The scene was a watershed moment in the film, in establishing Jean-Do's character. And yes, it's the FICTIONALIZED version of Jean-Do I'm talking about, the one served to us by Schnabel. I'm quite cognizant that that's the only one I can talk about, because I don't know the real one nor do I care to do the research to find out. I'm fine with restricting my comments to the movie one. But this moment crystalized Jean-Do as an ultimately unsympathic character for me. If his locked-in syndrome is supposed to be a reason why his mental functioning no longer works reliably and "all bets are off" with regards to his behaviour vis a vis his family (and make no mistake, married or never, Celine is most definitely his family) we are never given any indication that we're supposed to consider that locked in syndrome has impaired him, because he goes on working and producing a book that no excuses have to be made for. If he is capable of professional, even exceptional quality work...? Anyway, the point is, THE MOVIE does not introduce the concept of mental infirmity. Regardless of whatever other excuses you come up with - he doesn't love Celine, he doesn't want her help, etc. the one thing you can say about him with no qualifications whatsoever is that he is an utterly selfish man. All those things could still be true, but a man who cared at least a little about someone other than himself could've done something other than make a tool out of the mother of his children to express his devotion to a woman she clearly considers his mistress. And when that woman has been compassionate and present and the other has had nothing to give at all - his inability to cut his losses makes him more than insensitive, it makes him rather stupid. But if he wants to carry such a torch, why doesn't he dictate a letter to Ines? This is the place in the film where he goes from being a smug, all-purpose heel to becoming truly insufferable, and coming in for real scrutiny, and the more you look, the worse he becomes. That has to become a whole separate thread :)
reply
share
MarionWormer
16 years ago
After reading the Salon.com article about the making of this movie and how this story was manipulated to create a completely different reality... I think the only a$$hole is the the director, Julian Schnabel for not making a more accurate movie. This wasn't a work of fiction.... it was a biographical movie about the last year and a half of this man's life... should not an attempt have been made to get it right? I feel cheated and sad to think about how much better this movie would have been if it had been more true to actual events and people.
According to the article, the biggest transgression was relegating the role of his partner/girlfriend during that time in Jean-Do's life, to nothing more than a phone call.... when in reality, she was by his side throughout. Yes.... I understand about artistic license to make a movie more interesting and poignant... but how can the story get more poignant than Jean-Do dying in this woman's arms, which is how he actually died. Where was that movie?
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son." - Dean Wormer
reply
share
wam6571
16 years ago
What we have here is a fictional movie that happens to be based on an autobiographical book. The question is: in which manner should "departure-from-what-really-happened" be judged in such a case? If it was a documentary film, then methinks such a departure would have been a "major" fault. But this was a fictional movie. So - how should directorial decisions be judged in fictional movies? I think those decisions should only be judged within the "reality" of the movie: if the results of those decisions make narrative sense, then those directorial decisions were good. If they don't make narrative sense, then they weren't.
Besides, maybe this should be judged at the level of the script, as the director may have nothing to do with this narrative decision. Even in that case, it should only be judged on the basis of its effectiveness within the film's world. And not in relation with the book. Never mind "historical" facts.
A film is a story. Stories are not real, are they? If they're not real, then they're not faithful to reality. To more or less degree, of course. AFAIC, the additional info that I knew Jean Do was a real person whose suffering was A LOT bigger than any book or film can depict, that info added an extra dimension to this movie, in the sense that it has enhanced my experience - for I was taking Jean Do's suffering more seriously. Now, to learn that his real girlfriend was unfairly treated in the narratives of this fictional film, that touches me A LOT less. Call me heartless, but the secondary characters in this movie were almost insignificant to me. The cinematography was more interesting to me than any secondary character.
As an aside - no, I don't think it is "right" to call the director names. His accomplishments in this film are impressive.
reply
share