I just have a question about the ending, why did Olivier not want to look at Julie's finished work? Is it because he didn't want to take credit for it? I was just confused about that, and at the end when Julie and Olivier are having sex: why is there a pane of glass, is this a hidden meaning to that?
shareI always thought he didn't want to look at her finished work because he wanted to finish it himself.. He says something to the effect that "this can be mine"...a sense of stepping out of the shadows and doing something of his own.
The commentary on the "Blue" DVD suggests the pane of glass in the closing scene as being trapped, the antithesis of "liberty", the theme of the movie. Julie's attempts to be free from everyone, disconnected, etc, were for naught...so we get a visual image of her being trapped, possibly because for her, allowing other people into her life is a sort of trap.
I believe she says something to that effect to her mother when she goes to see her about the mouse.
Thank you for the help:)!!!
shareThe point is that the composer wants Julie to take credit for the work herself. We learnded earlier in the film that she was the one who wrote her husbands work. Now she is forced to take credit which is what he wants. (he used the same tactic in releasing the photos - it made her come out of her shell)
shareWait a minute.... this is my take on this.
I haven't seen this movie in awhile, but for what I remember isnt it true that Julie wrote her husband's musical work? When he dies, supposedly his great unfinished work dies with him too -although we know that Julie is the author of it, and is not in "Liberty" to divulge this for obvious reasons.
Now, after the accident when she starts to come-out of her depression and be herself and she's sleeping with Olivier; she starts to exprience "Liberty". This new excitement makes Julie want to finish her (or actually her "husbands" work). BUT, once again, she's not in "Liberty" to do it again. Not only because it would tarnish her husband's memory since people would notice that she's the one who wrote the work all along; but now this is Oliver's "time to shine", and by him "finishing" the work, Julie is back to square one= No Liberty.
I don't think that Oliver wanted Julie to claim authorship for her work. If any, I think he manipulated her so he could now claim ownership himself. I mean, isn't true that when Julie finishes the symphony and she tells Oliver that she wants to put-it-out, Oliver actually tells her in some words or less that he wants the work for himself after he "bastardizes" the piece here-and-there so no one will notice that it is the same "author" of the original symphony? You see...... I think this is the key!
Those were my two-cents...
Cheers
[deleted]
This is to Luciaa. I think you forget that Oliver went on national television with the reporter and admitted that he would attempt to finish the piece himself. I don't think he said it in so many words, but it was clear from their conversation ("he had themes in mind", drafts of the symphony Oliver rolls out on the table) that it was unfinished and that he was musing over how to attack the finale. And I can't quite recall, but didn't the reporter herself suggest that Oliver would try and finish it? This was the scene where Binoche is at the strip club and she sees Oliver expose her husband's infidelity on television.
So the idea that he had hatched a secret plan to take all the credit for himself, and disguise it with a few new notes, while at the same time admitting that he would finish the work on national TV, seems a little off to me. Another thing. They played the main theme of the unification symphony at the "composer's" funeral, Binoche's husband. The funeral was broadcast all over Europe. So anybody who heard the symphony's first public performance -- and the notes of that theme -- would know he was a hack. By the way, the score for this movie was written by a classical composer. It was very distinct.
Oliver isn't malevolent or underhanded here. He has generous intentions with Binoche. He truly loves her.
To Plicker: I think she chooses anonymity to her advantage. Think about it. The seclusion of an artist to create without the interference of fame is probably his greatest blessing. The undoing of many artists is their obligation to cater to fame -- the junkets, the interviews and plugs, the public appearances. Instead of going off in their little world to fashion something totally new and original, they spend their time in this one, effectively killing their art. So while Binoche's husband provided a public face to the artist, she had the luxury of anonymity. She could devote herself entirely to her art. To me it's important to look at her arrangement with her husband not as the result of some parasitic relationship, but a symbiotic one. A lot of people may look at this and say she was abused by a patriarchal society that acknowledges only men as artists. But that doesn't do her any justice. I say she used the assumptions of a patriarchal society to her advantage. And clearly her husband paid for it, believing in the trappings of his lie and his fame and slipping into infidelity.
But rants aside, Binoche was clearly a private person and didn't enjoy the attention of others, or getting in the business of others. Not when she declines to sign the petition to evict the stripper. Not when she declined to say why she was selling all her family's belongings and putting the money in a bank account. Not as an anonymous composer when her husband was alive, and not as a recluse after his death.
But just by those few photos, and if his mistress is any indication, we get a sense that her husband was lively and gregarious. The photos show him as an outgoing, dashing and handsome man. A man perfectly suited for the public's appetites. Binoche the composer was too surly for such a role.
And that's why I take issue with Luciaa's interpretation of the various permutations of Binoche's authorship -- now she's the composer, now she's not; now she's free, now she's not. And Phlicker, maybe this helps. In the beginning, she has total freedom. She is free to compose, enjoy the fruits of her compositions in terms of public adoration and critical praise of her works, albeit through a liason, and live an idyllic life of normalcy in the countryside. But as the movie demonstrates, and if you didn't get it (as I didn't), as the dvd's critical commentary spells out, total liberation is impossible. She CAN'T go on living like this. She has to come to grips with her genius at some point and accept the prison of fame.
In the end, when she's feverishly scribbling down notes on empty sheets of music, I think it's implied that she has come to grips with her genius, come to grips with the agony of creating and the arduous path of life. She's come to accept the responsibility of relationships, of life itself. The so-called liberation of limitation.
have you noticed sandrine telling julie:(when she offered to give her the house)
"I knew it, he told me alot about you."
"oh,yeah? what?"
"that you are kind and PEOPLE CAN COUNT ON YOU. even me and THAT'S WHAT YOU WANNA BE......"
that's the answer. julie is such a woman.only after the loss she starts to experience freedom.
This is incorrect. Olivier says that either he will finish the work himself, with his heavy touches, or Julie will have to take credit for her work. He isn't being manipulative, rather trying to bring Julie out of her shell and take what's rightfully hers. In the scene at the end, Julie is indeed behind a pane of glass, and she is indeed crying, but that's because she has found attachment (and the "trap" it brings) and is free to express her tears at last (rather than numb down, forget). She has found freedom and left her shell, but her life has also intersected with the lives of Olivier, Lucille, the baby.
shareI agree with your analysis. When we started watching "Bleu" on DVD last night, I initially thought the question of whether she had composed works which her husband took credit for was left unresolved, but then the dialogue you cited seemed to clear that up. I think you're correct in the motive you give to Olivier. I think that first of all, he wants to see the composition completed. Either he will do it--as you say, with his heavy hand--or Julie will, but this time she must take credit for it. This implies that she has not done so in the past, which seems to answer the journalist's question that Julie had, indeed, been writing for her husband. The fact that he will not come by and pick it up forces her to come to terms with her desire to complete the composition. Which, if the past is any indication, was really her composition all along, not her husband's.
As for the whole question of freedom, I think that Julie thought she could find freedom by running away from her past life and disconnecting from all human relationships. But in the end, she discovered that true freedom came with facing and accepting her pain, and allowing herself to fully engage with other people. That was her true self. Not the aloof hermit, but the generous soul who was buried as Julie tried (unsuccessfully, as she discovered; reminders and associations were inevitable) to escape the anguish of losing her husband and daughter. Yes, there are responsibilities with relationships, and there is also pain. It's easy to view that as a trap, as a limitation on freedom. But if we accept that part of the reason we're here is to live with other people, then trying to avoid such interaction sets up another kind of trap because we are emotionally trapped. We can never hope to grow if we refuse to connect with other people. For me, that was the whole point of using the text from 1 Corinthians 13 (which, sadly, is missing in the closing-sequence subtitles for the DVD edition). The only way Julie was going to be able to become whole again was to let herself feel, to love and be loved . . . which she finally does by the end of the film. You see that reflected in her tears. She feels pain, yes. But the little smile we see shows us that she can feel joy once again, too.
for me the music is an expression of julie's love/grief.By admitting to the public that the work is her own, she embraces her emotions and releases her love and her humanity to the entire world, rather than hiding from herself and others.Ultimately its about accepting humanity,which involves allowing love to touch us and allowing our love to touch others.
sharethat's a pretty nice view. I liked it. even if they did not mean this your interpretation is beautiful.
share[deleted]