• commentary
  • SATURDAY OCTOBER 6 2007 8:00 PM

Hotel Chevalier is a Good Film

Submitted by Hunter

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: hotel chevalier, wes anderson, natalie portman



There has been a lot of hullabaloo as of late over the fact that Natalie Portman has gone back on her word and done a semi-nude scene in Wes Anderson's short film Hotel Chevalier (free on iTunes!). In fact, the two most common things I've heard about the film, in SG's own Celeb Worship group and elsewhere, have been:

1) OMG Natalie Portman like, totally shows her butt!

and

2) The rest of it was BOo0ringgZZzzzzzz.

These seem to be the only statements the public at large is capable of making about this film. Because I care, I will address them both.

1) Get over it. People have butts. Sometimes, when people are about to have sex, they take off their underwear and expose said butts. But not all ass shots are created equal. From the stylized removal of her boots to the "uh-oh, we have issues" moment, the love scene is extremely well-shot and choreographed, and the fact that he pulls down her pants and undies before focusing on her top half speaks volumes about the kind of relationship the two characters have. Additionally, the bruise on her ass is evidence that she has been involved in some vaguely kinky business since the last time they saw each other.

Which brings me to 2) People think this film is boring due to its sparseness and lack of dialog, back-story, conclusion, etc. These people are fundamentally missing the point. What is good about this film (and all decent short films and stories) is the amount of information (both literal and emotional) it is able to contain in so few words and images. For example, bruises on the ass can only mean one thing. Bruises on the rest of the body are more ambiguous. She has both, and he's not sure what to think, so he says something, but she ignores him.

In terms of dialog, Anderson doesn't mince words. We come into the story in media res: it's clear she has wronged him, and he's hiding out from the world at a hotel in Paris, where we learn he has been for over a month. They are about to have conflicted-emotion-angry-sad sex.


Girl: I love you...I never hurt you on purpose.
Guy: I don't care.


Hardly the tip of Hemmingway's iceberg...more like going straight to the craggy bottom.

I could go on for a while about other examples of why this film is good, but I want to hear what you think first. Watch it for yourself, or if you've already watched it, watch it again. See how much of the story you can piece together and how much you're left wanting to know. If you're anything like me, both lists will be longer than you might think possible for a twelve minute film. And that is why it's the perfect prequel for The Darjeeling Limited...it draws you in and leaves you hungry for more of these damaged characters.


  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

OCT 08, 2007 10:27 AM

Rafi said:
I dislike this question because it reeks of the elitism that says "You can't possibly make a critical or intelligent statement about X artistic medium unless you are an artist in X artistic medium." But since you asked: Yes, I made many short films through four years of film school in various capacities. After that, I Executive Produced last year's Paris je t'aime, which featured short films by directors like the Coen Bros., Cuaron, Alexander Payne, Van Sant, etc. At the moment, I'm co-producing a documentary short 'Carissa' that is currently in post-production.



All that is nice, and at least you're knowledgeable, but Paris Je'Taime was a feature-length movie. It may have comprised of smaller shorts, but it was still a feature. Which is actually how I'd market short films, by putting them in a larger whole. The downside of this is that such movies wouldn't be very marketable, and Paris proved it, but it all depends on what you're looking for.

In any case, I don't believe that's any more relevant than your short filmmaking experience because I don't presume the entirety of filmmakers should share my own specific reasons for producing a short. Just as an example, beyond the reasons you listed, we are making 'Carissa' not just as an artistic endeavor (although it certainly is that) but also with hopes of enacting social change - opening dialogue about the failures of the American juvenile justice system and encouraging changes to public policy.



That's a good example, but one that doesn't pertain to Chevalier. And I guess my definition was a bit narrow, but I still feel the same about a short film like Hotel Chevalier. Just out of curiosity, how long is Carissa?

There are many more reasons why people make short movies, of course - to create a 'calling card film' for themselves, to create the kernel of an imagined longer project, etc. But to me, stating 'short films aren't really meant to be commercially successful.' is reminiscent of the hollow criticism that such and such band has "totally sold out" by virtue of the fact that they're actuallly making their music available to more than eight people.



Wes Anderson has made himself incredibly "available, so that example is sort of moot. Short films are a good vehicle to fame for young unknowns, but Wes Anderson is neither, and he's still trying to use the medium as a vehicle to fame. It's weird, like I said.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

OCT 08, 2007 10:52 AM

Rafi said:

Formus said:

jahpuch said:
they are very specific complicated characters in a film and they have strange and unusual relationships, but their feelings come right through



I'd like you to tell me exactly what Natalie Portman was thinking when she said, as deadpan as she could, "If we fuck, I'll feel like shit tomorrow."

And I guarantee you it will be different from what I thought she was thinking when I heard her say the line.

And I guarantee it will be different from what another person thought.

And so on.

You'd think that ambiguity would be good, but, having seen Wes Anderson's films, the impression that I've gotten is that he's essentially denied the actors any leeway at all to make their imprints on their characters. They are devoid of personality. Their words don't make up for the fact that every character delivers their lines in the exact same way. What they say should be brilliant, but instead it's devoid of any human touch, and the emotion is sucked straight out. It sounds like HAL 9000 is saying their lines, and unless he's trying to make the point that people are robots (which, quite frankly, he's not), then he's taking great material and making it mediocre.



You obviously disagree, but I find this a perfectly acceptable and refreshing approach. I think it's absolutely desirable an effect that while his characters feel specific to me, the treatment of their situations require that a viewer brings something of himself into his reading.

And you know what? He's not by any stretch of the imagination the first filmmaker to utilize this technique. Ozu did it, as did Carl Th. Dreyer. So does Kiarastami. What a bunch of hacks!

The impression you mention that he denies his actors any leeway to express emtion? That's exactly the technique the French master Robert Bresson used with his actors. From Roger Ebert's Great Movies essay on Pickpocket: "Bresson, one of the most thoughtful and philosophical of directors, was fearful of ``performances'' by his actors. He famously forced the star of ``A Man Escaped'' (1956) to repeat the same scene some 50 times, until it was stripped of all emotion and inflection. All Bresson wanted was physical movement. No emotion, no style, no striving for effect. What we see in the pickpocket's face is what we bring to it." Anderson is not Bresson in stylistic terms, not by a longshot, but in the sense of what he sometimes requires of a viewer he's not so different. Don't be so opposed to taking something from yourself and investing it into your reading of a film.



I don't think that style works. In a visual medium, what we see drives what we think, not what we hear. And besides, it's impossible to completely suck performance out. You can suck emotion out, but you cannot suck performance out. So I think Bresson is fundamentally wrong. But at the very least he was a philosopher making a statement through experiment, whereas Anderson is a mainstream filmmaker trying to make a personal imprint on his characters to seem like he has more style than he does.

In the hands of any other director, sucking all the emotion out of a sexual and/or romantic encounter could really be a good device to use, and could make a fantastic statement out of a scene. But Anderson, try as he might, just succeeds in warping it. Partly because this is his style in general, and I know that there's nothing introspective or brilliant about its use in this particular situation. It's just like all his films.

I like that style in particular situations. But not in all situations. If I had never seen a Wes Anderson film, I would probably have liked Chevalier because I'd find its lack of emotion in the particular instance to be well-used. And as long as I'd never again see a Wes Anderson film, I'd still like Chevalier until I die. But because I've seen his films, and because I know he makes every one of them exactly like this, it cheapens the use of the style. Any originality or introspection that's generated by its use in a particular situation is sucked out by its use in every other scene in every other film. As soon as I'd see Lfe Aquatic, any revisiting I'd do to Chevalier would be essentially tainted by my realization that the style is not situational, it's just how Anderson plays all his characters out to make up for the fact that he can't really think of any other way to play them.

Virtute

Virtute

Brooklyn, NY
July 2007

OCT 08, 2007 09:28 PM

I just got around to watching it, and I enjoyed it. I did feel like Natalie Portman was playing Gwyneth Paltrow as Margot Tennenbaum, but that was only a little distracting.
It motivated me to get out and see Darjeeling Limited this weekend.

Munke

Munke

Roseville, CA
May 2004

OCT 09, 2007 11:30 AM

JohnHaverchuck said:
I just got around to watching it, and I enjoyed it. I did feel like Natalie Portman was playing Gwyneth Paltrow as Margot Tennenbaum,/QUOTE]

It seems like that to me too, even from her initial phone call.
But Margot Tennenbaum, with a bit more positive outlook on life?



Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews