CLOSE- ify

Through a stranger's eyes Gilles Carle and the image of Quebec

by Richard Martineau

Gilles Carle has mentioned his uneasi­ films, to tell the truth. For example, he conception and act, between idea and and, what is more, the original author ness about adapting novels, his balan­ sets up the elements of a certain political result that he can't cross. It's as if Gilles was there to participate in 1 he screen- cing act between respect for a novel and and social criticism in La mart d'un Carle has never been willing to follow writing. a desire to go further. Maria Chapdelaine bucheron without really taking his ideo­ his choices to their final consequences 1 If Maria Chapdelaine ultimateh fails suffers from this indecisiveness from logical commitment all the way. Or, in think that only Les Plouffe comes off all as a psychological film, never living up beginning to end. Like a lot of his other Fantastica, he traces a certain parallel right in this respect, along with La vraie to its ambitions, it's the same failure as between theatre and life without e\er nature de Bernadette, his best film to in its reconstruction of traditional Que­ expressing it fully. Or he connects chess date. However, the novel of Les Plouffe bec folk-wii>s. There also. Carle is torn to international politics in The Great didn't pose the same problem in its between Hemon's vision of our customs Richard Martineau writes for a number C/iess Movie, without ever going beyond adaptation : the situations and the treat­ and a need for authenticity. In this ofQfiebecfilm publications. simple assertion. It alinost seems that ment were clear and the characters regard, and other criiirs have noticed with Gilles Carle there's a gulf between well enough de\ eloped to be interesting this, se\ eral detail.s are confusing : for

Cinema Canada - June 1983/15 example, the consumption of maple delaine. In the novel, Louis Hemon did introduces some picturesque details (as Quebec full of simple and simplistic syrup in a region that doesn't have anv, not merely present anecdotes or senti­ mentioned above), but there are other people. Thus, the French idea of the or the unprecedented appearance of a mental dramas experienced by Maria. revealing details. There's the glaring Quebecois, e.xpounded by Hemon, is deer in Peribonka. Although an effort Written by a Frenchman while in Quebec fact that the Peribonka habitants speak confirmed. was made to recreate the Lac St-Jean and first published in Canada in 1916, an almost impeccable international It is astounding that a Quebecois region in 1910 more or less credibly, at Maria Chapdelaine contributed greatly French. The role of the priest, a paterna­ filmmaker approaching the 'myth' of many points it just doesn't work. The to the sense of cultural alienation expe­ listic figure par e/ccellence according to Maria Chapdelaine should give us such characters are so unbelievable in them­ rienced by the Quebecois. Once again, Hemon, is played by a French actor, a politically bland film. To really unde^ selves that the historical reconstruction they were defined by a foreigner. But Claude Rich. And it's Carole Laure, a stand what it's all about, it is interesting seems all the more suspect, all the more this time, for the whole world, because star idolized by the French, who plays to note what Carle has said about his mannered. As for the atmosphere, let's the novel was translated into 18 langua­ Maria Chapdelaine even though she film ; that although he doubted Maria's just say that it only rarely rises above the ges and published in 25 countries. The does not typify the earthy image of the popularity in Quebec, he was sure - most simplistic level. The beautiful ex­ after-effects of Maria Chapdelaine have heroine described by Hemon. But, after smile intact - of its success in France. teriors and the often slick cinematogra­ not been easily dissipated. For a long all, this is not so surprising. We have to Thus the failure of Les Plouffe is aven­ phy together create a cliched romanti­ time and still today, there kept reappea­ remind ourselves Ihat this cinematogra­ ged. The solution is simple. It is to give cism. And the waterfalls and other 'se­ ring a vague desire by Quebecois to phic adaptation of Maria Chapdelaine the French what they expect, even if it evaluate themselves in the light of for­ xual' symbols seem more like awkward was above all the project of French deals with our national image. Once eign criteria and to be reassured by attempts to link the characters at any producers attracted by the box-office again, Quebec is the object, and not the France on the validity of their culture. price to the landscape than truly sugges­ appeal of Carole Laure. And it is only subject, of this story aimed mainly at the Thus, a certciin national insecurity often tive imagery. This veneer of Freudian because of Laure that Carle got the job. French. inclined the Quebecois to search not for symbols tacked on to Maria's story is To study Maria Chapdelaine in light the opinion of others but for their conti­ Secondly, as an adapter, Carle refuses of other films by Gilles Carle does not reminiscent of La tete de Normande St- nual approval. From its first edition, this to acknowledge any political content. Onge, where every sequence was cram­ French book was taken nonetheless as a This is indicated by his decision to kill provide more positive results. Even if med with little comers in which Carle "model of Canadian literature." off the mother before killing off Fran- many of his favorite themes can be tucked away all too many such symbols. gois Paradis, thus reversing the novel's identified (nature, sexuality, family, the And ifs done in a rhythm and in a We cannot overlook this aspect of the sequence of events. It is also indicated in Church), they are presented in an artifi­ manner so mechanical that these sym­ novel. It is, in fact, as important as the his deliberately ignoring all the patriotic cial and superficial way. They seem bols freeze up and, from contributing to story and its undeniable quality as a undertones that are present in the final tacked on. His themes are not developed. an atmosphere, bring to the surface all work of literature. Adapting Maria Chap­ chapters of the novel. In the book, Maria They only serve the story. More than its artifice and phoniness. Here also, delaine, now, in Quebec, offers a chance decides to many Eutrope Gagnon partly ever, Carle has put himself at the service there's a big gap between the creative to the Quebecois to 're-appropriate,' in a out of respect for her dead mother's wish of a story and so has subordinated concept and the final product. way, their image and to put things in (to see this savage country domesticated) many elements of his universe that Even though sympathetic, the look their real perspective. In essence, two and partly for the sake of her people's were present in Hemon's novel in favour Hemon cast on the Quebecois and their alternatives present themselves to the future (to stay in Quebec in spite of of Maria's story. Unlike his other films culture was also quite condescending. screenwriter : either he can remain true hardship). But in the film, she makes that possessed a loose structure with The Quebecois are depicted as naive ; to the novel and so redefine Quebec this decision for purely sentimental rea­ the story going off in many directions, by simple, if not simplistic; and obliged, through a stranger's eyes, or he can go sons. Because Frangois Paradis, the love which the numerous themes and situa­ because of their lack of culture and against the grain of the novel and, using of her life, has just died, she resigns tions made the film open to several education, to turn to their priests for the story of Maria, impose a vision herself to marrying a man who loves her realities, Maria Chapdelaine unfolds counsel. Their traditions, their leisure indigenous to Quebec. In this case, he since she cannot marry the man she around a single narrative thread. Wi­ activities, their religious fervor were would place the foreigii vision in its real loves. Thus, what was a collective and thout any doubt, this film is Carle's seen and described by Hemon with a perspective. 'nationalist' choice becomes a personal purest, most direct and most easily certain distance, as if he was a father Once again, Gilles Carle prefers not to choice. From this point of view, it is accessible work. All his themes are describing the innocent activities of his take sides. He sticks to anecdotes. What strange to see that Carle, who claims to diluted and, though they are easily inte­ children. What he describes is often interests him is the passion, the almost have liked Les Plouffe because one grated into the story, their importance right. It is the way he does it that is so supernatural quality of the novel, and could see the general in the particul«ir, and impact are weakened. offensive. But the Quebecois were not the respect Hemon showed for physical does the reverse. He makes out of a The 'auteurist' approach to a film fooled. They rejected the book as soon effort, for nature and for the courage of novel dealing with a collectivity nothing does not really work with Maria Chap­ as it appeared. It was only later, when the people. Carle's refusal to articulate more than a personal drama. Not only delaine. The film is first and foremost a H6mon's novel was acclaimed around any political message is expressed in does Carle refuse to place the naive commercial venture whose links with the world, that Maria Chapdelaine gain­ two different ways. nationalism and the stifling isolationism earlier films by Carle are too obvious to ed their admiration. If people from First of all, as a director, he refuses to in a more realistic and concrete perspec­ be interesting. Carle's presence can be other countries greatly admired the no­ interpret Maria Chapdelaine in such a tive, but he simply ignores these ele­ felt only occasionally, especially in his vel, didn't it merit the same reaction way as to present a realistic vision of the ments altogether. treatment of the Church's authority. from us ? characters as Quebecois. Worse still, he The fact that Carle ignores them, Maria's father looks at his watch during Politically, Carle has always preferred presents things in such a way that we compounded with the shallow psycho­ Mass, uninterested children recite their a cinema of observation to a cinema that can get the impression that, like Hemon, logy of the film, makes Maria Chapdelai­ Calhechism, and the people sing a hymn is, if not militant, at least clearly oriented. he is shaping Quebec a la Frangaise. He ne a film that presents a superficial while Frangois Paradis lies dying in the In other words, his films present a snow. All these little details articulate a certain socio-political situation that Carle certain critical attitude towards the chooses to observe and rarely bothers to Church, whether or not Carle owns up analyse. His films merely present, but to this. The rest of the film is pretty thin. don't go any farther. The spectator must However, digging deep, we can associate draw bis own conclusions because none the end of the film, when Maria Chapde­ are imposed upon him Carle's films laine decides to marry Eutrope Gagnon, reject demonstration and so do not raise with other Carle films in which Laure the consciousness of the average viewer, has starred. Gagnon leads the same kind it is because of this that his most politi- of life as Maria's father - and one of the calh oriented film is La vraie nature de recurring themes in Carle/Laure films is Bernadette, in which be supports collec- the search for the Father. tixe action and rejects individual idea­ All in all. Carle's most recent film can lists. In the latter film, the filmmaker only disappoint. It is disappointing for speaks out while in most of his other those who expect to be entertained, films, neither the characters nor the because of the cold and unbelievable director seem conscious of the situation characters. It is disappointing for those w hich is being treated expecting to see the novel served up a la It is fruitless to go on with the debate quebecoise, because of Carle's refusal between these opposing visions of what to engage himself in an openly political cinema should accomplish. Carle's atti­ work. It is also disappointing to those tude, based on a respect for the viewer who are searching for key elements that and a desire to transpose realitj- in all its might shed new light on Gilles Carle's complexity and ambiguity is a compre­ work as a whole. In fact, Maria Chapde­ hensible one. Not every filmmaker likes laine proves to be his weakest film. At a didactic approach. 'The problem, ho­ least Fantastica was based on a more wever, arises when a filmmaker conti­ interesting and risky idea, whereas this nues along these lines when adapting a adaptation of Maria is just a simple novel that has very strong political over­ mise-en-images. Without imagination. tones. In such a case, this stubborn Without audacity. Without life. Three attitude lakes on another dimension. factors without which no cinema is Thai's what's wrong with Maria C/iap- possible.

16/Cinema Canada - June 1983 FNTER VIEW

Wlaria Chapdelaine: Carle versus Louis Hemon

• "The lelt, you know, never revolutionized anything in art; that's too bad but that's the way it is"

Cinema Canada : Until La Tete de land, the trees, the wind, etc. So, of break my promise. After you make a film bOcheron the character played by Normantle St-Onge^ all your films course, when I look Maria Chapdelaine, like that, what do you do ? The contrary. Carole Laure was named Maria Chap­ seemed to be the result of a reaction - a I wanted to keep myself from doing us And this is what happened with Les delaine, J "id this character falls in love reaction against the 'candid-eye' move­ just another Gilles Carle movie. I tried to Plouffe. Everybody was against L'ange with a mi' named Frangois Paradis ment, against the French New IVave, hide it, but there's always something that et la femme, so I said : "Nobody wants Did you want, at that time, to do a film .against your last film. Is this method escapes me, and its shows on the screen. it? Then I'll make Les Plouffe" And adaptation of the novel by Louis He­ still the basis of your work ? We just can't help it, even if we don't after I made Les Plouffe, which was mon ? Gilles Carle: I always try to take people want it to happen. I hate doing personal acclaimed everywhere, which had a big Gilles Carle: 1 think that one of the by surprise. First of all, I like my latest movies ; on the contrary, I would like to success... a film about chess. This loo first films I ever wanted to shoot was My film.to be unexpected, even for me, be some sort of a collective filmmaker, was a surprise for the public! And Name is Maria Chapdelaine, Je m'ap- because I don't want to be caught in a but I can't help having my fantasies, my believe me, I refused everything every­ pelle Maria Chapdelaine. As far as I can rut, I want to live between each of my ideas, my background. I studied visual body offered me at that lime ; every- remember, the myth of Maria Chapde­ films. When I finished Les Plouffe, arts, so I have a tendency to do painterly tliing, I refused all the publicity they laine always interested me, probabh everybody offered me TV series, things things, just as (Andre) Forcier does things offered me. Because while I investigated because when I was very young I saw like that, but I prefered to do a film on in a different way, whether he likes to or the chess world, gathered all the infor­ the film b\' Duvivier and I found it ver\' chess, a documentary called The Great not. mation I could find, and made sure strange. It didn't look like it was shot Chess Movie or Jouer sa vie. I had just Cinema Canada: But when La tete de every fact was precise and true, they here in Quebec ; I found the film bizarre. finished a film about life in Quebec Normande St-Onge, your last film for gave me this poster showing a child So it's probably at that time the idea during the war, and suddenly I was into Carle-Lamy, was released, you said: playing chess - and there's no child in came to me. And because it's a good the most contemporary world, dealing "From now on, I'm going to make more the film. So the producers said, "But you story, too, a storx' that happens in a ven with the relations between East and and more disturbing films," and you don't want your film to be seen !", and I precise place, a ston- that just couldn't West, the world as a big chess game, a gave us Fantastica, Les Plouffe and said, "I don't want any news release, any happen anyxvhere else, that had to bap- very current movie. And now I have just Maria Chapdelaine What happened ? publicity, just go to hell I" So what pen in this place where it came into the done Maria Chapdelaine, which is a Gilles Carle : Well, it all depends where happened is that the Montreal World world. It's a beautiful stoi\ ; and in ver>' unexpected project too, this novel we're situated, and how. For example, Film Festival made my film known - I Quebec we don't have loo man)' lo\e written by Louis Hemon that has already you forget L'ange et lafemme. I did it at took all the chances, all the risks. And stories, we just didn't write many of been adapted twice on film. And after m\' own expense in my basement. I the film dealt with a subject nobod\' them, so it's nice to tell each other "1 lo\ e that, I'll probably direct a Christmas processed it myself nobody wanted to wanted to hear about since 1925, not one \ou, " and this is what i\/ariii is about, story lor children. give me money. I did it with $25,000. film about chess since 1925, even tele­ too. Feelings communicated by feelings. They refused it at the Semaine de la vision, which is interested in every­ Critique here. The film was demolished thing - curling, pool, etc. - didn't want to Cinema Canada : So we can say that deal with this most fascinating world. Cinema Canada : Isn't it a bit strange the character of Maria Chapdelaine is, even'where, as if I bad just produced a that Gilles Carle, who so oflen demvs- super flop. Nobodv accepted it. I was a Fascinating, because the w orld of chess in a way, a creature of Gilles Carle ? is an intellectual world, a political tified the back-to-nature movement, Gilles Carle : Inevitably it's true, even bit naive, believing that with a black- now gives us Maria Chapdelaine ? and-while'movie, 16mm, produced with world, but they just didn't want to hear if you don't want it to be. The same thing about it. So, again, I did the contrary of Gilles Carle : Well, you know, the> said happened to Louis Hemon. He came to my own money, I would have some sympathy from the critics, but it was what everybody was wailing for. And I demystified this movement because of Quebec to write Maria Chapdelaine and horrible! When the film was released, even now, after doing a film in which La vraie nature de Bernadette. But its what did he do ? He looked around and the newspaper critics were unanimous reason dominates, a film about a rational untrue ; what I did v\ as say nature just he took notes, and more notes, and more in their attack. But, of course, that world, 1 do Maria Chapdelaine, which is doesn't exist anxmore. When I shot notes ; he was the perfect observer, try­ changed, because two months after, I a film about passion, feelings. And next Bernadette. jets were flying over my ing to be true to our culture. But, really, received a prize at the Avoriaz Festival, lime, it'll still be a surprise, because I head, machines were running on the the result was more a Louis Hemon the Critics, Prize, and the film was don't want to do the same thing over plains, but back at the lime of Maria book than a Quebecois book. It's much strongly acclaimed by Arrabal, etc. and over. Everybody would like to label Chapdelaine, nature existed (laughs), more of a Celtic book, a druidical book, a Everything changed all at once. The me, because I work fast and 1 please my that's why Hemon was here. If nature book from Britanny, than a book from critics were very favourable to the film, producers - and in a way, it's true - but 1 hadn't existed, Louis Hemon wouldn't Quebec, if we look at it closely. It's a chiefly in the French Communist news­ want to do different things. have come to Quebec. So nature existed book in which Christianity is supersti­ papers. then, but not anymore. Urban society is tious, in which the real religion is more everywhere now ; whether we go to the animisHc, pantheistic, with its emphasis It was a very disturbing film that I did Cinema Canada: Let's talk about country or to the Beauce, there isn't a on physical efforts, relations with the just after Normande St-Onge, so 1 didn't Maria Chapdelaine. In La mort d'un place where urbanism isn't established.

Cinema Canada - June 1983/17 I H T E R VTFIW But in 1910, it wasn't So, there's nos­ thought about showing flashbacks of recites a thousand Ave (Marias) to make When she's somewhere, nature vibrates talgia in Maria, and it's because he had Frangois, and showing Maria thinking sure nothing bad happens to Frangois. in a different way. She's really a witch nostalgia for a more primitive and purer about him, to emphasize her revolt That's why Hemon was a pantheist, humanity that Hemon came here. Just against God, but I just couldn't use this Cinema Canada : But don't you think that's why he believed in the spirits of take a look at what he says about the stupid method. So it's only when I that Hemon was particularly conde­ the Montagnais, the great Wendego. 1 Indians. His view of them is a very finally decided that the film would end scending towards us ? have been accused of inventing this, but mythic one, the Indians of .Vlaria are not just after the death of Frangois Paradis Gilles Carle: No, he wasn't. Hemon I can take the book and read you many real ones, they're seen from the eyes of that I was really happy, and ready to do didn't believe much, he just behoved in excerpts where it's very, very clear. But, Hemon ; there's no sorcerer in the Mon- it, to work on Maria Chapdelaine. I had spirits, more than in God, and Ihats why before, nobody noticed that. I only did a tagnais community, you know. But to show the death of the mother, because the characters in Maria Chapdelaine re-reading of the book, and, knowing Hemon said there was. He imagined in the book this part is almost a book by don't seem to have a profound faith. All this mentality because of my father these sorcerers, and all their rites, their itself, but I couldn't drag it on endlessly. their gestures, their prayers, are super­ (who believed the Indians controlled mysteries. So there's this thing about the I feel badly about these changes. Maria ficial ; when you look at it closely, there's the weather) and my uncles and my love potion, the magic, the cypress- Chapdelaine is not a ver\' old book, you not much profundity in that - except aunts, reconstituted it a bit more wood fire, etc. It's all pure invention know. And the work of Louis Hemon is Maria's revolt, at the end, when she without exaggerating, making sure it from a Frenchman li\ ing in Quebec. But very well known, so it was difficult. But addresses herself to God and says, "Ah, had the same role as in the book. So, I respect the book, and this nostalgia now and then, when I look at the film, I Jesus, there wasn't even an angel to there's no rebellion, no politics. If we that he felt, this nostalgia for a primitive find that it is still almost too faithful to protect him, you couldn't find anybody read the book very rapidly, we can say world. I put it in the movie - but it the book, that I could have put some to look after him !" There, for the first that it is a bit racist, in praising the race. doesn't mean that I personally believe more drama into the film, added some time, we have the impression she's It's because Hemon used the word "race" in nature and that I preach a return to more things. talking to somebody that exists ; that is, for the word "people," that's all. nature in Maria Chapdelaine, far from it. God. Before that, you know, the thou­ .It's a populist book, not a racist one. Cinema Canada : Isn't it strange that sands Aves, the prayers at night, the And we can say that his nationalism is Cinema Canada : In the last interview Gilles Carle, a founder of Les Editions demons, all kinds of demons (the more a regionalism ; his nationalism is you gave to Cinema Canada I No. 74, May de I'Enagone, a publishing house which demons of lies, etc., the mother has a about the region of Lac-St-Jean, a corner 19811, you said you wouldn't like to work rejected the primacy of French culture demonology which is unbelievable), all of land. A regionalism like the one of the on an adaptation of a book whose author and all picturesque novels alaLemelin, that is not very serious. Bretons, of the Celts, that says you must was dead. Did this situation cause you directed Les Plouffe and Maria Chap­ be part of a family in order to communi­ any problems ? delaine .' Cinema Canada: You seem to have cate with the spirits. So be found his Gilles Carle : Many. Many, many prob­ Gilles Carle : But Les Plouffe was writ­ avoided all the political aspects oj family. Hemon's religion is the religion lems. I started working on the screen- ten by a Quebecois. Ifs not a picturesque Maria Chapdelaine Why ? of the farmers, the religion of the crops.

plav only when 1 decided that I would novel, it's a "familial^' novel, a novel of Gilles Carle : Which political aspects ? of the sun, etc.; the true religion of these be faithful to the meaning of the book, everyday life ; picturesque is the view a Nothing is political in the novel. people, because we now know that the but without transposing it word by stranger has of us, just as I have a farmers were not so Catholic after all, word. When I realized that this book picturesque view of France, not a "fami­ Cinema Canada : Well, like the role of that there's a religion which is more was not a novel, but niainlv an account; lial^' one. Les Plouffe is a "familiar" film. the priests, and the choice Maria makes present in their lives ; namely, the reli­ well, half the book is an account, and the You know, in Maria, I restored all the at the end, between the two men, each gion of nature. And that I tried to show other half is a kind of a reflection on the "familiaritv'" of the subject, I left Hemon of them representing a very specific in my film by the use of images. By the first half And only when I realized that out of it because he made some mis­ political choice for the Qfiebec people. way, notice that there are more shots in could I render all of Maria's thoughts, takes, not many, but some, in his des­ Gilles Carle : First, there's no criticism this film than in Les Plouffe, twice as w li\ she doesn't want to go to the States, cription of us. But I remained faithful to of the Church in the book, I don't see much as in any normal-length movie. I \vh\ she wants to live at Peribonka. I the context, the times. I was raised on where Hemon criticizes the priests. wanted to give the feeling that this film onlv had to show the beauty of Spring the land, so I know the landscape from There's no poliUcal criticism in Maria is all in one shot, I wanted the spectator the inside, more than I knew the world while she says "Yes, I'll slay." But these Chapdelaine. The choice at the end is a to pass from one season to another decisions were difficult. There has to be of Les Plouffe ultimately. But Les Plouffe very schematic one, between the adven­ belongs to us, like Les miserables to the without really noticing it. I wanted to some betrayal, and for that vou need the turer, the farmer and the American. But French. You know, Lemelin was rebel­ give a sense of the passing of a year, of permission of the author, and I didn't there isn't a single wicked character ; the cycle of the seasons. ling when he wrote Les Plouffe, and Louis Hemon is incapable of describing have it. Lydia Hemon said that the film what was difficult was to rentier this You know, this book is very nourish­ a wicked character, or a vicious situa­ was perfecth faithful to the work of her rebellion properly. Because, don't forget, ing, there's a lot of detail, but not jour­ father, but reallv it's not. It's onlv faith­ the book was Lemelin was taking posi­ tion. His look is not pohtical, he's only nalistic details. The details-are not use­ ful to the meaning of the book. tion strongly against the Church, it was interested in the physical, the athletic, less, they're always in relation to some­ a very anti-clerical book. the beauty of things, the people. He was thing else. Its a book in which there's a Cinema Canada : But why the decision in love with the character of the father; lot of imagination, it's a book that invent­ to show the death of the mother before he imagined him to be very tall, like ed a new kind of love story. Each piece the disappearance of Frangois Paradis ? Cinema Canada : Which is totally the Zeus in a way. In its relations vvith the of information participates in the Gilles Carle : To serve the dramatic opposite to the book by Hemon. landscape, the book is more profound drama, which is the drama of living, and effect of the film. Because, at the movies, Gilles Carle : Well, Hemon was very that we think it is. It has a kind of lunar not the drama of individuals. And it is in you cannot imagine things, vou can't polite, be wasn't at home, he was a side, .Maria is an enchantress. Maria is this sense that the book is so seductive ; reflect on things as if you were speaking guest. He wrote a sort of homage to energy. You know, she's that kind of that's why it was such a huge success. or reading ; we just can't imagine that Quebec, and at the end he fell into a sort person who changes an atmosphere It's also, a book from the (politicall the film could have continued for 40 of racism, vou know. But it is clear, I just by entering a room, everybodv looks right. Hemon, like all the great restorers, minutes after the death of Frangois think, in my film that this religious at her, and there's like a lunar atmos­ was a man of the right, like Celine. The Paradis. If it had, I would have had to aspect is not too profound, that it is phere in the place. Take her out of the left never revoliitionized anything in use flashbacks, and I hate this method. I more of a superstition, Hke when Maria book and you're left with nothing. art, you know , it's too bad but that's the

18/Cinema Canada-June 1983 KEVIEW5 way it is. It's because the right touches structure, while the left touches indivi­ duals. It's always people from the right Gilles Carle's who break down forms, people who are related to existing structures. And I think that for Hemon, it's a bit the same Maria Chapdelaine thing; be broke the ancient pattern of the love story to construct a new one, based on the waiting of the woman, and Gilles Carle's new movie, Maria Chapde­ the desperate effort of the man to reach laine, pushes all the right buttons to her. And this pattern is also expressed in assure its success in Quebec, if nowhere the landscape, the land, the country, else (in its first week alone, after opening with all those rivers and those water­ Apr. 29, it brought in over $190,000). falls, symbols of ejaculation, of masculi­ Based on the 1913 novel of the same fitle nity ; and the lake, level and calm, not by French expatriate Louis Hemon, the too deep, a lake that warms up easily movie deals with the travails of a beauti­ (laughs), symbol of feminity. Harlequin ful, taciturn, young woman trying to books have cornered 12% of the inter­ survive against all odds in the wilds of national market, using the same story Lac Sl-Jean. over and over again. Harlequin books, romance, they all copy Maria Chapde­ Quebec novelist Roch Carrier claims laine.But getting back to Hemon, he was the, novel has captured the Quebec also revolutionary in his own way: he imagination because it's not a work of was the first sports columnist ever, he precise ideas but rather what be calls "a fought against pollution, he did his jog­ vast emptiness" upon which readers ging- can impose their own ideas or fantasies. Carle, working with a $4.S-million bud­ Cinema Canada : Do you still believe get, impose ideas all right - the virtues in what you called "production fami­ of obduracy {"j'y suis, fy reste"), roman- lies"; do you still believe, as you once ticization of alienation, mon pays c'est said, that that's the only solution to I'hiver and all that - and achieves a vast • Quebec's answer to Dr. Zhivago : Nick Mancuso and Carole Laure in Maria Chapdelaine Qijebec cinema ? emptiness of his own : a hollow epic. Gilles Carle : I personally believe, as I An overheated back at the Montreal stand this wait: who wouldn't wait for magazine covers. In Carle's scheme of always did, in small production teams, Gazette once called Carle's next-to-last him ? He has such dash and sense of his things, Laure is indomitable all right - in production families. I always try to film, Les Plouffe, Quebec's Gone With own presence - he even stands out in indomitably chic. When she goes out to have my own. Apart from my personal the Wind. This may mean that Maria long shots of crowd scenes- it's a shame slop the hogs, that trademark blue-black talent, this is what helps me continue Chapdelaine is our Dr. Zhivago, for all all that's left for him to do is get lost in hair sleeking down her slender back, ;- shooting. But the big mistake with begin­ that that entails. There certainly is a lot the snow. He's too well-coiffed for a her pancake applied to perfection, ning filmmakers is that they associate of snow, and when there isn't, woodsv' bCicheron, but we can.see the energy in delectably soigne in that layered look so with people like themselves. You need a types pick blueberries and do countless him, the eagerness to do something, to popular in the bush, ifs the giddiest truck driver who prefers to carry sets other photogenic things, like walking by make his part real, and thats so much piece of miscasting since Marie-Antoi­ than to carry coal, or an accountant who waterfalls or playing with the famille more than can be said for most of the nette played shepherdess at Versailles. would like working with a theater group Chapdelaine's lovable mongrel. cast. There are at least a dozen acting better than at Household Finance, you The publicity material accompanying styles going on here, running from pure Will Aititen • know. You need people like that. I have the movie makes a great deal of its maple-cured ham to fe/eroman-gothic, my own family, and they have been authenticity and the difficulties the but then this is in keeping with the slap­ IVIARIA CHAPDELAINE d. Gilles Carle constantly working with me for ten director faced in shooting four seasons dash style of the whole project. There's exec. p. Harold Greenberg p. Murray Shostak, ^ years now. We need these small teams. in two months. It feels like Carle shot a no subtlety, no thought-out perspective. Robert Baylis sc. Guy Fournier, Carle, based on the novel by Louis Hemon d.o.p. Pierre Mignot ar( d. ;' The other day, I saw a group from the lot more seasons than that, but then you Nothing's left in the background for us Jocelyn Joly Znd unit photography Richard Lei- south-shore (of Montreal) getting lost in tend to lose track after a vvhile, as the to discover for ourselves, everything's terman ed. ,\\'de C^hiriaeff sd. eng. Patrick Rous­ the corridors of the NFB, and I was authenticity marches steadily sidewise dragged center-screen and klieg-lit, seau p. man. Lorraine Richard head unit man, toward nostalgia. (VX'liv, by the way, did vvith Lewis Furey's incessant music Mario Nadeau 1st a.d, Jacques Wilbrod Benoit • disappointed. Why go to the Board ? We prop, master Ronald P'auteux cost. des. Michele must organize ourselves, find money, no one Ihink to age the costumes ? Were prov iding the wholly unnecessary italics. Hamel head cost, dresser Blancbe-Danielle Boi- do new things, but many people are hmiberjacks reallv this stylish?) The darkly elegant Carole Laure plavs leau head make-up Mitlifline Foisv hair. .Andre afraid of accountants. But accountants Carle came late to the project, the Hemon's intlomitable, homespun hero­ Lafresniere conl. Ginelte Seneca! head elect. ine, Laure and Carle have been work­ Daniel Chretien head machinist KianpoisDupere are your friends, you know ; you must third in a series of directors hired to sp. efx. John Thomas unit man. Ginetle Guillard deal with them. The more you have make both a theatrical feature and a ing together for a long time now [Fan­ public relations David No\'ek Associalos Inc. unit production teams, the more cinematic four-hour mini-series for Radio-Canada tastica, L'Ange et la femme. La tete de pub. MarkLalonde stills Pierre Dury com pt. Pied freedom ; it's simple. Because if 1 shoot (think of the seasons in store for us Normande St-Onge, La mort d'un bu­ Shacter p. acct, Carole Lagace p. sec. Micheline cheron), and it's time someone told Cadieux p. coord, in Montreal Marie-Helene Ri»\ alone, there isn't much cinema freedom. there). He and his co-scenarist, Guy 2nd a.d. Monique Maranda 3rd a.d. Jacques La- Everybody has to make a film. Fournier, have been publicly squabbling them to cut it out: they're absolute berge assL unit man. Louis-Philippe Rochon Isl But cinema is disappearing anyway. about which man's interpretation of the poison for each other. Laure has revealed asst. cam. Jean Lepine 2nd asst. cam. Chcisliane GuernonSrd asst. cam. NathalieMoliavko-Visotskv It's finished; now its television, and I novel is the more correct, but in all their a flair for comedy with other directors (in Bliei^s Get Our Your Handkerchiefs 2nd unit asst. cam. Larry Lynn elect. Claude don't know what's going to happen. ideological wrangling, they didn't get Fortier, Robert Lapierre Jr, machinist Michel These electronic instruments are very around to solving the central dramatic and Joyce Bunuel's Dirty Dishes), but Periard boom V'eronique Gabillaud assl. art d. costly, you know. Bill 109 on the cinema flaw : Maria and her dashing suitor, the Carle doesn't seem to want her to act - Raymond Dupuis props. Alain Singher asst props Philippe Chevalier, Henri Gagnon, Jean in Quebec, like every law, comes too aptly named Frangois Paradis, are al­ he poses her. (Their previous collabora­ tions have been notable for her nudity, Labrecque. Josiane Noreau set dresser Patrice late. Everything is changing now; we most never on screen together. When Bengle 2nd set dresser Simon La Have const. have pay-TV, and all that, and it's all they are, they mainly moon about: he so much so that local wags who saw the Andre Bochu, Michel Bochu, Jean-Marie \ allerand, under federal regulations. I don't knovv asks her to wail for him, she says OK, he 1975 La tete de Normande St-Onge Gaston Brassard head painters Robert Breton, departs, and the rest of the movie she promptly renamed it Les fesses de...) Rejean Paquin painters Guy Lalande. Gilles Des- what's going to happen, really. jarddins. Jean-Paul Montreuil sp. efx. asst. Bill Orr. Cinema Canada: And what do you waits. And worse, we wait with her. For all the dramatic intensity he gels out Ken Johnson sp. efx. Roby Baylis asst. cost, des, of Laure's sophisticated, slightly ironic think about closing down the NFB, as The casting of Nick Mancuso as Para­ Christiane Tessier, John Stowe assi. to cost. des. recommended by the Applebaum- beauty, he might as well be shooting Pierre Perrault cost, dresser Renee April make­ dis goes a long wav' to making us under- up Joan Isaacson p. assl. Michel \ eillette. Andre Hebert report ? Ouellel, Angeli? Bourgault messengers Ellen Maria Chapdelaine gets strong acting assists from France's Claude Rich and Quebec's Berube, Alain Belhumeur drivers Pierre Guillard, Gilles Carle: Damn it! Let's open the Marie Tifo Svlvain Falardeau chief cook Kilt\' Baylis cook NFB, not close it. Closing it is not the Leo Evans asst. in kitchen Richai-d Carrol! I.p. solution, we must open it to young film­ Carole Laure, Nick Mancuso, Pierre Curzi. Donald makers, to new artists, give them a Laulrec, Voland Guerard, \niulette Ciarneau. Ste­ phana QU(M\, Guy Thauvetle, Gilbert Sicolte. Josee- chance to work. If we close the NFB, Anne Fortin, Louis-Philippe Milol. Gilbert Comlois. where will the beginning filmmakers Paul Berval, Claude Rich, Claude Evrard, Domini­ do their first film ? You know I started que Briand, Marie Tifo. Jean Pierre Mas.sim.Angele there. Some changes, many changes, \i-seneault, JacquesThisdale, Rod Treniblav, Claude Prpfiont, Patrick Nk-sse (,uy Godin, Denis Biais, have to be made in the structure of the \lit hcl Lantic\in Cedric Noel Jose Ledoux, Renee NFB, of course. But the solution is to Girard, Roch Demers, Gilborl Moore. Gilles Vali- open the NFB, not to close it. All that quflU- Vvon Sarrazin, Rolland Bcdard NUchcl Ri- would do is put more people on the \ard, Geurj;! ^ Levtchouk Raofil Dugua\ p.c. Astral Film Pruducliuns Limited, in collaboration with La unemplovmeni rolls. And who needs Stnieif Radio-Canada and TFl, the first television thai •> niMwork of France colour ;i5nim running time lOSniJn.

Richard Martineau •

Cinema Canada - June 1983/19 TTTTTVaLS

Canada at Cannes '83

The Year of the mole

llusions' end : Ann Hui's Boat People is a rough shocker about Vietnam today

al side, dictating the course of events. pink fortress straight out of Hollywood terms (as opposed to media representa­ by Marc Gervais The stars still came and went but under desert films of yore - and that is the tion! is palpable : the old Cannes crowd ot-ders, reduced to essential commodi­ good news ! Inside, things get worse. is lost, wandering up and down the Last year's griminest forebodings, sad to ties in the bartering of spectacle. The Cannes Film Festival now has the Croisette, unsure where "everybody" relate, have been surpassed by this So the personal side suffered. The look and feel of a t\pical North American is... over at the Carlton ? or the old xear's reality; and it appears that, destruction of that aspect of the Festival shopping centre. Electronic junk every­ Palais ? down at the over-crowded Ma­ as a result, the Cannes Film Festival has became inevitable with the total televi- where, escalators, bottle-necks, piped-in jestic ? or across the street in "the new been irreparably damaged, its spirit sioning of Cannes. Henceforth the elec­ musical noise. Nature has been i^solute- Bunker" (as it is called with anything but smothered in tons of concrete ughness. tronic box would be boss, every event ly excluded, to be replaced by enormous affection) ? The anger and frustration of Thirty-si.\ years ago, what was to created^ and validated by TV' consump­ indoor crowds enclosed in the barbaric the festivaliers, let it be noted, is c-ily become the world's biggest and best tion. In previous years, to be sure, the dehumanization that passes for much exceeded by that of the native Can- movie festival first began as a joyous get- photographers were apt to vulgarize of modern architecture - a veritable nois. together for the French and then was any situation al an>' given moment, but triumph of ugliness and spiritual stupor. Which is ijot to say that the movie one long celebration of film art, spectacle, never in terms of total control of the very If anything of warmth, personality, event is no more, that Cannes is not people ; and the beauty of its setting nature of the thing itself. soul or genuine event were left before swallowed up in the usual fever of guaranteed success. With success came The process of destruction, one is the Nouveau Palais emerged, forget it film, film, film - on the market, in the growth. And further growth. A radical tempted to write, has been completed now. Here is a Festival without a centre, official competition, in the parallel ma­ shift occurred when the Festival decided with the opening of the " Nouveau Palais." without, yes, a soul. Mediated experience nifestations. Droves of airplanes, for to become a Market as well: the event Contemporary architects, responsible is the rule. No "real" reel events or example, still drag their banners across would never be the same. Business for the obscenities which have defaced people, but fragmented, mediated snip­ Cannes skies, announcing the Salkinds realities gradualhlookover; and mana­ the Paris landscape (not to mention the pets, mass-manufactured, an appalling forthcoming Superman III, Supergirl, gers and agents moved in on the person- Montreal Olympics debacle) have done realization of the worst aspects of and Santa Claus. James Bond is more in it again. The loveliness of Cannes' bay, McLuhan's prophetic vision. evidence than ever, still protecting the Marc Gervais, CRTC commissioner arid the result of the fusion of sun, sand, sea, To say that the recent development is Croisette, still dominating the Carlton a member of the Communications de­ sky, and mountain back-drop, is now a disaster is merely to share in an entrance (in his Roger Moore incarna­ partmental Concordia University, is a scarred by the' enormous new festival amazingly unanimous consensus. And tion ), but now also perched smiling atop regular contributor to Cinema Canada. centre. Picture an immense, yellowish. the result, in lived, individual personal the Majestic marquee lin his Sean Con-

20/Cinema Canada • June 1983 ZEfXTryary nery reincarnation). And the cocktails as they were by American sellers such On that inconclusive and fuzzy note, the closed system of his own intenseh are de riqueur, the "starlets" still manage as Manson and Jensen Farley, in small and having side-stepped mention of personal cinema. Not everyone's cup of to be pursued by the photographers. semi-public or on-invitation-only show­ individual names and realities or enga­ tea, to be sure, and yet not as demanding Some things do not change... ings. ging in any kind of nuanced discussion - if that is the proper world - as the Even so, The Grey Fo^ elicited some of the issues - totally beyond the limits Russian ,Andrei Taykovsky's Italian film, enthusiastic response in a sneak showing of this report- one can end the Canadian Nostalghia, surely the Fesli\ al s most im­ al the end, and The Terry Foji Story a chapter by stating quite simply that in penetrable exploration of the human Some thinks, perhaps. But other things more mixed reaction near the beginning many ways this was the least inspiring spirit, a poetic, suffering affirmation of do. Take the once splashy, energetic, of the festival. Two Quebecois products and most understated Canadian presen­ human hope - and therefore in all vital Canadian presence. This year, one actually made it, sans fanfare, to presti­ ce in Cannes in over 15 years. likelihood not destined for distribution is tempted to refer to Cannes '83 as the gious parallel events. Alas, Pierre Per- in North America. Ermanno Olmi, whom Year of the Invisible Canadians. Or per­ raulf s La bete lumineuse proved disap­ many consider the greatest of Italian haps more accurately as the Year of the pointing, not to say downright false and film directors now working, came with Mole. pretentious, with nothing fresh to reveal. The Cannes Film Festival, this May, his story of the Magi, Cammina, Cammi- Real moles, as we all know, live under­ Brigille Sauriol's Rien qu'un Jeu is an 1983, however, was not just oppressive na (Onward, Onward), not quite up to ground. And there we were -1 ijiean the honest and forthright treatment of a concrete and Canadian lack of verve. his Grand Prix winner of a few years ago only official Canadian presence, i.e., the difficult subject (a fathei^s sexual doings There were the films from all over the {The Tree of the Wooden Clogs), but still CFDC stand - buried in the basement of with his two daughters), but too often it world ; and even if no single movie was a film master's glowing work of profound the Nouveau Palais among countless slips into awkward dialogue, even ba­ the occasion for rhapsodies of enthusiasm contemporary relevance. other scurrying, subterranean creatures. thos. (such as E.T. last year), still there were And in the market one could see the The dedicated CFDC denizens were The business side, however, did occa­ plenty of interesting things to be expe­ latest works (if not their very best) of coping as well as they could, in the sion a lot of the usual activity - buying rienced. Ingmar Bergman (Fanny and Atex:ander), circumstances to be sure. But the mini­ and selling, setting up projects and And that is inevitable, since Cannes Andrzej Wajda '\Danton, made in France), mal data, limited services, and absence deals - even though Canadian distribu­ has been entrenched for years as the and Eric Rohmer {Pauline on the Beach) of promotion stand witness to an appal­ tors were looking more and more despe­ world centre. For the Canadian critic, Here are examples of film masters in ling come-down from the recent past, rate as American majors or next-to- that means the opportunity, second to total control creating works that raise when Canada (whatever the criticisms, majors were gobbling up everything in none, to get an over-view of what is film unquestionably to the level of matu­ _the hype for inferior products, what sight with their new "classic" depart­ happening world-side to film art, or to re eirts. have you) seiVed as a model for just how ments, and Canadian producers grow the film industry for that matter. Othei^ to be present at Cannes in order to help more and more frustrated in the face of wise, what filters through to Canada is The light heavyiveights the cause of the Canadian feature indus­ often changing, often conflicting rules by and large via the funnel of New York Not quite in that exalted company, yet try. and procedures emanating from govern­ critics' approval or American distribu­ enjoying a rich measure of world reco­ No danger of any criticisms this year ment agencies (DOC, CFDC, CBC, CRTC tors' decisions - or the often laudable gnition, a number of other directors about our "excesses". While national - you name em, we got 'em, and don't coups scored by our own film festivals; were in attendance with excellent films. groups like the Australians or New Zea- forget the provinces). Just to make sure impressive, but not in any measure able Japan did well. Nagisa Oshima's Merry landers, or independent big American that everyone stayed depressed, the to complete with Cannes. Christmas, Mr. Lawrence is a haunting companies, say, gave evidence of vitality, rumours from back home were coming More than ever for me, this year's study of military prison-camp life, far verve and Festival enthusiasm, Canada closer to reality : C Channel was closing Cannes festival was a hodge-podge of removed from Oshima's usual brilliant oscillated between Puritan austerity and down. personal choices or guesses made from (and kinky) excesses. Shohei Inamura's pure no-show. Our Film Commissioner/ So the Canadian picture continues to the official competition, the parallel The Ballad of Narayama actually won head of the NFB was nowhere in eviden­ be a desperately muddled one, needing events, and the Market (over three hun­ the Grand Prix for its splendid up-dating ce ; and the CFDC chief was back home fai^reaching measures which spring from dred films there alone). Over all, certain of the classic Japanese film of 25 years as well, working zealously on the moda­ knowledge and experience. Given the trends, and a few marvelous surprises. ago. Claude Goretta continues his intel- lities of how to administer Francis Fox's profound contradictions within our sys­ letually rewarding exploration of life new production fund. More immediately tem, perfect coherence in our policies is The giants today with The Death of Mario Rissi glamorous presences (in the film sense) impossible. There will always be the The official competition, for example, (Switzerland), an agonized meditation also were not in evidence - stars, direc­ odd Canadian film that enjoys enormous acquired heavy artistic gravity with the on world starvation and racial tension. tors, and the like. Canadian films recei­ financial success at the expense of any presence of no less than three contem­ And Carlos Saura (Spain) gaves Cannes ved scarcely any publicity, there were Canadian cultural validity. And market porary giants and all of them most one of its most popular films, a stirring, no notable Canadian parties; indeed demands, as presently understood and difficult, most uncompromising of au- energetic, partly Flamenco version of the Canadians in attendance were as experienced, will continue to further teurs (the first two, by the way, shared Bizef s Carmen. Martin Hilt's Cross Creek scattered as the Festival itself. the erosion. On the other hand, others the Best Director award). France's Ro­ (USA) a few notches lower because of its All except Ontario, that is. That dough­ will demonstrate that there is another bert Bresson presented I'Argent (Money), overdone lushness, nonetheless is a fas­ ty province affirmed the Canadian fact possibility, that films can be popular a ruthlessly austere study of evil (and cinating, lovely film about the novelist (i.e., we exist) with a smashing good gel- and "genuinely Canadian". (Will The grace) that pushes this most rigorous Marjorie Kinan Rawlings - and demons­ together, co-sponsored with the Toronto Grey Fojc be one of these ?) and severe of artists even further along trates again that an artist can be a Festival of Festivals. The Quebec office had a few functions of its own, but the • A searing alfirmation of hutnan hope : dissident USSR director Andrei Tarkovsky's made-in-ltaly film, Nostalghia point here was that these were hardly Canadian events, right ? And ^o what else is new... ? None of this is shattering, when slack­ ed up against world starvation, nuclear arms races, pollution, the suppression of peoples. But given what Cannes is all about, and given the enormous gains of the past, one wonders why on earth we seem dedicated to throwing it all away. If you're going to do it, mate, you go all out, as our Aussie cousins say - and do. The CFDC people explained cour­ teously and patiently that there were no I'uiids available, that there was no need ol a splashy official presence as in the past, we had grown beyond that, and thai, in any case, that was the way the independent Canadian producers pre­ ferred it. Sure enough, Canadian producers were about, discreet in nuinbers and more discreet in how the\' appeared or how they displayed their treasures, John LeCarre has taught us thai moles - the other kind - prefer not to have their true identity revealed. And so, the Canadian producers surfaced quietly. Apparently, there were some 25 features, of recent or not so recent vintage, to be seen one way of another. But their Canadian identity tended to be masked, packaged Mill iit^iiiii* "ii {»iii»>i3j«i«i:'«<. iwMiiriMi FESTIVALX genuinely involved humanist and still thrives. Peter Weir's The Year of Living thrive in Hollywood. Dangerously was probably the best En­ glish-speaking film in competition. And Unexpected joys the market offered such superior work Perhaps the biggest bonus one can expe­ as Peter Maxwell's The Highest Honours, rience in Cannes film viewing is the and Far East, a fine contemporary thril­ surprise discovery of unheralded quali­ ler rich in insight and social involvement, ty ,A simple, unpretentious little Norwe­ by one of Australia's finest director/pro­ gian film, Knul Andersen's Friends, pro­ ducer teams, John Duigan and Richard vides just that in a finely controlled story Mason. of some 12 year-olds trying to cope with So Australia goes on proving that a their friend's alcoholic father - and small country can do it. And it is one of without succumbing to sentimentality. the riches of the Cannes Film Festival Al a much more ambitious level - and that we are afforded the opportunity of probably my most satisfying film viewing witnessing just such a salutary pheno­ experience in Cannes '83 - was Ascen­ menon. dancy, written and directed by Edward Bennett, and produced by the British Film Institute for less (unbelievably) than three hundred thousand pounds. A few final comments more or less This re-creation of Belfast in the '20s related to what has gone before. version of the "troubles' offers startling 1. Cannes has lost much with this confirmation that the British cinema is final succumbing to gigantic size. The indeed experiencing a renaissance - authorities, however, are already plan­ and that it is possible to produce high ning to solve the problems. With courage quality films without going the bloated and some good hard thinking, it is Flamboyant Flannenco steals a scene in Carlos Saura's Carmen route of .American distribution guaran­ conceivable that even the Bunker can tees and all that tha t entails. Yet another serve, if it is integrated with a resurrected "small" film was Ann Hui's Boat People old Palais. The Festival could be made a (Hong Kong). Rough, unpolished, direct, place with space and with a more human it shocks the viewer with its depiction of pattern, a more gracious rhythm. It is conditions in South Vietnam under the possible, maybe. present regime. And it is overwhelming 2. Another pattern - this one a film in making us feel the flight of those production/distribution one - is clearly who chose to be "boat people." Needless emerging. The general'thinking now is to add that certain Communist groups that genuine co-production is the way of are not pleased with this one, destroying the future, the only way for European as it does, a mNlh still clung to by some. and other countries to avoid outright American control. And therein lies an The Aussies incalculably important story, one of My final candidate for the delightful crucial interest to Canada, and a hopeful surprise category has to be an Aussie alternative, if correctly understood and film - and a surprise simply because resolutely put into practice. most of the names were unknown to 3. Showbiz, hustling vulgarity, pollution, me. Or to put it in other words, the business, hype or whatever else - Cannes Aussies seem to come up with talent is increasingly all of this. And when one wave upon talent wave. Brilliantly acted reports on the total impact, certain as­ by Lorna Lesley, Bill D. Kerr and John pects tend to be neglected. For it is also Jarratt, and (seemingly) effortlessly put at Cannes that Orson Welles presented together by producer Robert Bruning a special award for creative artistry to a and director Howard Ruble, The Settle­ crusty, intransigeant, 76-year-old film ment makes no claims to high art. It is aristocrat named Robert Bresson. And simply one of those thoroughly enjoyable, where the mad Monty Python gang receives artistic recognition as well. funny, touching little gems that delights • David Bowie adds his androgynous touch to Nagisa Oshima's Merty Christinas, Mr. Lawrenl its audience while hiding its immense And there are remarkable gestures, testi­ intelligence and understanding of human fying of a profound awareness and soli­ nature and heart. All of which leads as darity. Andrei Tarkovsky, the brilliant director who is barely tolerated in the inevitably to .Australia and its peculiar USSR by the regime, receives awards interest for Canadian film folk (see Cine­ not only from the official Cannes jury ma Canada No. 94). but from the international critics and Whate\'er one may hear, the Australian from the ecumenical juries as well. film industry is not in a stale of crisis ; What this could mean for him, but also on the contrary, it is modestly thriving in terms of broader cultural possibilities, and solid in its plans for the future. As I is incalculable. And Cannes remembers write this, the final amendments to the its past. Beautifully restored prints of ta.x law (extending the 150% exemption great, sometimes neglected, films of the over a two-year period) are being enac­ past are regularly shown. Books are ted. Now the .Australians will be able to honored. In a special ceremony, the rationalize their output over an all- young American film scholar, Dudley vear-round production schedule. More- Andrew, and Frangois Truffaut and oxer, four or five cases of entrepreneurial others, gathered to celebrate the 25th rip-off (as we Canadians put it I are being anniversaiy of the death of one of film dealt with severely, so that the ranks of historys greatest and most beautiful the perpetrators are being pruned. Pared thinkers, Andre Bazin, father, in a sense do\\n, that is, to the normal state of of Les cahiers du cinema and of la Australian film affairs, in which film nouvelle vague. Cannes is all of this as people, really caring about products well. and knowing the intricacies of the art form and tlie business, are b> and large 4. The final, final word. We are not in control. living at a time when film art is being Cannes was once again a,showcase, renewed. There are no startling new for good Aussie films. True, some big developments, and Cannes made this Aussie directors, having succumbed " abundantly clear. As indicated earlier, to the challenge of the Hollywood featu­ there was not even "a single acclaimed At bmes, the cry borders on cosmic go to the movies back home, but thai "masterpiece" in evidence. On the other re, presented .American films: Fred despair; butthere is an amazingly strong was a dominant lone in many of the hand, a number of serious, excellent Schepisi's disappointing. empt> tourde assertion repeated time and again, cal- films witness to a growing outrage at major works shown in Cannes this May. force, a \\ eslern called Barbarosa, and hng for respect for human dignity, and, So, yellowish-pink Bunkers not with­ the folly and evil of today's power game. indirectly at least, expressing a hope Bruce Beresford's superb Tender .Mer­ Cannes showed us an art form that is standing, maybe it is still worth the that concerted human effort is possible. cies, are cases in point. But the home rich in conscience and consciousness. effort after all. component in its genuine form still This may not be the reason most folk

22/Cinema Canada - June 198^