Thursday, November 10, 2011
Un Long Dimanche de Fiancailles
The headstrong Mathilde is what makes this film such an effective juxtaposition of the atrocities of WWI and the emotional aftermath of loss experienced by survivors. Against all logical odds she holds on to her intuition and metaphysical connection to her fiance, Manech as she unravels the mystery of Bingo Crepuscule. I think at the heart of the odds against her is a negotiation for legitimate knowledge (epistimology) between the dominant male ways of knowing truth (reason) and women's ways of knowing (a different kind of reason that spans the gap between the head and the heart, or emotions/feelings and logical reasoning. The latter ends up the most successful for trying to come to terms with the utter senselessness of that horrific war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mathilde's love and intution for Manech causes her to develop superstitions to keep her hope alive. She makes superstitions to deal with the fact that the love of her life could possibly die in the war. She states things such as "if the dog comes in before dinner, Manech is still alive. After we see the superstition play out we see a glimpse of hope. However, when her superstitions aren't as she stated, such as "if I reach the bend before the car," and "if the ticket man comes before I count to seven," then we watch hope fade. Yet, Mathilde never specified which car and the ticket man was a "April fool's" joke.
ReplyDeleteIs it that Mathilde needs these superstitions to know that Manech is alive or is it also that the director may be foreshadowing into the plot on a deeper psychological level? Do you think that Mathilde's supersititons help or hinder her?
I think that Mathilde relies on her superstitions in order to get through each day with hope. In each instance, she can take each outcome with optimism--even the predictions that were not distinctly accurate. Thus, I see her superstitions as only a positive asset in her mission to find Manech.
ReplyDeleteAs for the progression of the plot, I think the uncertainty of whether the predictions were accurate or not leaves the audience intrigued. In my opinion it successfully left us uncertain as to if the couple would be reunited or not.
I really appreciated the writer's decision to give Manech amnesia. I, for one, am opposed to films that are overly "happily ever after" and leave nothing to the imagination. With the closing of the film, we were able to ponder how their love story would play out and how fortunate they were to be able to start over. How does everyone else feel about the ending of the film?
Before we watched A Very Long Engagement we talked about the amount of suffering the French endured in WWI. 1 out of every 20 men dying at war is horrific and I can better understand the immense sacrifices France made for its cause. Jeunet does a fantastic job of portraying the slaughter and devastation of war while balancing the tone of the movie through the love story of Mathilde and Manech. Through Mathilde we meet a series of quirky characters and come to see the toll war takes on soldiers as well as their families, friends and lovers. This movie it an imaginative presentation of suffering of France and the scars that still remain.
ReplyDeleteIn the film Jeunet focuses on the corruption and cruelty within the French army an not so much on the Germans. It shines a light on the true treatment of soldiers during this time period and it’s nothing short of gruesome. Punishments were harsh and “cowardice” was unacceptable.
As Dimple said, the main theme of this movie is hope. Despite all odds she never gives up on the dream of her fiancé’s survival. Hope is a leap of faith. When we hope in something we risk our hearts being broken or our dreams being shattered. For me Mathilde’s hope represents the hope France had for recovery after WWI.
I agree with Dimple in reference to the ending of the film. I liked, as well, that the ending was not super "happily ever after." However, I think in a way the director was very kind to Manech and Mathilde. The war was so devastating to France and to so many people that it changed them forever. For example, we see this when Manech goes essentially insane on the battlefield. So the fact that the director gave Manech amnesia allowed them to start over. This way they could once again share the love they once had. Because if Manech did not have amnesia and remembered the horrors of the war, I don't think they could ever get back to where they were. It's almost like their innocence was given back to them. So maybe this ending could be considered a "happily ever after" because I am sure the vast majority of people living during the war either experienced their loved ones dying or their loved ones coming back so completely changed and damaged that there was no possible way to reconcile what they once shared.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what has been said about the predictions. They keep the audience hooked into the story. There is enough ambiguity to make us doubt if Manech is alive but there is also enough hope to keep us rooting for Mathilde's side. I think it also adds to the theory of a woman's intuition. That their is some sort of voice or tug that as women we have about something in life. Mathile obviously felt something inside of her telling her that Manech was alive and she never ignored it. Perhaps the superstition she obtained is due to herself justifying listening to this intuition in a moment of doubt.
Another thing that we mentioned in class was the cinematography of this film. This is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen and I think that added greatly to the emotion that one got from watching it. The music, setting, angles of the camera, and special affects all seemed to add to what was going in on the scene. You could tell that a lot of coordination went on to achieve this but it also looked so effotless and natural. I think the whimsical style fit perfectly for the storyline of the film.
What did other people think about the cinematography and do you think that making the film more whimsical added or took away from the storyline?
I agree with Dimple on the idea that the superstitions simply help her get through the day. They are a coping mechanism. She needs that bit of optimism in order to continue living. He was all the love she really knew and could not accept the fact that he could be gone.
ReplyDeleteI do however believe that it was also used to foreshadow the events to come. The ambiguity of some of the instances that she used her superstition also foreshadowed the ambiguity of how the movie ended. Those times where she did not exactly get what she was hoping for foreshadowed how in the he was alive but not really the same person anymore. I also agree with Dimple on the ending. I thought it was just an amazing ending to this movie.
I think that this movie does a great job of showing how devastating war is and how it affects those both directly and indirectly involved. I agree that this movie was beautiful to watch even though it was about such an ugly issue.
ReplyDeleteThe love story between Mathilde and Manech is a nice side story that keeps the movie on the lighter side. I think that Mathilde is much stronger than Manech and that he was quite lucky to have been able to stay alive and not have the pain of remembering what he lived through. He stays somewhat innocent thoughout the entire movie while Mathilde seems to have taken on all the terrible secrets of Bingo Crepuscule.
This movie shows how war can turn friends against each other and how strangers can become bound for life. I thought it was alarming how little human life seemed to mean to many of the officers and how quick they were to write off their own men.
Mathilde is the perfect combination of suffering and hope. I think in the end, although the war caused so much devastation, we are able to see that people still have faith that there can be life after war.
I absolutely loved this film and I really enjoy how there are so many ways to look at this movie, hence everyone talking about different things. I think that Mathilde’s superstitions can be seen both ways: as her way of comforting herself and convincing herself that he is alive, as well as the director’s attempt at foreshadowing into the plot on a deeper psychological level. I think that it all depends on how you look at it, especially since at the end of the movie we were forced to question whether the April Fool’s part on the train and the other car coming around the bend were deliberate or not. Mathilde’s superstitions gave her comfort in her search but they also gave her motivation, since she continued to say things in order to convince herself and there was no reason to stop saying them unless she knew for sure that Manech was dead. Mathilde was optimistic throughout the entire film and despite Manech being physically and emotionally altered at the end; I think that Mathilde did find what she was looking for. Especially since they started from almost nothing when they first became friends, a fresh start at the end seems somewhat better, since he can’t remember the war or being away from Mathilde for so long. I also think that it’s interesting how throughout the entire film Mathilde is physically impaired because of her leg, yet she still goes completely out of her way to find her fiancé and find out the truth. Then at the end Manech is the impaired one and there is almost a role reversal between the two and their ailments. I also feel that there was a nice balance in the film with the war and the love story, although they were constantly intertwined. I agree with Celia on the cinematography. I absolutely loved how whimsical the film was and I definitely think that it added to the storyline and made their love more quirky. I agree with Melissa that Mathilde was the perfect combination of suffering and hope, but that is what made her so optimistic and what made her continue to search for answers until she knew the truth. The ending was the perfect level of “happy ending” for me, because although it was sad and not exactly how I wanted in the end, it was different and since their relationship was so damaged, it just allowed them to have the ability to fall all the way back in love again. The full circle ending was really nice too when Manech said the same line to Mathilde in the first and last scenes, which made the ending much better, I think.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jeunet's extreme attention to detail, both in the story line and in the intricate (and beautiful) cinematography, is what makes this film come together to tell such a complicated story. Not only is it whimsical, but these techniques show, very intricately, how far the war streched and how many peoples lives were effected and in such unique ways. Jeunet uses Mathilde and Manech's unique and youthful relationship as the vehicle to explore all the other relationships and lives effected. I think he chose two young characters as his protagonists because of the innocence of their "gaze" and how it is completely altered by the war. Not to mention the horribleness of Manech's historically truthful position of being a boy much too young and immature to be thrown into the trenches of a war.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that, in the end, the use of amnesia is an interesting role reversal for Mathlide and Manech! While Manech get's to start fresh and hopefully never remember the horrific trauma's he faced, Mathilde now knows (as does the audience..which is the most important), atleast to a degree, what the war brought. If Manech was to remember everything that happened it would be very unlikely that he would be able to function in a healthy relationship with Mathilde.