P'tit Quinquin (Bruno Dumont, 2014)

[zedz]

Not sure if this even merits a reply, but I'd like to think there's rather a big difference between suggesting (as you seem to imply I was doing) that someone's mental capabilities are somehow below the film, and that they might not just have enough context to read it as intended.

What you said, and what was responded to, was that people who didn't like what Dumont was doing (i.e. Didn't agree with you) were unable to deal with complexity, which is just about the most condescending thing you could say about anything.

[Michael Kerpan]

And your (pretty clearly implied) dismissal of _anyone_ who liked the film as "cultists" was what, zedz ...

[repeat]

Please don't twist my words. What I said - in a sidetrack to this thread having to do with polarized reactions to films like this (particularly those of Ulrich Seidl) - is that there are people who dislike or are incapable of handling morally ambiguous, confusing or complex characters, which is not only quite different from being "unable to deal with complexity" (which makes it sound as if we're talking about mentally challenged people) but furthermore, I think, pretty obviously a matter of fact. Or do you perhaps wish to suggest that all present-day cinema-goers are equally drawn to having their mind messed up by unidentifiable character motivations, moral and psychological ambiguity, plotlines that make no sense, leaving the theatre head full of questions that have no answers?

Also I think I have consistently suggested that the biggest reason for misreading (and yes, I know it's a dirty word and that all readings matter and authorial intention is a deranged fantasy etc. etc.) would seem to be not this kind of aversion/incapability but quite simply a lack of familiarity with Dumont's previous work. I don't care if anyone likes the film (or Dumont) or not, but I do care when I see films bashed at length on such ill-advised grounds (best example of this being bit about the framing). I would very much like to hear the point of view of someone who knows Dumont's work and disliked Quinquin, I'm sure there are many of those. (BTW I think also the runaway success of the show/film, which I guess a lot of this shit-flinging is a reaction to, is somewhat based on misunderstanding, and would also be very intrigued to hear what people who liked this as their first Dumont will make of something like Hors Satan)

[zedz]

to presume a condescending attitude on part of the director ("what a dick, putting these disabled people on display to be laughed at") is actually to project one's frustration with one's own incapability (or unwillingness) to accept and deal with that complexity, namely the fact that something can be simultaneously obnoxious and lovable, or ridiculous and sincere, or whatever false dichotomies we can come up with.

This is what you actually said. If you didn't want me to interpret it as "If you don't agree with me about Dumont's intentions, it's because you're incapable of dealing with complex characters (haven't found one in Dumont's work yet, sorry to say) or ideas" then maybe you should have said something different. For the record, I can "accept and deal with complexity" in films, thanks very much, and I'm not at all threatened by Dumont's (mis)treatment of characters, I just don't like it.

[zedz]

And your (pretty clearly implied) dismissal of _anyone_ who liked the film as "cultists" was what, zedz ...

Read my post again: I'm criticising as cult-like the specific kind of argument repeat was offering, namely that those who don't like favourite director X just aren't emotionally / aesthetically / intellectually equipped to deal with his genius.

[repeat]

Yes, but as I already pointed out that was a digression, not particularly about this film and certainly not about any of the people in this thread personally. I regret to have sidetracked the thread - for me the interesting matter at hand is Quinquin interpreted in and out of context of Dumont's previous work.

I don't actually even mind being called a cultist, I'm quite aware that I tend to get nonobjective about favourite directors. But I don't mind if everyone doesn't like them, I just sometimes speak out if I get the feeling they're being unfairly abused or misunderstood. (Actually I neglected to ask if you could elaborate on what exactly you find pretentious about Dumont? I'm not interested in arguing, just genuinely interested in what it is about him that rubs you the wrong way)

[zedz]

I'm happy to have that kind of conversation. Partly it's his interviews (which is not entirely relevant to the films themselves), where he comes off for me as fluent but ultimately vaporous. But mostly it's the way he continually hits upon hot button topics in his films without really having much of interest or value to say about them (e.g. Terrorism, Racism, War, Masculinity, Rape). They come off for me as modish window dressing for some otherwise pretty compelling stylistic exercises. I've yet to see any convincing argument from Dumont or his fans that actually gets to grips with why this isn't the case, and often because it so often boils down to "oh, it's so totally not like that - if only you could see."

[repeat]

Well, that's something I can definitely understand, being temperamentally averse (even to the point of prejudice) to anything that smacks of provocation/exploitation, milking Big Important Topics, etc. Actually I think I was wary of Dumont too for a long time before I'd seen his films, solely on the basis on his reputation as "provocateur" and alleged proximity to the so-called "New French Extremity" and its (genuinely vacuous) posterboys like Noé. (I think I was even sceptical while watching Hadewijch, the first film of his I saw, until the final 15 minutes swept me off my feet)

I should think he'd been questioned about his motivations in several interviews, but off the top of my head can only remember this one - the interviewer doesn't press further on it, but personally I'm prone to believe what Dumont says ("I’m not trying to provoke, I’m trying to create in the spectator a sense of astonishment"). I can see how the sexual and violent material provokes controversy, but I believe it's necessary to achieve what he's going for (having said that I really don't think he should have put out Twentynine Palms with that ending, but that's something he's consistently regretted).

Actually the one criticism that I think could be easily levelled at him, and which I might best agree with - and if I understand correctly, this is basically what you're saying too - is a certain socio-political aloofness or disengagement in favour of mystical-philosophical contemplation, highlighted by the way he sometimes (I wouldn't say repeatedly, but I guess Hadewijch is a case in point) includes subject matter that might seem to invite different approach. I've rarely seen this tackled in interviews, and when it has he's usually rather vague about it, but I think that's consistent with his character. I value his commitment to his spiritual-mystical aspirations too much to be bothered by it, but I can definitely see how referring to those kinds of subjects and then refusing to address them in a less ambiguous way creates controversy.

[Michael Kerpan]

Why should any director have to address the "meaning" of his films? (I certainly wouldn't)

[domino harvey]

The subtitles for this on Netflix kept translating the locals calling Mohamed a "negro" into "nigger" (instead of, presumably, "A black"), which seems a drastic difference. Does this term hold the same weight (ie is it the worst thing you could call a black person, as "nigger" is here) in France?

As for the film, I'm with the detractors. It seems highly dubious and more than a little naive to think it accidental or pure of heart for the film to consist almost wholly of noticeably different types, either in appearance or ability. This is a film with almost no "normal" characters in looks or behavior, wherein the most conventionally attractive character is eaten by pigs. Not sure what more of a clear message one can get from this in absence of halting receipt by plugging your ears and going "La la la la la" (perhaps to the tune of "Cause It's You"?)

[accatone]

Dumont is shooting the second season right now - looks like it will be called Coin coin et les Z’inhumains. See here http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/203463/artic ... -plus-loin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Should be aired next year September. Meanwhile the arte mediathek does have Jeannette online for 7 days, French and German sound options only i guess.