Blog - by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky on Friday, June 19, 2009 17:25 - 8 Comments

Back to Le Beau Serge

by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky

Roland Barthes didn’t like Le Beau Serge. No use arguing with a dead man, but you can argue with his ideas. Barthes was a reader and not a viewer. A reader always imagines the author’s voice; he sees something monstrous and imagines that it has to be the product of a monstrous mind and not his own reaction. Barthes believed he was critiquing a film, but what he was critiquing was the author he imagined. His criticism of the imagined Chabrol is valid; Barthes was right, but the idea was wrong. When he criticizes the characters of the film, he thinks of them in terms of literary characterizations and signs, and not as the many other things movie characters are: actors, performances, images, real people. He was right, for instance,  to attack the simplistic characterization of the country folk; what he ignores is that the people of Sardent play themselves. Le Beau Serge is so hard to see in the US that Barthes’ attack on the movie is probably as well known at this point as the film itself — something we’ve all learned to hate without seeing, like that tracking shot in Kapò. Doc Films had the audacity to show us the truth about The Struggle before Kino gave it a reputable DVD. A year later, the first week of their summer program includes Le Beau Serge.

Barthes saw the Chabrol film and read in it the director’s right-wing tendencies. But the politics of a filmmaker are second to the politics of the image. The thing that makes movies dangerous is that they are inherently radical. The most conservative idea takes on a radicalism when it informs a movie. I won’t argue Clint Eastwood’s politics, but there aren’t many American directors working right now who are as radical. The history of cinema shows us that the most reactionary films were mostly made by people who believed themselves to be forward-thinking, while the modern was largely invented by late Victorians, right-wingers, monarchists and anti-communists. Forty years later, we know that the real Chabrol is a lot more complicated (and more left-wing) than Barthes’ imagined one. But it’s not Chabrol’s politics that I want to write about, it’s the movie itself.

Francois (Jean-Claude Brialy) arrives home for the winter; just off the bus, he spots Serge (Gérard Blain), as shabby as Francois is prim. Brialy with the leather gloves, mannequin hair and rolled-up magazine, Blain ambling away with a half-smoked cigarette and two days’ worth of beard. “What happened to Serge?” Francois asks, “he used to be such a terrific guy.” He’s filled in on the details: who’s dead, who’s alive, and how Serge got married and abandoned his studies after he knocked up a local girl. It’s the sort of town where the streets are empty but there’s always someone in the bar.

Interpreted “psychologically,” Le Beau Serge’s images are jarring. We’re shown Francois’s Serge, Serge’s Francois, sometimes even Chabrol’s Blain or Brialy, but never at the same time. So we have Francois’ cool and disheveled image of his old friend, and we have Serge’s recognition of Francois as he is roused from a drunken stupor, first as a pale hand that enters the frame and finally as a half-angelic face. But we’re also given Serge as a handsome, needy mess, and Francois as the distant dandy. We are given the chance to see them as monsters, as ordinary people, as faces abstracted by street lights.

Barthes complained that movies undermined themselves because they gave us too much. Too many conflicts, too many mixed signals. He liked films for what they could show their audiences, not for what they gave their audiences the opportunity to see or feel. But the beauty of Le Beau Serge is in the way it interrupts an “important” tracking shot so that the camera can catch a group of children running across the street. In the way that every image of the dance hall scene gives us pathos, from the old man stamping forearms to mark that people have paid the price of admission to the confrontation between Brialy and Blain in the light of the windows. In the sensation each of us imagines as Brialy rubs a handful of snow in Blain’s face at the end. The Beau Serge I’ve seen and the one Barthes wrote about are different films because we’re different people. Therein lies its greatness.

Le Beau Serge will be playing Wednesday, June 24th as part of the summer program at Doc Films at the University of Chicago. It will screen August 7th at Cinematheque Ontatio.



8 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Frank Capra
Jun 21, 2009 2:05

Very perceptive Ignatiy, very perceptive indeed. A little TOO perceptive if you ask me…

Daniel Gorman
Jun 22, 2009 22:31

Yes, very nice Ignatius. I’m not very well versed in early Chabrol, one of my many cinematic blindspots, but it seems to me that he’s been on quite a run for the last decade or so. La Ceremonie certainly has a critical reputation, but The Flower of Evil, Merci Pour la Chocolate, Comedy of Power and A Girl Cut in Two seem to have come and gone with even a raised eye brow. It’s a shame, since Chabrol seems to be investigating the society from the inside out, never forgetting his characters humanity but never sparing them the scalpel, either. Rosenbaum has a nice piece on La Ceremonie, which speaks about Chabrol’s recognition of both the poor, uneducated women who will become executioners and the bourgeois family that functions as, well, a perfectly nice family. Or the pseudo-incestuous relationship at the center of Flower of Evil that is in fact one of the most delicate romances in recent film memory. There’s still a lot to discover with him.

critic pimp
Jun 27, 2009 13:34

While I like early Chabrol, I don’t like his latter work for the same reason I dislike late works by Resnais, Rivette, and Ruiz: while their early stuff was ground breaking and exciting, their recent films just feel like they were made by old men.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky
Jun 27, 2009 18:06

What’s wrong with old men? I think the old usually make more radical films than the young — that’s certainly true of Resnais. I think his work since the early 1980s is even more original than the early films. They’re certainly the sorts of movies a younger director could never make, but that’s because the young are usually too concerned with impressing people. Only a person with a reputation as established — and a filmography that already covers so much ground — could take those kinds of risks.

critic pimp
Jun 28, 2009 15:00

Ignatiy

For any artform to stay relevant the young must rebel against the ways of the old and reinvent their craft. look at any movement in the history of film. once a filmmaker hits 30 they should be barred from making movies and pass the torch to the next generation or movies will become stale. dont even try to argue with me, i studied cinema at yale. what are your credentials? if you do not accept new ideas the next movement will depart without you and you will be the one with poop in your pants.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky
Jun 28, 2009 15:20

Your idea is a romantic one, but it’s flawed. Most directors start late. It comes with the territory. That’s even true of the ones we’ve already discussed: Resnais was 37 when he made Hiroshima Mon Amour, Rivette was already 30 when he started Paris Belongs to Us (32 when it was released), Chabrol was 30 by the time he directed his fourth film.

My question is: who do you consider to be major contemporary filmmakers?

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky
Jun 28, 2009 15:29

Addendum:

I’m not sure what movements you are referring to here, either. Most movements in film re-purposed ideas from previous generations to create something new. The ones that designated themselves as “breaking with old ideas” were usually reactionary. You have to remember that what the Nouvelle Vague were rebelling against were people who believed they were creating a new, better, more “artistic” cinema.

Daniel Gorman
Jun 28, 2009 22:34

critic pimp - with all do respect to Yale, but they should have taught you not to make ridiculously broad generalizations that can never be backed up by anything other than opinions. Here I thought this site, and Ignatius’ very generous, polite responses would generate conversation. But since you’ve demanded that we not even dare try to argue with you, I guess I’ll just shut the fuck up. In the meantime, I’ll be enjoying Seven Women, Red Line 7000, China Doll, White Dog, Private Fears in Public Places, The Human Factor, etc. Although I will admit that Scorcese gets less interesting the older he gets. You’ve got me there.

Leave a Reply

Our Policy on Comments

Comment

About the Author
Top Posts