criterionforum.org

Hello,

Has anybody been able to see the new Claire Denis film "L' Intrus?" I know very little about it, and the IMDB isn't much help. Any comments or information would be much appreciated.

Dylan

I'll be screening this soon. But reactions from Venice ranges from liking it (my boss) and absolutely hating it (my friend).

EDIT - never mind, it'll be next year before I get to see this.

Here's an interview with Denis about it.

Thanks very much Matt. Sounds like an interesting film, and it's unfortunate that a US release seems so far off (a R2 DVD will probably debut sooner than a US release though). Interesting how there's no mention in the article of the lovely, haunting, dark-eyed actress Yekaterina Golubeva (from "I Can't Sleep" and "Twentynine Palms"), who is, according to the IMDB, one of the leads.

Dylan

Dylan-

I saw the film in Toronto and loved it. You'll notice it in my dynamic top 10 list.

I'm not sure what to say about the film plot wise, as it is very abstract and there will surely be many opinions on what the story is about but it is one of the most beautiful looking films I have ever seen. Seek it out if you can.

G30

Take heed, Wong Kar-Wai - THIS is how you make a "greatest hits". I just saw L'Intrus, and I think it's a fantastic summary of the films Claire Denis has made (well, okay, maybe not FRIDAY NIGHT), while taking her signature style one step forward. Not actually as abstract as I had anticipated it to be, a familiarity with Denis' previous films do help a *lot* in the deciphering of the film. From the rugged masculinity of Michel Subor to the themes of metaphorical consumption in TROUBLE EVERY DAY (now in the guise of heart transplant), the father/son split here is as telling as the empire/colonies divide that's been a subject of many of her best films - especially when the father comes back to claim what's his. Much can be said about what the ending symbolises....

Can someone please tell me what the #$%&! L'Intrus is about? I was left feeling extremely disappointed and frustrated.. .and also feeling uncertain about giving it another chance. It didn't leave me in awe like Beau Travail did. Agnes Godard's always ravishing cinematography cradled me throughout the film but I still failed to pull anything out of the impossibly abstract film. Antonioni's The Passenger, another similiarly abstract film, is another film that I recently saw. I fell in love with it and could easily call it my favorite Antonioni film. It left me plenty of things for me to work with, to chew on...but L'Intrus simply didn't make any sense to me...(did it for anyone here?)

Michael wrote:Can someone please tell me what the #$%&! L'Intrus is about? I was left feeling extremely disappointed and frustrated.. .and also feeling uncertain about giving it another chance. It didn't leave me in awe like Beau Travail did. Agnes Godard's always ravishing cinematography cradled me throughout the film but I still failed to pull out anything out of the impossibly abstract film. Antonioni's The Passenger, another similiarly abstract film, is another film that I recently saw. I fell in love with it and could easily call it my favorite Antonioni film. It left me plenty of things for me to work with, to chew on...but L'Intrus simply didn't make any sense to me...(did it for anyone here?)

I must also admit I had somewhat of a rough time with L'Intrus on my first viewing. I was captivated by aspects of it, particularly all the scenes with Michel Subor in the Swiss countryside and the woods - that part of the movie worked for me quite well. But as it continued on, I felt more and more lost, and eventually a little bored. Still, by the end, I felt like what I had seen was worth revisiting. And so I did, and I enjoyed it much more.

My problem was that I was looking for somewhat of a more linear, straightforward narrative; I'm using that term pretty loosely, because I would regard even something like Mulholland Dr. as somewhat straightforward, in that although it's somewhat of a puzzle, there are also clues and what many feel is a kind of "solution," although a lot of the pleasure in watching the film comes independent of that. In L'Intrus, I think the "story" has more to do with mood and the feeling, and there simply is no solid footing for assembling some kind of all-encompassing explanation (narratively speaking).

One thing that helped me quite a bit was to hear Denis talk about the film in the DVD extras and to understand better how she was approaching it.

Spoiler

Many of the characters in the film, almost all of them, are taken by Denis to be imaginary, the manifestation of Trebor's internal conflicts. The woman following him around the world can be seen as his conscience, Beatrice Dalle represents in a way the northern hemisphere, the murder early in the film might or might not have really happened, and so on. When you can let go of the instict to try to assimilate all these things into some logical/linear narrative, you'll feel much better about the film, I think. Otherwise you'll be driven mad by things like an apparent second son, who might be the first, but who apparently lives in a different hemisphere - or you'll wonder who exactly was frozen under the ice, and so on...

I think I still enjoy Beau Travail the most, as my enjoyment of that one comes quite easily and naturally, whereas L'Intrus is a film you must acclimate yourself to, and it's not always easy. But it is I think in the end rewarding. And there's no telling where Denis will go next.

Thanks for the Denis snippet, Oedipax...

That was exactly how I read it after my first viewing and I quite enjoyed it. But then again, as opposed to most, I tend to not look for a narrative. As I was walking out, I heard a couple discussing

Spoiler

the murder and the logistics of the heart transplant

and it hit me just how unappealling this film could be from that point of view.

Michael, if you are able to divorce yourself from trying to put the puzzle together, I strongly suggest you try again. If not, then hey, it just might not be your thing.

-Toilet Dcuk

Well, I can tell you this much. It's sure as hell an interesting movie to watch with friends. I've shown it to several and everyone has a very different response, though most seem generally and unfortunately less than taken with it. I think that even for people who are usually up for challenging cinema, the challenges L'Intrus poses are unique and require a substantially different "skills set" to engage with them properly. I've sensed the interest of people whom I respect flag and wane during screenings. Now, I'm not sure where the moment of disconnect occurs (obviously it's different for everybody) but in general it does all seem to start to unravel at about the point when Louis leaves his home in Switzerland. Perhaps there are subtle indications or intimations around that point that Denis is playing by her own set of rules and that the kind of tactics we normally bring to art film enigmas just aren't adequate; but because the film traffics in amped up, though signature, Denis poetic association we may feel we aren't left with a rudder and must fend for ourselves. This can be frustrating.

I've seen it three times now and though I continue to hold to Beau Travail as Denis' masterwork it is only because it is more accessible and therefore has greater direct emotional impact. L'Intrus, on the other hand, steeps in your soul if you're willing to let it. Its great accomplishment is the fact that it has such far reaching resonance, that it suggests so much about so many things. Certainly in terms of themes it features all the the usual stuff from Denis, like the impact of invasive attitudes and qualities, masculine intimacy and a further consideration of personal and physical proximity (one of the great underlying ideas in Chocolat, which is a far greater achievement in its own right than most give it credit for). Denis' interests are profound but are content to reside on the glistening surface of her images because the images are so well chosen. They conspire together through the force of movement and editing to expand out in implication, pushing back the boundaries of reductive interpretations. Like all great poetry, this film lives or dies on the virtue of the associations it makes and the conscious construction Denis brings to her narrative. It is to her credit that we feel secure in her vision and capable of making the effort to penetrate her surfaces.

I really loved L'Intrus, and it's probably among my top five Denis (and just look at the competition!)

This is how I rationalised it to a local doubter a while back:

Re: L'Intrus. I really loved the determined indeterminacy of the film. Denis has always been a mistress of ambiguity (I just love the swooniness of Vendredi soir - there are multiple points throughout the film where the protagonist may or may not have dozed off, and it all makes sense whichever reading you select - or if you take the whole thing at face value), but it seemed to me that she was trying something different here, with the confusion between hallucination, projection and reality being a part of the film's deep structure, and there being no 'straight' reading available. In order to (re)construct the narrative, every viewer needs to make a call as to which scenes are 'real', and Denis avoids all of the conventional devices for signalling unreality.

The understanding of the film I reached at the end seemed to me deeply personal, and probably hard to reproduce in another person, but nevertheless dictated by Denis' choices and the parameters she establishes. This isn't a film that's so fragmented and ambiguous that any reading is as good as the next. Anyway, I look forward to seeing it again, and expect a quite different experience. [. . .] It's certainly a triumph for Agnes (and Nelly!), and a triumph for pure, visceral moviemaking: one of those films where you can just admire the beauty with which it's assembled, regardless of the content.

So I really see the film as quite a conscious and intelligent experiment in narrative on Denis' part - not an abandonmnet or frustration of narrative - and one which builds upon an established quality of narrative ambiguity in her work. I also found it a beautiful filmgoing experience which kept me on the edge of my seat through the sheer sequence-by-sequence mastery of film grammar.

Just wanted to add that zedz summed up my own feelings about this picture better than I did.

Also, I have to say that I'm not too crazy about Charles Taylor's description of the narrative as "like a tub of ice cream out of which big scoops have been taken". That seems to point once again to the idea that this is supposed to be "figured out" like some kind of godforsaken case on CSI rather than savored and reflected upon. As always the attempt at a master narrative lends itself to attenuated and reductive interpretations.

Having said that, I'm also not crazy about the way many argue for L'Intrus as being primarily about mood, atmosphere and texture--pure ephemeral feeling, in other words. Certainly Denis allows that as a way in but these qualities do not exist independently of intellect and wisdom, they accent and complement one another.

I do agree with you, David, that I'm wary of films which require, as you put it, "external discourse". However, I will admit that I'm a little thrown off whenever that discourse succeeds in being enlightening. In this age of commentary tracks there are more opportunities for this kind of reimagining to salvage an otherwise dire film, though it still rarely happens. One of my own favorite examples is Danny Boyle's The Beach, which I was unimpressed with initially. Boyle's commenatry, though, was insightful and revelatory, casting the entire film in a light which provided it with great depth and impact and redeemed it for me. Nonetheless, without that commentary it's still a pretty dire movie. And, yes, I know, even with it....

I wanted to ask you this, too, David. Given your comment that the ideas in L'Intrus often seemed literal enough to be ludicrous I wanted to get your opinion on late Kieslowski. Now there's someone I struggle with. I just rewatched Three Colors and I continue to feel that Kieslowski traffics in too much obvious symbolism and forces us into too much of a direct engagement with his otherwise lovely metaphysical ideas. Maybe that's necessary, though; maybe my criticism is essentially missing the point. I do sense that I'm maturing into his work and starting to understand the hows and whys of his approach a bit better but I remain uncertain.

Michael do you also get the feeling l'Intrus is really Agnes Godard's picture, all gorgeous imagery with Claire merely recycling familiar players like Beatrice, Alex Descas, etc?

David, my thoughts exactly! You just have more balls than I have saying the following: "like scibblings on an envelope, wihout being given any depth" and "It felt LAZY". Being so in love with I Can't Sleep, Beau Travail and Friday Night, I wanted so much to love L' Intrus but I just couldn't. I just couldn't connect to this film in any way. Like I said earlier, Godard's imagery was the only thing that cradled me throughout the film and even with just that, the film still felt lacking something. Another thing is that I was expected to be blown away by the exotic beauty of Tahiti (like I was by Beau Travail's Africa - dark disco, white salt and Friday Night's neon-lit Paris that feels like an undiscovered galaxy) but nothing in L' Intrus achieved the same richness and meaning as those films. Even the snow scenes with Beatrice weren't that "wow" ...Ken Russell's Women in Love's snow scenes are piercing and emotional on many levels.. much more than all the scenes in L' Intrus put together.

Michael wrote:Another thing is that I was expected to be blown away by the exotic beauty of Tahiti.

I don't have it in front of me at present, but there was an interview with Denis in a recent Film Comment in which it was discussed that the common, idealized (for lack of a better word), notion of the 'exotic beauty' of Tahiti was not at all what she wanted to express so much as the undercurrent of oppressiveness that Tahiti, as well as other tropical island nations, also tend to exude.

Sorry I'm not more detailed... perhaps someone could link to the interview? I'm quite certain it was the Match Point issue.

-Toilet Dcuk

davidhare wrote:In all honesty I don't value highly a movie which relies on completely external discourse, interview, the written word psot facto generally to require some illumination. No - a dead end for me.

Sorry, but that's poppycock. I watched it without any of the background information beforehand, and I didn't have any trouble following the film. Granted, I'm biased, as I've watched all of her films, and I think she is by far one of the best directors right now.

As you said, the symbolisms are pretty damn "literal". An understanding of Europe and its struggle with its past, present and future should handily suffice, IMO. In fact, this film reminds me of L'Eloge de l'amour in many ways, not the least the way in which they both struggle to resolve the identity of an integrated Europe and France in today's modern world.

But why criticise the film for its *characterisation* when that is far, far from the points illustrated by the film?[/i]

It's been 1.5 years since I saw the film, so my mind is fuzzy. But I had a good chat with Dennis Lim about it (he liked the film too), and we agreed that we were both moved by the film, and that in many ways this is one of her best films. I really need to see the film again to "refresh" my mind a bit - can't really explicate well when your brain is full of other more recent films

For anyone interested in Jean-Luc Nancy's original story, it can be found here but you need access to a library network.

In the interview, Claire Denis mentions that she hasn't shown anything that doesn't belong to the short story. Although she might have exaggerated a little, her statement does make a good key to unlock the mystery of the film.

Central to Jean-Luc Nancy's autobiographic reflection is the foreignness of the "heart" (coeur). To have a foreign "core" (coeur) makes him become foreign to himself and thus become his own intruder. As a result, he no longer recognizes himself and is "suspended between poorly identified states."

To illustrate the "foreigness," Claire Denis puts Louis in South Korea, where foreign faces and incomprehensible languages surround him. The hotel room sequence (right after Louis buys the watch) is a fine example to describe the suspension in "poorly identified states," although the entire movie kind of fits that description. When I have the notion of "foreigness" in mind, the entire Korea episode makes so much more sense.

And the word intrus bears less hostility than its English counter-part "intruder." The French word (please correct me if I am wrong) simply denotes one who appears where he is unwanted?

I think much of the story ends in rejection because that's what a heart transplant entails.

franco wrote:For anyone interested in Jean-Luc Nancy's original story, it can be found here but you need access to a library network.

And for further background, see Denis' companion short to the feature, featuring Nancy, included in Ten Minutes Older.

I have been thinking about buying this R3 (Taiwanese?) disk for a while. Is it worth owning, if not just for Vers Nancy?

Terribly patchy, but it's worth owning for the magnificent Erice. Vers Nancy is really just a footnote.

FWIW, and I know this is all getting pretty OT, you can see the Erice here (sans subs) and make up your mind:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qq3NcIY2zkQ& ... or%20erice

I'm quite fond of the Godard film in that anthology as well.

Some questions I have regarding the film's plot.

Spoiler

1) Dream/imagination/authorial commentary sequence?: Was the body at the coroner's Louis' son from Switzerland/France? If so, did he follow him to Tahiti? Or was it his long lost son from Tahiti (just the same actor)?

2) Dream/imagination/authorial commentary sequence?: The girl who broke into Louis' cabin having her heart taken out.

3) Acquarello's review at his website mentioned the plot's reverse chronology. I didn't catch any instance. Not unless the scenes before he departed for South Korea in which we see his scar is a flash-forward. If not, then we assume he had previous heart surgery?

I apologize for some mistakes. These questions come from one viewing.

Hey Mise En Scene, here's what I imagine:

Spoiler

(1) I'd like to believe that he's Louis' son from France. I remember somewhere someone (maybe Denis herself) mentioned that the only two real people in this movie are Louis and his son. The others, as I imagine, are all doubles or personifications of mental qualities. The different locations, as I further speculate, are also there to represent characters' mental landscapes. So Korea is not really Korea, nor is Tahiti really Tahiti...

(2) The girl and Louis' son are the same person. Both of them break into Louis' cabin and wear the very same crown of thorns (made of leaves and branches) - a symbol for sacrifice. Unsurprisingly, both are missing their hearts in the end. If Louis can have Katia as his conscience, then Sidney can have the homeless girl as his longing for fatherly love.

(3) Here I have to disagree with Acquarello. L'Intrus is actually quite linear, although it's deceivingly elliptical. Denis puts Louis in Korea because, as my speculation goes, she wants to illustrate the notion that after the heart-transplant, everything around the patient becomes alien and strange, to the extent that one becomes his own intruder, just as Louis is the very foreigner in Pusan.

More than half of your questions can be answered if you read Nancy's essay! Observing how Denis translates written concepts to images is quite rewarding.

franco wrote:More than half of your questions can be answered if you read Nancy's essay!

Is there any way to read this without a library connection?