末代皇帝

 

意大利電影大師貝托魯奇（Bernardo Bertolucci）的代表作-末代皇帝溥儀-將在香港重映，以紀念坂本龍一先生。這部勇奪九項金像獎的佳作，能夠在敍述宏大的歷史氛圍和細膩的人物情感之間作出微妙的平衡，以致建構出一部偉大的現代史詩。想感受一下歐洲藝術電影的風采，就一定要去看看這經典電影了!!

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

The Conformist, Part 2

Bernardo Bertolucci’s ‘The Conformist’ is a multi-faceted film. If the audience wants to make sense of the meaning of the film, they will likely find themselves among a number of possible interpretations, which may even be at odds with each other. Through the use of expressive poetic images and an elliptical narrative structure, Bertolucci and his co-workers have woven a brilliant film about the different dimensions that can impact an individual’s life. I think this attribute of ‘The Conformist’ is one of the most important elements of European art cinema in general – the refusal to give the film a single definitive meaning or answer. Many great films, not only those from Europe, derive its continuing fascination from the audience because of the multiple layers of meanings the audience can get from them, and that demands the active participation from the audience.

Through the film is obviously a critique of Fascism, I believe Bertolucci has placed a significant focus on Marcello’s conformist attitude, and the filmmaker was trying to explore the origin of this belief, which even led to a character’s death. True, there are interpretations which focus more on the political contexts of the 1930s, and there are also theories that synthesize psychology with politics (say, the Frankfurt School). I bet the most important take-home message that most audience can easily appreciate is the destructive effects of conformism on individuals. Even if Fascism did not even at all in Marcello’s world, his character flaw and past trauma would likely lead him to conform to any major ideology of his time, and at the end of the film Bertolucci showed that Marcello definitely had this ability to fit in. It was exactly this flatness the filmmaker wanted to caution us about.

Marcello conformed to whatever the mainstream agenda of his time was. In a sense, he had no personal beliefs of any sort, and all he wanted was to hide inside his comfort zone, and to make his life easier. The irony about the protagonist was that, while he possessed the intellectual capability (ok, he has changed the title of his thesis but he has graduated anyway) to think about the issues around him, he was most willing to conform to his political surroundings so that he could have a sense of fitting in. He did not ask questions, and that was not because he did not have the ability to. He refused to ask questions due to his self-interest.

Yet, the complexity and brilliance from Bertolucci was that the origins of Marcello’s personality could not be rationalized politically or instrumentally alone. Bertolucci was just as interested in psychological as much as social issues, and one could easily see a Freudian influence from many of his films. Marcello did have his own taste of childhood trauma. Because he was born in a relatively affluent family, he has often been picked on by the other kids because his status and character was very different from those around him. Finding a friendship from his chauffeur, the experience proved to be traumatizing because the chauffeur was likely to be homosexual (and also implied to ‘like children’ a bit too much), and the young Marcello went as far to put a bullet through the chauffeur’s face after a severe conflict, and wrongly assumed the chauffeur died from that. Marcello has been scarred by this incident, making him sexually confused and he started to believe in the power of violence and aggression. At the same time, he also learnt that he could not afford to stand out from the crowd due to the psychological distress. The fact that he had to fight his inner demons and the development from that was the factors that have led to Marcello’s character when he grew up, and it was obvious it has gone a perverse direction.  

One of the most memorable and widely discussed sequences in the film was of course when Marcello and Professor Quadri met in a room in Paris, and involved a discussion of Plato’s Cave. The scene was atmospheric because of the unique lighting and composition, and Bertulocci / Storaro’s innovative play with light and shadow illustrated the power struggle between 2 conflicting ideologies. The issue regarding the cave also served as an organizing symbol for the whole film and allegorized Marcello’s situation nicely. There are a few viewpoints I can think of about the allegory. First, the idea about Plato’s cave is that the men in the cave are not allowed to see the real world outside the cave, and all they can see are shadows. Bertolucci nicely illustrated that through the light-and-dark play, by having Marcello seeing his shadow on the wall a few times. What Plato was trying to say was that if one could not escape the cave, they would never see the thing-in-itself (the ultimate reality), and could only see the phenomenal world, which he believed was not the most real one in a metaphysical point of view. He further stated that most of the people would conform inside the cave and happy with receiving what they saw inside the cave, without having the courage to step out and figure out what the reality looked like for themselves. This was similar to Marcello’s case, where he simply conformed to the predominant, Fascist thinking of his time and was not trying to examine whether that ideology was justified in the world or not.

A second viewpoint is that Plato seemed to imply that the people in the cave was misled to believe that what they saw inside the cave was the reality, and therefore they probably did not feel that was a need to verify whether that was true or not.  The case bore resemblance to Marcello’s, because his childhood trauma led him to connect the dots erroneously and believed that his conformist and normalizing tendency were the consequence which originated from that, and eventually led him to more evil deeds.

I can think of a third viewpoint. The presence of the shadow reminds me of Carl Jung’s ideas, the fact that there is always a shadow behind everyone’s psyche. The shadow on the wall represented what haunted Marcello – his darkest urges and trauma. He has tried hard to escape from the clutches of his shadow, the dark side inherent in every person. Yet, his character and attitude meant that he could not be able to defeat that, and Quadri’s additional lecture to Marcello also could not save himself, too.

Marcello and Quadri also discussed Marcello’s unfinished doctoral thesis about Plato’s Cave. Quadri lamented that Marcello could not be able to finish the thesis as he felt Marcello was a gifted student with potential, yet Marcello pointed out that the reason why he did not finish it was because Quadri left the school in the first place, leading to his abandonment of the thesis. While this chick and egg scenario took a cyclic irony, it also had Freudian implications because it represented the theme of abandonment. Maybe both Quadri and Marcello served some responsibilities for Marcello’s dark personality. If Quadri has been able to educate and inspire Marcello better, he might have prevented Marcello from turning to the dark way, and that would of course prevent his own demise at the end.



After Mussolini failed, Marcello and one of his comrades gathered to think about what should be the next thing to do. The conformist nature of Marcello meant that, when he saw the anti-Fascist movement was rising, he went to change his opinions to an anti-Fascist stance in no time, and criticized his comrade’s old belief. He could be seen as a chameleon in human form – it was just his nature to fit into the big picture no matter the cost. The flatness of this character was what made him a soulless individual, making him easy to be manipulated by ideology.

When I watch ‘The Conformist’ and ‘Last Tango in Paris’, I can’t stop having the feeling that Marcello and Paul have a number of common aspects. Both characters were the victims of their past, for which they were traumatized by events they were not responsible for. True, maybe Paul’s character flaw was what made his wife commit suicide in the first place, yet it could not be all his fault. Both Marcello and Paul could appreciate well the problems they encountered, yet foolishly and tragically, they confused the nature of their problems and combated them in the wrong directions, leading to a self-destructive end. Thus, both stories had psychological elements amidst the other factor. All Paul wanted was someone to care about him, yet he mixed up lust with true love and compassion; all Marcello was to live a normal life and not to stand out from the crowd too often; yet he mixed up being normal and being conformed to something, especially when the idea was horribly wrong. The tragic consequence was that not only they could not achieve more well-being at the end, they have also harmed or traumatized others as a side-effect.   

Such aspects represent Bertolucci’s brand of cinematic pathos.

-End-

(2/2)

by Ed Law

Film Analysis











The Conformist, Part 1

Are you willing to step out of your comfort zone, to embrace in beliefs that may be contentious to others? Are you feeling desperate just to fit into the picture? Are you aiming for a form of flatness in life, which is not subject to any form of perturbations? These appear to be confrontational questions, yet they were exactly the questions Bernardo Bertolucci wanted his audience to think about in one of his most famous films – ‘The Conformist’ (1970)!

‘The Conformist’ was the film that has led Bertolucci to international stardom as a filmmaker in the early 1970s. Having won a number of awards around the world and an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay, the film is memorable for being one of the most visually brilliant films in the history of cinema. I can say that is already pleasant by simply looking at the film images alone – the vibrant images constitute an organic unity of visual poetry that prove to be rare in cinema. Other than Bertolucci’s genius, the effort and creativity offered by the director of photography, Vittorio Storaro, was also essential for bringing ‘The Conformist’ to such a status. In fact, ‘The Conformist’ could be considered one of Storaro’s most iconic works, and Storaro is the rare sort of cinematographer that has its own photographic style, which I will discuss in the later passages of this article. No matter which filmmaker he has worked with, you can likely detect his presence through his signature style. Again, ‘The Conformist’ is a beautiful film one can easily fall in love with – and what is the problem if that is a really great one?

The story concerned Marcello, who lived in the Fascist era of Italy. He became a correspondent of Fascism, and his mission was to assassinate Professor Quadri, his teacher during his college years. Quadri, currently living in Paris, was involved in some political resistance against Fascism, and therefore was marked as a target for termination. The story was told in flashbacks, which explored the social, cultural and psychological reasons why Marcello became a Fascist and has developed an attitude of extreme Conformism to the political setting around him.


When one watches ‘The Conformist’, how can one not notice the stunning visual aspect of the film? While Bertolucci has been largely responsible for delivering such an impressive mise-en-scene, the achievement would not be possible without the hard work and vision of Vittorio Storaro, the director of photography who has collaborated on numerous occasions with Bertolucci. Storaro can be considered as the rare sort of cinrmatographer who has developed a unique and recognizable visual style as original as any filmmakers. Indeed, ‘The Conformist’ can be seen as one of Stararo’s major achievements, and the film can serve as a textbook example of how to do brilliant cinematography.



Storaro’s camera style has a few notable characteristics. First, that is the fluid and mobile camera movement, and that is so smooth that it appears as if the camera is dancing, and that gives the audience a flowing and liberating feel. He is also known for a narrative use of lighting effect, and often uses high contrast lighting effect to enhance the atompshere. His choice of colour and light usually led to expressive effects that contributed to the narrative and atmosphere of the scene. Storaro was particularly noted for a combination of colour tune consisting of cold blue/warm yellow, giving very contrasting and expressive results. Having a sound understanding of colour temperature, he has been able to make a number of beautitul Technicolor films with directors including Bertolucci.

Bertolucci and Storaro have drawn influenced from the artistic style most associated with Fascist Italy, in order to lead the audience into that particular political climate in the 1930s. Notice that the preferences were not merely visual gimmicks. The visual and camera or lighting style also served a narrative purpose. It illustrated the exaggerated situation of Marcello and the Fascist beliefs he attempted to embrace and conform to, much like the decors of Expressionism were used to externalize the madness of someone’s mind.

The film has a unique style of having contrasting light and dark/shadow often in the same shot, rather than a balanced or natural arrangement. This style was deliberate from the filmmakers likely because they tried to show the co-existence of conflicting ideologies, and most of all, good and evil that fought for control in the world.



The filmmakers have used light and dark to represent the Freudian conscious and unconscious respectively. They have decided to shoot the Italian scenes in a more claustrophobic way, and the color tone was dry and institutional, to show Marcello’s entrapment in the Fascist regime. In contrast, the French scenes were more balanced with light and dark, and the space was more open, as if offering Marcello an opportunity to escape – which of course he failed to grasp.

Before we finish here, I also want to divert a bit from ‘The Conformist’ and talk about Storaro’s impressive work in 2 other films, ‘Last Tango in Paris’ and also Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Apocalypse Now’. Of course, a common element between the two classics is the presence of Marlon Brando, and both films include a our-of-this-world monologue respectively – the one about Paul’s recollections in ‘Last Tango’, and Colonel Kurtz’s ‘Horror’ monologue in ‘Apocalypse’. Storaro seemed to have been using a similar style when he shot these two scenes, with an emphasis on the contrast of light and shadow, so that at some point Brando’s almost close-up face were in the dark, and then reappeared at the next moment, giving that a ghost-like quality. This approach seemed nicely with the message the directors were trying to convey, namely, the difficulty to access one’s mind in ‘Last Tango’, and the duality of Man in ‘Apocalypse’ - which, is very much the theme of 'The Conformist'.

(1/2)

by Ed Law

Film Analysis





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



Last Tango in Paris, Part 1

Maria Schneider and Marlon Brando in 'Last Tango in Paris'.





About 45 years ago, the film critic Pauline Kael made the bold statement that a landmark in the history of cinema emerged. The unusual suspects included a young Italian filmmaker, a middle-age American actor who has just delivered one of the most iconic characters in the history of cinema (and made others a few offers they couldn’t refuse), and a French actress who just reached 20. This international wonder was recognized by many awards, and yet generated enough controversies for which active discussions regarding it have continued to this day. The film is of course Bernardo Bertolucci’s ‘Last Tango in Paris’!

The contemplation of life.

Before we indulge ourselves in this modern classic, I would like to offer a bit of a warning. This film is extremely sexually explicit, and while my discussion will be more about psychology – because I feel it was Bertolucci’s focus after all – there are certain points that we may encounter sexual content, and I hope that will not be offensive to certain readers. The first part will be about background and style, the second part will be about content.

Bernardo Bertolucci

‘The Last Tango in Paris’ can be considered a milestone in the world cinema of the 1970s. It starred the one-and-only Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider, and was directed by a young Bernardo Bertolucci, just after he made another modern classic, ‘The Conformist’. Bertolucci has always been a filmmaker I admire and have an intense fascination in. Ever since I watched his epic ‘Last Emperor of China’ (1987) in my teenage years, I have already found his films visually stunning, mainly due to the contribution from his director of photography, Vittorio Storaro. Bertolucci has always been a very daring and ambitious filmmaker, and his films have often courted controversy, mainly due to the sexual content. While Bertolucci’s films are often politically-driven, there is also a psychological edge in many of them. To be frank, I am more into the psychological aspect, and I guess that’s the reason why ‘Last Tango’ is my favourite Bertolucci film. I have to admit I have a continuing fascination with this film. Though I have watched it more than 20 times, I cannot stop going back to it again and again. The Technicolor feel, the painterly composition, the naked emotion, and Brando’s brilliant performance – all can turn into an obsession. So be warned – ‘Last Tango’ can be the sort of film you fall in love with!  

Bertolucci directing Brando and Schneider.

Marlon Brando was one of the actors I admire the most in the history of cinema, and therefore it shouldn’t be surprising that his performance here is among one of my favourite, alongside with ‘Godfather’. One cannot stop falling in love with Brando’s talent, if you really love cinema, because his style was just so unique. Brando could be considered as one of the key actors who involved in method acting. The way he mumbled through his lines, and his monologues, especially in his films from the 1970s, offered a hypnotic effect. I can say I have fallen in love with Brando’s monologues – I just want to hear him talking on and on and on.

Bertolucci and Storaro's painterly composition.



While ‘Last Tango in Paris’ has won a lot of awards, it was an extremely controversial film even in its era, which was a time when filmmakers were willing to explore all sorts of ideas and style. The NC-17 film is sexually explicit, and it has unfortunately courted courtesy last year because of the infamous butter scene that implied an anal rape. As there are so many contradictory versions of the story, and also two of the protagonists – Brando and Schneider – have already passed away, there is thus no way to have a fair assessment of what was really going on. What can be established is that there has been some horrible misunderstanding between the filmmaker and the actors, and Schneider did not quite see what was coming for her character. Thus, what the audience watched on the screen was her genuine distress, and I think it would make the audience feel unsettled if they were aware of that fact. Maybe Bertolucci wanted to push for a more authentic performance here, but he probably would be better off if he explained clearly to the actors given the controversial nature of the sequence. So, it is fair to say everyone had some responsibility here, because they should all ask for clarifications if things might go wrong, and this should serve as a cautionary tale for later filmmakers.   

Light, shadow, body, psyche.

Is ‘Last Tango in Paris’ pornographic, as some detractors may suggest? I disagree. It is fair to say the film has a strong sexual element, yet the intention is not to make the audience feel ‘dirty’ about sex. If Bertolucci’s intention was to make ‘Last Tango’ a pornographic film, then he would have failed miserably, because it was clearly not his intention (and he would also not need all the efforts to write all those beautiful dialogues and figure out the painterly compositions). The audience will not feel horny or sensationalized by sex from this NC-17 film, rather, they will likely feel emotional and garner sympathy to the two major characters. To me, ‘Last Tango in Paris’ is not merely about sex. It is about relationships. It is about feelings. It is about how things can go horribly wrong if you do not understand others, or have a wrong expectation from others due to the lack of a proper and sincere communication. The tragic consequence of the film is due to character flaws and the failure to express feelings that can strengthen relationships. Sex, after all, is merely a vehicle to tell the story and express the theme.

Paul and Jeanne's brief encounter in the streets of Paris.

After watching 2 paintings by the 20^th century artist Francis Bacon, Bertolucci invited us to the story of Paul (Marlon Brando) and Jeanne (Maria Schneider). Paul was a middle-age American who was mourning over her wife’s recent suicide. Wandering aimlessly around the streets of Paris, he first encountered Jeanne, a young French girl. Fate had it (or Bertolucci playing God?!) that the two met again when they both wanted to let an apartment. Out of impulse they first made love there. Since then, they established a relationship based on sex and love-making, yet there was a rule not to be broken – it had to be anonymous, and they could not tell each other their names and their outside lives. In fact, Jeanne had a boyfriend in her normal life, meaning that she was sort of living a diurnal existence here. While Paul was struggling to make sense of his life and regrets, Jeanne had second thoughts and confusions about her relationship with Paul. Is the relationship worth sustaining, and what would eventually come out of that in the end?

The inevitable union of 2 tortured souls?

 

Now you owe me Bacon

 

While ‘Last Tango in Paris’ was a psychologically- and emotionally-rich film, it also had an unique style, which was brilliantly devised by Bertolucci and the director of photography, Vittorio Storaro. While I feel that the Bertolucci-Storaro style is more obvious in another film, ‘The Conformist’, which I will talk about soon, there are still some aspects in ‘Last Tango’ that is worth looking at.  

Bertolucci has cited the influence of Francis Bacon to the style in ‘Last Tango in Paris’, as far as asking Brando and Storaro and others to observe Bacon’s paintings and tried to imitate the style from them. Bacon had a unique style to his painting, and one could feel that his painitings on human characters were often very abstract, rather than relying on the foundation of realism. In the opening titles of the film, Bertolucci showed 2 paintings from Bacon, one male and one female. Not only the grotesque effect was evident, the paintings also showed ambivalence. While the characters in the painting appeared to be in relaxing position, their facial expressions were distorted and ambiguous, far from suggesting they were enjoying themselves. It thus appeared if they were ‘placed’ into such a position deliberately rather than following their natural composure and feeling comfortable. Indeed, Bertolucci advised Brando to imitate the gesture and composure from these Bacon paintings (you can say it as a sort of method acting), and Brando has committed to this approach and has all sort of different composures in the interior scenes. In the final moment of the opening credits, Bertolucci deliberately placed the 2 paintings aside once more, as if to symbolize the inevitable cross of path of the male (Paul) and female (Jeanne). Call it fate or whatever, that was when the two tortured and confused souls finally encountered each other amidst the streets of Paris.

Brando, a phone, and a lamp - then we have a performance.

When one watches a film by Bertolucci, the significant contributions from Vittorio Storaro, who is Bertolucci’s long-term collaborator on cinematography. Though I will talk in detail about Storaro’s general style in the article for ‘The Conformist’, I will pick up a few points which are relevant to ‘Last Tango’ here. Drawing inspirations from Bacon, many scenes in the film had a painterly feel, and to be sure, if one pauses the film every now and then, the shot may appear as if they are paintings from an artist. The beautiful compositions, the brown hues, with the balanced and often stylized use of light and shadow, Bertolucci and Storaro created images as if they were painting on celluloid. It was quite clear that there was a contrasting atmosphere when one compared the scenes outside the apartment (i.e. Jeanne’s normal life), and those inside the apartment (i.e. Jeanne and Paul). While the outdoor scenes were naturalistic, the indoor scenes were painterly and stylized in terms of lighting and composition. In many of those scenes you can almost always see light mingling around with shadow! I am not sure if an analogy to Freud’s ideas are totally relevant here, yet I feel that the intimate scenes inside the apartment are very similar to the unconscious side of our minds, and the place is where the more carnal desires lurk around. While the indoor scenes can be seen as limited, often only involving Paul and Jeanne, they are among the most atmospheric and emotional moments of this film, and Bertolucci’s mastery for the story should be recognized. I remember reading a negative review of Bertolucci’s flawed classic ‘1900’ from Roger Ebert, and in there Ebert pointed out that Bertolucci’s greatest moment was when he was directing 2 characters in a room. I think at least Ebert could appreciate the strength of Bertolucci’s work (also think about the ‘Plato’ scene in ‘The Conformist’). To sustain the fascination and attention from the audience in such a minimalist mise-en-scene requires a lot of talent and creativity from the filmmaker. Bertolucci should be proud of that!

(1/2)

Film Analysis