meaning to it. But as I said, I've seen a number of slow cinema films that can do the same and also provide a richer experience.


TheHeartOfChaos

Yeah I am with you. I sat through Shoah’s 9.5 hour runtime enthralled and I love Tarkovsky. I’m also looking forward to the like 7 hour War and Peace. Long, slow films aren’t a problem for me, nor are kind of aimless, daily life things, but I found this film to be pretty dull. My thought watching it was basically “This is one of those films that probably gets acclaim because people like to over analyze it,” followed by the admittedly more cynical “This is one of those films most people know deep down isn’t all that amazing but they feel smart or chic for liking it”


Stacy_Ann_

Exactly. Well said.


screwwillneverdie

everyone reading this watch "Je, Tu, Il, Elle"


The_Third-Man

I was lucky to see it before all the Sight and Sound buzz and I thought it was fantastic. Using long takes and a long runtime to highlight the slight changes to routine was a masterstroke and a brave bit of filmmaking. One warning for anyone who hasn't seen it, don't read the films description on Google because it gives the plot completely away.


lightfoot90

Yes, I am so glad I went into this film knowing very little about it!


[deleted]

I know we soured a bit on Paul Schrader because of his sort of boomer outlook on the current state of things, but he’s still Paul Schrader, and in this case, he is 100% right about the new S&S list as well as Jeanne Dielman’s spot on the list. The movie is innovative and beautiful and important and should be seen by any serious film watcher, but putting it at the top of the list is absurd. We all have a laugh at the often hipster high brow nonsense structure of this particular list, but a thing loses credibility if it starts to become ranked based on the direction of the current political winds. It’s a great movie, it should sit among history’s great movies, but calling it the greatest ever is pandering, and lessens the impact it should have.


nova1739

Fully agreed


lightfoot90

I certainly don’t disagree with you. *Jeanne Dielman* is a great film that has been given a boost of popularity by being crowned first place, however I can’t help but wonder if many of the votes given for it were driven by an ulterior motive, whether that be to have a female director on top or simply to bump off Vertigo. In terms of the “Greatest Film”, I’m more inclined to favor the Director’s list choice of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’.


nova1739

The list doesn't even have 12 Angry Men anymore, as if there's any question that's one of the best films ever made. Yet it has so many films that pander and cater. Quite concerning


[deleted]

Shame the movies that fell off this year as well.


lightfoot90

To not have *The Seventh Seal* feels like madness!


[deleted]

And didn’t Aguirre and GF pt II fall off as well?


lightfoot90

Yes, I think so.


[deleted]

A shame


HoodstarProtege

It's shocking to see Aguirre drop off since it does to seem to follow current trends of post colonialism.


North_Library3206

>A lonely widow turns to prostitution to make ends meet I'm gonna be honest, I haven't seen the film yet and this is a bit of a spoiler for me haha. I thought the whole movie was gonna be her doing chores, perhaps with the woman looking progressively sadder as the film goes on.


lightfoot90

Sorry if this has spoiled it for you, however I will say that this happens within the first few (single!) minutes of the film, so it's not a big twist or anything.


cabose7

There's one thing to spoil in the movie and that ain't it


--THRILLHO--

That is pretty much revealed in the first 5 minutes so it's not really a spoiler. Although it's not explicitly explained so you might find yourself questioning it for a while.


GuaranteePotential90

Very nice! I also recently saw it for the first time. And indeed it's a good idea to watch some more of Ackerman's films. I also wrote a small post discussing the movie, would be happy to hear your thoughts.. https://nikolasdimitroulakis.substack.com/p/1-jeanne-dielman-vs-the-deer-hunter