Last Tango in Paris, Part 2

One of my favourite shots in 'Last Tango in Paris'. Bertolucci's and Storaro's paintly composition and use of color made it memorable.

Bertolucci’s ‘Last Tango in Paris’ has always been an enigma. The film has inspired discussions and debate regarding its meaning ever since it emerged, and all sorts of interpretations have been proposed to the story. Bertolucci did not spell out all the details in the plot, because he wanted to engage the audience to think and use their imaginations. The style of the story is very representative of the style of European art films, when ‘scenarios’ are staged – in a often episodic or poetic manner – and motivations are often ambiguous. Indeed, the scenes in the film were formalized and could be compared to ‘snapshots’ of the characters’ lives. The story of ‘Last Tango’ unfolded in an alternating manner, where the scenes could be either categorized as (a) Paul and Jeanne’s carnal experience in the apartment; and (b) the experience of either Paul or Jeanne in the outside world. The fact that these two scenes were staged in an alternate manner make it similar to a day-and-night dichotomy, and as I have suggested in the previous article, it sort of symbolized the unconscious (represented by desire) and conscious (represented by reality) of the characters’ psychological makeup.

Even when one watches ‘Last Tango’ many times, different interpretations can be given to the story. Did Jeanne have any feelings at all to Paul? Why did Paul’s wife commit suicide? Did Jeanne and Tom have a genuine love relationship? And after all why did Jeanne keep on coming back to Paul if she was not comfortable about that – was she just not sure, or as someone might provocatively suggest, that represented a sadomasochist relationship or Stockholm Syndrome? These are just some of the mysterious questions that have been haunting the audience over the ages, and I believe that is the continuing attraction of ‘Last Tango in Paris’.

Marlon Brando has delivered one of his best ever performance in the form of Paul, the depressed widower. Audience tends to concentrate too much on the controversial sex scenes, and they may overlook Brando’s brilliant performance in this film. As a big fan of him, I in particular enjoy Brando’s performance in the 1970s – from ‘The Godfather’ to ‘Apocalypse Now’ and even his cameo as Jor-El in ‘Superman’. He has delivered first rate monologues, and there was an intricate aspect about most of his roles. While he often starred as characters who possessed power or had the courage to fight for it, there was always a vulnerable dimension in the same character, and that was most evident in his role as Paul in ‘Last Tango’. Paul, having lately lost his wife, was empowering himself through the control on Jeanne, and to be honest, certain cases of his advances towards Jeanne could be considered harassment or even rape. Yet, he was truly desperate and mournful at the same time. I guess the magic from Brando originated from a delicate balance in terms of performance, and that was what made his characters fascinating.

As a method actor, Brando has contributed a lot to his role through improvisation in the film. Indeed, some of the quotes were based on his past recollections. Two sequences were absolutely sublime – Paul’s monologue about his past, when he was reclining in the apartment; and Paul’s monologue to the corpse of his wife. These were brilliant moments because they were the points when Paul really expressed his feelings about his life and beliefs in general. In the other scenes, either he maintained an anonymous relationship with Jeanne, or he tried to distance himself from the others around him, and most of those quotes were banal and vulgar. In general, one could see most of the quotes in the film were in an opaque style, they were often contextual and one could not really draw most inferences from what the characters were thinking – unlike in the narrative-oriented style of classical cinema – and I think that was Bertolucci’s intention after all.

When Paul was alone in front of his wife’s coffin, the monologue delivered by Brando was probably one of the actor’s greatest moments in cinema. Literally talking to a corpse, he has expressed a rich feeling of regret and persecution. Paul lamented the fact he could not access to his late wife’s psyche, and doubted that the intention of his wife to marry him was merely to retreat from life. The scene was important because it exposed Paul’s character flaw and weakness. Bertolucci did not tell us much about Paul’s wife, all the information was from the subjective, and often opinionated comments from Paul. Paul did not feel responsible for the failure of their relationship, and he felt that the reason why the marriage led to a tragic end was because of the infidelity of his wife, which he castigated her as a ‘pig-fxxking liar’ or so on. The comment being both banal and misogynistic, Bertolucci put the audience into Paul’s shoes, and led us to experience the situation from Paul’s point of view. If there was any reason why Paul could never understand his wife – or other women in general – that was because of his passivity. What the story suggested was that Paul’s character could not provide compassion and care to the other half of his relationship, and therefore he could only have these relationships – sexual in many cases – in an instrumental manner. I suppose what Bertolucci was implying was that Paul was repeating history – his relationship with his late wife probably mirrored his relationship with Jeanne.  

Paul the desperado

So, is Paul a bad guy? Well, yes and no. The beauty about the film was really the complexity of Paul’s character, and anyone will probably have a love-hate relationship with him. The audience would hate him for being vulgar and treating women in a disrespectful manner, yet they also wanted to love him because he was vulnerable and was crying for help. I would say Brando has successfully portrayed a character of nihilism, because he could not find much meaningful aspect after he lost his wife. He was just like someone into drugs or severe alcoholism, and foolishly believed that these instruments could help him to pass the time and eventually lead him to a better endpoint. For Paul, his poison was sex. Paul had absolutely no idea that he was railing on a self-destructive path, and his experience with Jeanne would most likely traumatize her also. Instead of looking for genuine romantic love or positive relationship, Paul succumbed to a detached and carnal sexual relationship, and eventually got nothing from that.

After all, the anonymous sexual relationship with Jeanne was merely his psychological defensive mechanism. He wanted to divert his focus from the regret and guilt he had for his failed relationship with his wife. That was why he stressed all the times ‘no names’ to Jeanne, because in a philosophical point of view, names led to associations of things, and thus entailed responsibility. Paul wanted to live the sexual experience one at a time, even if Jeanne provided the subtle implications that their relationships could be developed to another level, like friendship – Jeanne did not mind telling Paul about herself, but was always stopped by him. By engaging with Jeanne in this banal way, Paul was rid of any responsibility and commitment, and could therefore fuel his most nihilistic existence.

Jeanne the enigma

An interesting aspect noted by many viewers was the imbalance of knowledge the audience would be accessible for the two main characters. Bertolucci appeared to allow full access for the audience to understand Paul – he spoke out what he felt and thought about, through his introspective monologues. Yet, Jeanne was very much an enigmatic character. We did not know clearly what her motivations throughout the film were, and how she really felt about her relationship with Paul. That was ironic because it served as a parallel to Paul’s scenario with his dead wife. He failed to understand her and see through her soul, he could not connect with her emotionally.

Jeanne seemed to be a more flexible character, and she was able to fit in to both Paul’s world and her boyfriend’s cinematic world. She was willing to explore for different possibilities, yet it was evident that she has not been able to make up her mind. To me, the reason why Jeanne kept coming back to Paul was because she was confused and she did not see that much harm of engaging the relationship with Paul. Maybe there was a psychological need for her, and she probably did not take the issue seriously. Jeanne was oblivious – or not fully aware of, to be fair – Paul’s emotional turmoil and did not see that he was using her as an instrument to get over the hard times. Because both characters had such a distorted expectation from the relationship, it would be clear that Paul was asking too much from Jeanne. At the near end of the film, Jeanne has made up the decision to marry her boyfriend, and gone to try the bridal gown. Yet out of a bout of indecision, she ran away and went back to the apartment. Later, when she and Paul was in the dance hall, she was juggling with all sort of conflicting feelings about Paul, and eventually decided to leave Paul for good. Yet, Paul continued to pursue her into her apartment, and impulsively, she pulled a gun on her and killed him.

As Jeanne stood almost frozen in the apartment, she kept on rehearsing and repeating that she did not know Paul, and said he tried to rape her, as if practicing the statement to say to the police later. Certainly, the murder was an impulsive act, yet it was clear that Jeanne regretted doing that. Because, Jeanne clearly had some feelings for Paul after all these. In order to defend her from the psychological stress, she tried to pretend the whole relationship has not existed at all. While in a legal standpoint there was a smart move – because after all their relationship was secretive and anonymous, and Jeanne could argue her action as a self-defense from a stalker – emotionally it was unsettling because she was lying to herself. In her heart, she would not forgive herself for doing this, no matter how repulsive Paul might have seemed shortly before that.

Over the years I watched ‘Last Tango in Paris’ again, I have the feeling that Jeanne and Paul’s story could lead to a good ending if they had a better direction for their relationships. What Paul needed was not sex, but someone who could give compassion and listen to him. There should be someone who was willing to understand his plight and prove him wrong on his bleak outlook towards his world. If a romantic love relationship was not possible – Jeanne had a fiancé – then a ‘father-daughter’ type friendship would still be possible, given their age difference. In such a relationship both would be able to contribute. Paul could share more about what he knew to the younger girl, and Jeanne could provide hope and emotional consolation to him. I suppose the reason why ‘Last Tango in Paris’ has become so iconic is not merely because of the dirty lust or so on  - that is because Bertolucci has been able to dig deep into the audience’s soul by expressing something we all care about a lot – the need for human relationships.

-End-

(2/2)

Film Analysis