From the daily archives:

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Hadewijch

by James McNally on September 12, 2009 · 8 comments

in Film Festivals, TIFF

Hadewijch

Hadewijch (Director: Bruno Dumont): In this, his fifth fea­ture film, Bruno Dumont has cre­ated some­thing as mys­ter­ious and beau­tiful as his prot­ag­onist. We meet young Celine in a con­vent, where she is hoping to take her vows as a nun. But her refusal to eat and other acts of self-denial worry the Mother Superior, who turns her out into the world, hoping to rid her of what she con­siders “self-love.” Though she lives with her wealthy par­ents in the centre of Paris, they’re dis­tant and there’s some sug­ges­tion of buried issues with her father.

One day she meets some boys in a café, who are amazed at her trusting nature. Yassine takes a spe­cial liking to her, although she rebuffs his romantic advances, claiming she only has love for Christ. The young Muslim is befuddled but still besotted, so he con­tinues their friend­ship. Eventually she visits the home he shares with his brother Nassir in the housing pro­jects out­side the city. Nassir is a “ser­ious” Muslim, according to Yassine, and he thinks they’ll hit it off. He has no idea.

Nassir recog­nizes the fire that burns in Celine’s heart, and though their reli­gions are dif­ferent, their pas­sion is the same. Over time, he con­vinces Celine that God is not only about love, but about justice as well. Soon after that, he takes her to Lebanon to show her the injustice he finds there. Dumont patiently lays the ground­work for a stun­ning climax that shows just how easily love can turn to violence.

Meanwhile, in a par­allel plot, we follow David, a petty crim­inal working in con­struc­tion at the con­vent. He breaks his parole and is sent back to jail for a few months. It’s not clear what his pur­pose is until the final scene, in which the two lives stand in stark con­trast to each other. Celine lives in extremes, reaching for holi­ness and finding tragedy. David is an everyman, flawed but more cap­able of love than Celine could ever be. The inter­sec­tion of their lives leads to a power­fully moving ending.

Dumont put his faith in non-professional Julie Sokolowski to play Celine, and the decision pays off. She por­trays her dis­con­nec­tion from the world nat­ur­ally, even as she radi­ates a for­bidden sexu­ality. Her purity attracts men, but she only has eyes for Christ, and her obses­sion verges on the sexual. Her prayers are painful, expressing her yearning to be with Christ even as she protests his absence. She longs for the ecstasy and obli­vion of union with God, and the con­nec­tion with some of the rhet­oric of Islamic ter­rorism couldn’t be more clear.

This is the first of Dumont’s films I’ve seen, and I’m cap­tiv­ated by his intel­li­gence and will­ing­ness to explore such interior issues as reli­gious faith and obses­sion. In the post-screening Q&A, he revealed that Hadewijch was a real mystic from the Middle Ages, and his explor­a­tion of what a modern example would look like in a world filled with polit­ical action makes for one smart and haunting film.

Official site of the film (en francais)

Here is the Q&A with dir­ector Bruno Dumont from after the screening:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (ver­sion 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest ver­sion here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Duration: 27:10

9/10(9/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Cleanflix

Cleanflix (Directors: Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi): The Mormon reli­gion for­bids its adher­ents from watching R-rated movies, but Mormons des­per­ately want to see the films that everyone else is talking about. This moral quandary cre­ated what looked like a golden busi­ness oppor­tunity for a group of Utah entre­pren­eurs. Beginning in 2000, Ray Lines began using com­puter soft­ware to digit­ally remove offending scenes from DVDs. His edited ver­sions of the movies were a hot seller and soon his busi­ness, Clean Flicks, was growing wildly. At its height, he owned 10 video stores and sup­plied another 70. He even moved the busi­ness online, selling off the stores to a number of dif­ferent people. Daniel Thompson bought sev­eral of the stores and seemed to be the most suc­cessful. But after the Directors’ Guild of America filed suit against Clean Flicks and its oper­ators, these busi­nesses were living on bor­rowed time. When the case was finally settled in 2006, they were forced to close down.

But quite a few car­ried on. They simply found other com­panies to do the editing and bought their movies from them. Among these out­laws was Thompson. He simply felt that the market demand was over­whelming, and busi­ness was too good. He con­tinued oper­ating under what he saw as a legal loop­hole, which allowed edu­ca­tional use of copy­righted material. But his pen­chant for seeking the spot­light only brought unwanted atten­tion to Flick’s Club, the editing com­pany he was using, and they were soon ordered to shutter their oper­a­tion. To make things worse, within a few months of his own busi­ness closing down, Thompson was charged with paying a minor for sex. The irony of someone oper­ating a busi­ness which offered san­it­ized movies to a reli­gious cli­en­tele being involved in such scan­dalous beha­viour was not lost on the local media, whose atten­tion Thompson no longer wanted.

The dir­ectors of Cleanflix faced the not-uncommon documentarian’s dilemma of having to deal with a chan­ging story. Unfortunately, it’s led to the frac­turing of their film into two pieces. The first half is an engrossing film about issues of cen­sor­ship, intel­lec­tual prop­erty, and an exam­in­a­tion of Mormon cul­tural mores. The second half is a voyeur­istic look into one man’s moral fail­ings. In my opinion, the effort to meld them into a coherent film is only par­tially suc­cessful. It’s unfor­tu­nate that Thompson’s down­fall seemed to be greeted with such glee by the smugly lib­eral audi­ence. I don’t think the film­makers’ inten­tion was self-righteous, and the “comeup­pance” angle blunted the impact of sev­eral inter­esting issues, which remained unresolved.

For instance, I’m curious how the “fair use” copy­right act­iv­ists who advocate for the freedom to “mash up” intel­lec­tual prop­erty feel about editing Hollywood movies to remove objec­tion­able con­tent. I was also fas­cin­ated by the cul­tural phe­nomenon of reli­gious people trying to get around the letter of the law so they can say they’re watching the same films as the rest of America, even when they’re not. I can appre­ciate how Thompson’s fail­ures as a human being illus­trate the futility of trying to pro­tect people from bad external influ­ences, but by let­ting the audi­ence see him as the vil­lain, Cleanflix shouts when it might have whispered.

Official site of the film

Here is the Q&A with dir­ectors Andew James and Joshua Ligairi from after the screening:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (ver­sion 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest ver­sion here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Duration: 16:14

7/10(7/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }