Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne

[cbernard]

Filmography:

* Chant du rossignol (1978)
* Lorsque le bateau de Léon M. descendit la Meuse pour la première fois (1979)
* Pour que la guerre s'achève, les murs devaient s'écrouter (1980)
* R... ne répond plus (1981)
* Leçons d'une université volante (1982)
* Regard Jonathan/Jean Louvet, son oeuvre (1983)
* Il court... il court le monde (1987)
* Falsch (1987)
* Je pense à vous (I Think of You) (1992)
* La promesse (The Promise) (1996)
* Rosetta (1999)
* Le fils (The Son) (2002)
* L'Enfant (2005)
* Dans l'Obscurité (2007)
* Le silence de Lorna (2008)

Links:
Wikipedia
Film at Lincoln Center retrospective, with notes
"An unofficial website about Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne"
Manohlia Dargis on the Dardenne brothers
An interview with the Dardenne brothers

Availability:
* DVD (R2 France, blaq out) (R2 UK) - Le silence de Lorna
* DVD (R1, Sony) (R2 UK) (R2 Japan, Happinet) - L'Enfant
* DVD (R1, New Yorker) (R2 Japan, Tohokushinsha) (R2 UK) - Le fils
* DVD (R2) (R2 Japan, Toshiba) - Rosetta
* DVD (R1, New Yorker) (R2 Japan, Kinokuniya) (R2 UK) - La Promesse

CCF Threads:
* Lorna's Silence / Le silence de Lorna (Dardenne, 2008)
* The Child / L'enfant

original post by cbernard:
Hope this is an okay topic, an okay forum in which to put it, and the title is okay. Please don't cut off my fingers.

ROSETTA is a difficult work, and difficult to like. I've only seen it once and came away pretty annoyed that all its formal and thematic rigor seemed bent towards making me feel like a jerk for watching movies while I could be helping out troubled/poverty-stricken teens in Belgium. And so forth. Have since been very impressed by LA PROMESSE and THE SON (aka LE FILS), particularly the former. Please discuss...

[kazantzakis]

How does a film make you feel like a jerk? Did the filmakers pop up on screen after the film to say "shame on you for watching our film when you could be helping kids in Belgium!!" ? Isnt this just another "reading", yours to be specific? Why blame the film you felt the way you did? I felt nothing of the kind. It was a profound and complex psychography, one that may ask questions it doesnt answer but it was far from selfimportnat and didactic and all that.

[King of Kong]

ROSETTA is a difficult work, and difficult to like. I've only seen it once and came away pretty annoyed that all its formal and thematic rigor seemed bent towards making me feel like a jerk for watching movies while I could be helping out troubled/poverty-stricken teens in Belgium. And so forth. Have since been very impressed by LA PROMESSE and THE SON (aka LE FILS), particularly the former.

This about sums up why I don't like Rosetta. I did not find the lead character a sympathetic one. Sure, she may have been in an unfortunate situation, jobwise, but emotionally she was cold as ice and unresponsive to those who cared about her, sometimes downright treacherous in this respect. I don't buy the theory (in this case) that desperate times can lead a person, through no fault of their own, to make desperate choices. Human decency should still prevail.

I also found the film to be reminiscent of the cinema verite of the French New Wave/Italian Neo-Realism, and even some of the British films from that period. As one reviewer on imdb put it, change the setting from Belgium to Manchester, add a pregnancy subplot, and viola.

I didn't have any real problem with the style of the film, though it makes Dogme look like Tarkovsky. How many times did we have to see Rosetta crossing the street, walking through the woods, putting on her boots, etc? I appreciate that the film-makers were opting for a sense of immediacy here, but come on, I got the point the first time! Also, the camera was held so close to her that her breath often clouded up the lens.

A difficult film to enjoy. It won't stop me from seeing other Dardennes Brothers films, though - I'll give 'em another chance.

[kazantzakis]

Not everyone in life or in films IS an exemplary sweetie. There are people just like Rosetta who may not know any better, too absorbed in their misfortunes and loathing of everyone else and themselves included. The portrait is neither one sided, nor sentiimentalized.

As for the style, it is perfectly acceptable not to lke the "cinema verite". I cant see where the criticism lies in its similarity with other films British or neorealism etc. Most if not all films can be categorized as "similar" to something else. In the particular case of Rosetta, the milieu (landscape etc), the people, the color palettes, the intrusive, unstable camera supports the narrative well. The shaky shots embody Rosetta's confusion, her sense of dread, the uncertainty. That's what films can do so well, apart from whatever characteristics cinema may inherit from the other arts. These cinematic elements are what make cinema autonomous, unique. These are perfectly exploited by the film.

[King of Kong]

Not everyone in life or in films IS an exemplary sweetie. There are people just like Rosetta who may not know any better, too absorbed in their misfortunes and loathing of everyone else and themselves included. The portrait is neither one sided, nor sentiimentalized.

I never said I wanted her to be a honey-pie, just someone I could empathise (maybe that's a better word) with. The Cinema is full of flawed characters, some of them central characters, who are nevertheless compelling - Rosetta (for me at least) is not one of them.

[zedz]

I found Rosetta the least satisfying of the Dardennes' works (seemed too schematic for me), but nevertheless powerful and superbly assembled. That almost myopic closeness and intensity is deliberately uncomfortable, but extremely effective. It's even more superbly orchestrated in The Son, which I consider their best film.

The oppressively intimate, over-the-shoulder shooting style of that film is used brilliantly to simultaneously draw us into the narrative (we're almost seeing everything through the protagonist's eyes) and shut us out (the protagonist himself blocks our view, we have no idea what he's thinking, and often can't see his face). This provides a beautiful match of form and content, as the motor of the narrative is the unknowability of the protagonist's motives. Our enforced ignorance (our partially obscured vision) makes for one of the most dread-soaked crescendos of suspense in recent cinema, and the denouement, in which relationships are clarified and questions answered, is simply transcendent. (And Olivier Gourmet's performance, which needs to keep that dark cloud of ambiguity aloft for the entire film, is incredible).

[Steven H]

I've only seen it once and came away pretty annoyed that all its formal and thematic rigor seemed bent towards making me feel like a jerk for watching movies while I could be helping out troubled/poverty-stricken teens in Belgium.

But couldn't you say this about a great deal of film? I'll use Umberto D as an example to compare, and then follow with some opinions about why I'm a fan. The politics of the director are laid bare, but the camera and story still portray the title character in an unsentimental fashion. I felt this way after watching Rosetta (but without the dog). Waffle vendors and trailer parks get their point across pretty vividly, but the real cinema is in between the lines, and that is, in my opinion, pure humanity. The Dardenne's seem to be able to use film to boil a person or situation down to it's basic elements, and it only makes sense that this would have political overtones in some situations.

I understand your annoyance (heavy-handed messages aren't my bag), but in my opinion it's easy to get past this when you consider how hand in hand politics and genuine human drama sometimes exist.

I don't buy the theory (in this respect) that desperate times can lead a person, through no fault of their own, to make desperate choices. Human decency should still prevail.

Truth is stranger than fiction. Maybe this is a case where fiction attempting truth appears too strange. It seemed very odd to me that a person would respond this way (in Rosetta), but after giving it some though, I've come across many cold, unsympathetic people that were, at the end of the day, more real than the usual "sympathetic" poor people that we're used to seeing in film (the ones that can crack a joke, or warm up to someone by the end). After this all occurred to me, Rosetta became a much more emotional film for me (the boiling of an egg meant much more, etc.)

[cbernard]

I haven't seen Rosetta in six years, and I had a lot of "viewer problems" that I've since come to "unlearn." I'd probably have a different reaction today.

Just now, was shocked to learn it's not on DVD!

[cbernard]

Dardennes partisans and detractors alike have identified a distinctive formal style that sets their work apart not only from ordinary movies, run-of-the-mill arthouse fare, but also their nearest cousins in the genre of social realism. There's something about the Dardennes mise-en-scene that's...different. Different from other movies that also use handheld, that also rely on naturalistic performances, that also focus on the "mundane" daily lives of the working class, that also take place in natural settings, etc. Let me pose a question: what is the nature of that style and, apart from simply reciting the plot summaries and thematic concerns in their films, how does their style act upon their subject matter, their characters? How does it convey their apparent worldview?

There was a Dardennes-like movie in festival release last year - directed by Lodge Kerrigan and starring Damian Lewis - called Keane.

[FilmFanSea]

I think part of the Dardennes' unique style is due to their reliance on extreme close-up, in which the viewer must search the character's every subtle mannerism--much the way we view someone in "real life." Most directors only use close-up shots at moments of dramatic intensity (or in momemts of intimacy with another character), but for the Dardennes, nearly every moment is rife with dramatic intensity. Secondly, they celebrate the mundane with the same attention to detail as they do with dramatic crescendos, so it forces the viewer to stay on his/her toes--it heightens our awareness. Third, their films center on decisions or moral conundrums (conundra?) that draw the viewer in to a greater degree than most filmmakers (with the exception of perhaps Kieslowski, Bresson, and their ilk). Fourth, they focus on the troubles of the lower and working classes without being pedantic or overtly political or religious. If they had a Marxist axe to grind, their films would be much less interesting. Finally, their films are not dialogue-driven, and the dialogue which is present tends towards the banal. This forces the viewer to rely on the visual qualities of their films.

I'm glad to see that others here appreciate their genius. I, too, feel that Rosetta is the most difficult of their films. Though I feel empathy for the title character, she continually distances herself from the viewer and makes decisions which push us away. She is like a wild animal in her survival instincts, and refuses to show us any tenderness (weakness) in her personality. But despite all her defense mechanisms, she still experiences a moment of grace (the persistence of Riquet)---as each of their main characters does. And that moment is transcendent (at least for me).

[cbernard]

Bravo, FilmFanSea! I dig your analysis very much. The Dardennes have lots of differences from Bresson but they share a common drive to depict the physicality of things/objects. Something Bresson does that almost no other filmmakers can do, he conveys the "weight" of things. The Dardennes do, too.

Watching The Son/Le Fils was a memorable experience. The whole film felt like a contracted muscle, right up to the last frame.

Rosetta's inscrutability, linked with her inviolability, intractability, etc. This is not new. There's a certain Dreyer film called Gertrud, whose heroine can be described in the same terms.

[King of Kong]

Truth is stranger than fiction. Maybe this is a case where fiction attempting truth appears too strange. It seemed very odd to me that a person would respond this way (in Rosetta), but after giving it some though, I've come across many cold, unsympathetic people that were, at the end of the day, more real than the usual "sympathetic" poor people that we're used to seeing in film (the ones that can crack a joke, or warm up to someone by the end).

I think she could have at least showed some signs of life during the dance scene...

[JHunter]

Just now, was shocked to learn it's not on DVD!

It is available in the UK from Artificial Eye, part of a double feature with "La Promesse."

[obloquy]

Well I think they're brilliant, too. I guess I don't have anything useful to say. La Promesse is their best work, in my modest opinion.

[Gary Tooze]

Needless to say Cannes sure likes the Dardennes with their latest "L'Enfant' winning the 58th competition.

Rosetta is my favorite film of all time. I once watched it 6 times in 3 days. I guess its something either you feel... or do not. No crime in the latter. I strongly recommend a repeat vieiwing (s) - it is rife with subtle content.

My 'blurb' in our Directors Chair is this:

For over 20 years in Seraing, Belgium, brothers Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne produced/wrote and directed politically leftist documentary films. Their recent career of feature films hit international prominence in 1996 with La Promesse. Their next feature, Rosetta, another fictional story written and produced by them, won the top honors at Cannes in 1999. Constant reexamination in editing transmogrify their films to contain powerful realism expressions with social inequities often a central theme. This is a daring, gritty style often with the use of handi-cam modulations. Their key attributes appear in two distinct forms - extensive time spent on casting, and flexibility in production - often fearlessly migrating from details of their own initial story. In 2005 their latest full-length feature, L'Enfant, was chosen as best film again (Palme D'or) at the 58th Cannes International Film Festival. Juror Emir Kusturica stated: "The jury was working on the basis of discovery, helping and trying to find the movie that synthesizes most of the aspects of cinema, combining the public side of it, but looking for something that doesn't lose the artistic aspects...

I consider the brothers part of a short list of the greatest directors alive.

Best,
Gary

[obloquy]

It has always seemed to me that the Dardennes brothers' work would not seem out of place in The Decalogue. The themes of complex and cloudy moral issues, the "fat free" presentation, and the very intimate focus on one primary character seem very Kieslowski to me.

[Steven H]

I was wondering what people thought of the casting of �milie Dequenne in the lead role in ROSETTA? Specifically, what do you think the Brothers' intentions (if any) were in allowing such an attractive actress to play such an unlikable character? ...And how does their casting here compare to something like Bresson's MOUCHETTE?

It's a good question, and I don't know if their intentions will ever be made clear (especially in Bresson's case). Maybe they assume that using someone "ugly" would be more distracting than it's worth. Reminds me of a quote from The Simpsons where Moe is trying out for a TV Soap and, after they reject him, he overhears the casting party say something like, "we're looking for 'ugly', but 'movie ugly' not 'ugly ugly'". Since Bresson usually picks attractive people, men and women, to play main characters, it reminds me of cartoons and Japanese Anime in particular (they also go over this theory in Unbreakable). The main characters look simple and more attractive so the reader/viewer can best sympathize, while those on the "outside" are more detailed and less attractive. Maybe this is what they had in mind?

[Gary Tooze]

...attractive actress to play such an unlikable character?

I guess for starters she wasn't *really* an actress when she was cast. Secondly, her *attractivness* is subjective. Her beauty (not physical) grows on you as does her character. Recalling the first instances that you see her in Rosetta - she is a brash, violent, demanding, irrational and totally unlikeable. Was the Dardennes choice a good one? - well the Cronenberg led jury thought so as she won the best actress at Cannes. The Dardennes spend an immense amount of time in casting (sometimes 6 months) - shooting is only a couple of weeks. I can't imagine anyone else in that role - she made it hers.

Best,
Gary

[dvdane]

Even though I dislike "Rosetta", mainly because the films gives me major allusions to Bresson's "Mouchette", and I saw them back to back by chance, it is a film that I revisit and admire, because it is so incredible honest. There is only one "fake" moment in the entire film, and that is the way they end the film, with Rosetta's gaze. A hugely powerful cinematic tool, but for me it comes as a surprise and feels like the film just had to end right there. It is the one moment in the film, where I lose the emotional attachment to her.

...she continually distances herself from the viewer and makes decisions which push us away. She is like a wild animal in her survival instincts, and refuses to show us any tenderness (weakness) in her personality

To me the final gaze is a weakness in her personality, as she, as FFS directly puts it, "she is like a wild animal, constantly pushing us and people away", or Gary with, "she is a brash, violent, demanding, irrational and totally unlikeable", which to me is the strenght of "Rosetta".

The final gaze just feels dramatised, like an echo of "Mouchette" and like a plee for sympathy, aswell as a decision by the filmmakers; Thus, it betrays the honesty of the entire film for me.

I wouldn't call "Rosetta" their most demanding work or their best film. To me "Le Fils" is far more demanding and a better film aswell. The complexity of "Rosetta" lies within its lack of story, its more a recording of a person, directed "realism".

[Gary Tooze]

There is only one "fake" moment in the entire film, and that is the way they end the film, with Rosetta's gaze.

Funny that you perceive this as 'fake' - if you listen to some of the extras in Artificial Eye DVD - she was really breaking down there. They made her carry that gas canister back and forth through so many takes she was exhausted... she looks and was 'broken'. It was one of the most perfect endings of a film that I can image. From my article:

A film that continually details the fundamental survival qualities of the title character�a basic premise infusing her ability to cope and her morality. I like to think of Rosetta as the anti-Citizen Kane. The conclusion of both films focuses on the resolute failure of placing the value of economic determinism and its perceived happiness over the more humanistic pursuit of the joys, wants, and basic needs of the human condition. Rosetta however comes at this conflict from the most basic, sparse end of the spectrum�one that more people should be able to relate to.

Often compared to Robert Bresson�s Mouchette, Rosetta�s conclusion is perhaps best described as �Bressonian.� In the end we see a young woman stripped of everything�at her most desperate and most defeated. Yet she has given up, thrown in the towel because of the nature of her character as opposed to the extensively defeating circumstances that she�s burdened under. Her final glance at the camera tells us how far she has been reduced. Her eyes are reaching out, unlike her past displays of anger, frustration, or selfishness, but instead with the least obstructed countenance she�s capable of offering. Just one small human cry for help�and yet it means everything.

If you recall when she was dancing - she was as stiff as a board, unwilling to open up, express herself at all... but now her barrier was now down and she could live a more full life accepting help, maybe even love and eventually giving like back in return. The ending was the inestimable advancement of her character. Her problem was not getting a job, or her Mother - although she perceived them to be - her problem was letting someone help her...

Best,
Gary

[ben d banana]

I had finally broken down and was awaiting the arrival of my Rosetta/La Promesse DVD set when this discussion started.

I agree w/ dvdane that Le Fils (The Son) is their best and most demanding work, but not that the final gaze in Rosetta is fake. Cinematic and hopeful, but not fake. It's not as though she's a sociopath, w/o emotion and where all displays of such are merely for effect. The character is extremely troubled

Spoiler

(nasty case of OCD, paranoid, broke, her mother is the local drunk/mattress)

, but she's not made of ice. It was a moment of weakness, but don't you think it was a neccesary one? Life and cinema are both full of such moments, even from those you know will never change. From the interview on the Artificial Eye disc it seems that was the whole point of the film, and in a movie world full of heavy handed bullshit, sweeping strings and !HAPPY! endings, I'll take that brief moment of potential. It's not that I don't understand your reasoning, just a difference of opinions (and viewing experiences). That said, I'm glad while others find her to be terrible, you find her most empathetic moment to be weak, you hard nut.

As for the complaints about not being able to empathise w/ the character, yes, that is a personal issue. She was not made to be easily liked and is most certainly flawed. I know people who can't watch movies about drug addicts because they hate them. I see no real reason to force yourself into accepting something distasteful, but it does call for some, perhaps painful, introspection. I'd also just recently attended the lion's share of a recent Maurice Pialat retrospective, and if you're looking to avoid ambiguous films with rotten protaganists, his work should top your list. That said, you'll be missing some terrific films that say a lot more about human nature than you're likely to find elsewhere.

Nice comments Kaz, and summation of their style FilmFanSea.

Gary, I love what you've said about the film (clearly you watched it six times in three days), but I just re-checked my disc and can't find the comment about shooting that final scene in the interviews. Perhaps you read/saw that elsewhere (or, quite likely, I'm an idiot).

[jbeall]

A friend whose advice I trust strongly recommended this film, and rather than wait for it to be available in R1, I ordered the Artificial Eye release during the last amazon UK sale. Best deal of the past two or three years, as it turns out.

I found the film gripping from the start, and don't have much too add to the praise the film's gotten. On this thread, however, I found it interesting that posters criticize Rosetta for not being accessible to the viewer (or even other characters). The first three shots of the film are each punctuated by Rosetta slamming the door in the camera's face. The following shot begins again the room she's just entered, but this sequence calls more than enough attention to the fact that despite the verité feel, Rosetta's not letting you all the way in.

And why would she open up, especially during the dancing sequence? In her young experience, all the males are either exploitative bosses (the factory foreman in the opening sequence) or do "nice" things for her mother in order to obtain sexual favors (the man who brings her alcohol, the owner of the trailer park). Is it any wonder she doesn't trust the guy who may or may not be helping her out of the goodness of his heart? Second, Rosetta doesn't know how to relax, because she doesn't have time for it. We see only a handful of leisure moments (when she's apparently suffering from an ulcer). Is it any wonder she can't dance?

Anyway, I was very much impressed and moved by this superb film. This was my first Dardenne Bros. film, and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of their films.

[Tark]

Whether the filmmakers intended it or not, the film is about forgiveness and that is why Rosetta being a despicable character succeeds.

If you take the last minute or so away from the film, it fails.

[jbeall]

Other than informing on her friend, I don't find Rosetta at all despicable; she's fighting to get out of crushing poverty and exploitation. Whether she's going about it the right way is subject to debate, but I don't see how you read her as despicable. She's surrounded by despicable people.

[Tark]

Despicable might be a little strong, but I do find her to be an ugly, unsympathetic character. Poverty is no excuse.

I'd argue that the man who helps her up at the end, (It's been long enough since I've seen it that I don't remember specifically who he is) is the most important character. And the entire reason we sat there and watched Rosetta for an hour and a half is so we understand his act at the end.

My jaw dropped.