All of them, given their background, are seen transiting constantly from the crowed place to absolute silence. Placing them in the nightclub, on street with cars speeding past, in the train station etc only serves to manifest their alienation and distant from the community they are in. When they are alone, often within the wide shot of green field, natural landscape in the north, the empty streets in the city or even the church, their personal emotional preoccupation is largely conveyed in silence. The lack of verbal sharing/ exchanges and language barrier within the trio, (with Stephanie more privileged) creates the impression that communication is not necessary among them. The peace within the trio and that they can understand each others seems to suggest that mobility and immigration is not threatening, at least on the surface. Nonetheless, without the trio, they seem to be less ensuring and comforting. Mikhail’s leaving his hometown had left his mother with sadness and suffering, and he is also frustrated even he has a job in the restaurant. Djamel failed to make a living and become a hustler instead, which hindered his relationship with his family. While their loose ties with their family may only serve to parallel that of Stephanie’s loss, they shed light on the personal as well as the societal sentiment, in particular in France, regarding immigration.
Besides the shared silence, they rely on and take comfort from each other purely physically. As Rees-Roberts points out in his article, Godard had succeeded in ‘filming sexuality without encouraging voyeuristic intent’ by the use of extreme close ups. The fact that the camera linger on the trio’s bodies without identifying them hint at exceptional harmony, as if they are one. Capturing the nude bodies on one hand highlights their sexuality, yet on the other hand they are often presented as fragmented parts, which seems to discourage us from judging the character with merely their physical body. While the transgendered Stephanie on the job makes me ponders at time how her body should be treated, (particularly she labours on her body), watching her attending to her mother and their subtle and poignant exchanges makes me recognised her as totally feminine. The fact that Stephanie is a transgendered figure is actually not deliberately revealed, and audience never know why he had made himself a she and make a living out of that. Nonetheless, Stephanie challenges the conventional gendered and sexualised labour in a sense that as Rees-Roberts pointed out, she performs both sexes even when at work.
While the exterior is employed as a reflection of the characters alienation from the community, they also seems to draw strength from the vastness of the scenery, most evident in Mikhail’s roaming in the forest, as oppose to the claustrophobic interior of houses and cars. That the characters immigrate across border/ move around spaces hoping to lead a different life signify the importance of mobility and space and the associated experiences, which echoes the ending of the film of them riding on the train, heading to somewhere else.
Your discussion of space is very relevant to this film, as the characters are often filmed in two main, yet very contrasting spaces: The cramped confines of the "urban" environment, and the wide open pastoral of rural France. While their physical movements themselves seem more free in the pastoral/forest scenes, it is notable that they appear to be less free to live the lives they have chosen in this environ. Instead, the freedom to love each other, and support themselves in the limited arenas open to them, is presented as only available when they return to the cramped confines of urban anonymity.
ReplyDelete