Director: Julian Schnabel (Basquiat, Before Night Falls)
Novel: Jean-Dominique Bauby
Screenplay: Ronald Harwood
Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Jon Kilik
Starring: Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Seigner, Marie-Josée Croze, Max von Sydow
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 112 min.
It’s easy to see why The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has shown up on several top ten lists this year; for either acting, directing, cinematography or simply best picture overall. While I’ve yet to see Schnabel’s previous works, which I understand are impeccable, I can see this latest going down as a top notch discussion film that has a lot of unique aspects about it and if nothing else is a contemplation piece to the Nth degree.
Really trying to avoid any pre-conception of the film, I only went in to the movie knowing the title and a brief glimpse of the one-sheet. Other than that info, I knew nothing about the film in hopes that it would surprise and awe me. It did a little bit of both, though it’s not anywhere near any of my top picks on the year. Still it has a lot of things going for it and can completely understand why some may assign a five star rating to this visually and emotionally interesting film.
While I went into the film without any idea of what’s about to happen, so goes the film’s opening to the audience and it’s main character, Jean-Dominque. There are light flutters and muffled voices; out of focus shots and color flickering. Soon we see that there are two or three people in a room and they are directly speaking at the camera. Then it becomes obvious that they’re not speaking to the camera, they’re speaking to a man lying on a bed and we’re seeing the world through his perspective. In this way the director immediately puts the audience in the same position as our main character: at the mercy of our ailment. In this case it is the debilitating effects of a stroke.
For the first thirty minutes or so, the film continuously keeps us only where the director wants us to be; which is stuck inside the crippled head of our protagonist. Since our protagonist, as we learn from the doctors talking to us, can only move his eyes and is completely paralyzed otherwise, so too is the camera only able to see what is available to a person in such a state. Therefore, we can see the walls, the window and just the edge of a table with some flowers. It’s an extremely frustrating, though fascinating, experience.
While only able to see what is right in front of us, thankfully the doctors emerge from time to time and put us in a wheelchair to allow us to roam the hospital. Mathieu Amalric provides narration as to what the patient (i.e. us) is thinking. This can sometimes be painful pleads, sad lonliness or even a bit of light humor.
This entire experience is really a fascinating way to put a film together. In this way, the audience is totally put in the shoes of our character and in a way, provides a subtle glimpse into what the agony of a stroke might be like; as completely as is possible by a film anyway.
After this intitial frustration, we’re finally let off the hook by the director and the film slowly transforms into more standard, third person shots. We see Jean-Domique (aka ourselves) as he appears to others, which can be a jarring experience at first as he looks a little odd and we sort of were him for thirty minutes. More frustration ensues though as soon, we have to endure Jean-Dominique’s rehabilitation and attempts at communicating. Since he can make no sounds or gestures, his only communication is a blinking eyeball. Our speech therapist devises a communication tool: listing off letters one by one until Jean-Domique blinks. That’s one letter down. We go through the process again: E, A, S, R, L, D, N, O, M, T, P, C, I, K, J BLINK. That’s another letter. Throughout the film, we’re forced to undergo this frustrating method of communication that although we’re not inside Jean-Dominique’s head anymore, we’re still forced to empathize with him as communication seems unbearable. At times this communication can be quite important and others very light-hearted or emotional.
While the movie is really a true story, character study about a once wealthy, egotistical, pompous magazine (Elle) editor, ultimately it forces an introspective analysis on our own character and strengths and weaknesses. While this could easily become the typical, sappy Oscar-bait, Schnabel asks us to instead be patient and truly understand what our character is going through. Forcing us to not only sympathize, but empathize.
Mathieu Amalric’s performance is difficult to assess. Is it brilliant for it’s sheer power and believability, or is it’s simplicity and “ease” something that anyone could’ve done? After all, he sits in a chair, doesn’t move and blinks. I happen to think it’s pretty reamarkable and likely a gruelling experience even if it’s not all that visually impressive.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a unique look at the typical “overcoming adversity” type of film. It goes beyond anything I’d normally expect and the character’s will and temperment is remarkably strong as he accomplishes what might sound impossible of someone in his condition. Because of the nature of the film however, it’s not without weakness. There are a few segments sprinkled throughout the movie that do seem to drag a bit. And while the opening sequence (ten minutes or so) is unique and gives us true perspective, it flirts with being annoying after a while. Blurry shots and flickering images are generally not what I pay for in a movie. Still, with some of the most gorgeous cinematography as of recent, Schnabel has given us something that’s not only impressive, but also extraordinary.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile – full cast and crew
Official Site
Flixster Profile for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Pretty decent review. I agree with alot of the points. One thing stands out and makes me grind my teeth though:
“Blurry shots and flickering images are generally not what I pay for in a movie. ”
What the fuck is this? A movie is affected by the amount of money it cost you to watch it? You’re quickly losing all credibility as an authority on anything, if you’re constantly wondering wether or not your ticket should be cheaper, because some things may be done in a more ‘sloppy’ way – not even mentioning that in this particular case it’s extremely relevant and adds alot to the film. Not all films can have a spaceship thrown in there, just to make sure people knew where their cash went.
Other than that, the one glaring omission in this review is the presence of Max Von Sydow, who in my opinion stole the show. He is not in it alot, but his performance is 110% authentic, and his gravitas on screen in this film is completely breathtaking. His scenes are enough to make this BY FAR one of the 10 best films released in the world this year. Even with his broken french, he burned through and, like I said, is so real it’s hard to watch.
“Blurry shots and flickering images are generally not what I pay for in a movie. ”
Yea Andrew, I have to call you on this one too. Many great films have used subjective camera which is grainy/off-focus/mis-framed to make a point. Oi! Avoid the first 10 minutes of Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible if you feel that way!
When I wrote that sentence I thought I might get some guff. I guess my point was that it just got to be too much after several minutes of it. It makes a great point and does well at putting us in the shoes of the protagonist, but after a while it just started to get annoying. It really has nothing to do with money. I conceed a poorly written sentence.
HOWEVER.. there have been flicks that I’ve been pissed about spending ten bucks on. This was not one of them – A) because I didn’t pay a dime for this one and B) becasue it’s really a nice film. On a late Friday night after a LONG week of work probably affected my eyes and their stamina a bit.
Also, please don’t tell me that I need a spaceship or explosions to make a film enjoyable. SFX and guns blazing isn’t the point I was trying to make at all. I was simply stating that the point was made and made well. It just went on for too long for my tastes. I REALLY dug the first person POV, and I really liked the way it was done (the slight red when the eyes were closed was so believably realistic and a stroke of genius actually) – it just went on for too long.
And yes, Von Sydow was awesome in this one. The phone call was particularly heartbreaking.
I finally got to see this movie. It annoys me how these films are out and about for 6-8 months, being written and talked out before they’re available to the general viewing public. It barely seems worth talking about now, it’s such old news.
I’d have to disagree Rusty, it’s theatrical release here in Toronto was Dec 25/07 which is just a few weeks ago. It’s still on my list to see.
So… what part do you disagree with.
As I’ve thought about this film more, the more interested I am in seeing it again soon. Probably a first week rental. A Sunday afternoon would suit this film much better than the Friday night at 10pm during the holiday hustle and bustle. Under the right circumstances, this film could’ve made my top ten. Unfortunate.
That is barely seems worth talking about…
I see… I was exagerating a bit as a way of expressing my frustration. A great film never goes out of style.
Finally caught up with this film! What a beautiful and masterful use of “Subjective Camera” – not just the opening sequence, but rather nearly every element of the film. I particularly liked the ‘eating oysters’ sequence with Marie-Josee Croze. Freedom from the conventions of a normal meal in a nice restaurant within the bounds of your own mind. I loved that sequence.
The whole film was very deliberate in being highly stylized, yet the story and emotion easily come through.
I’d think this is a must in the Cinema. This film will hurt on the small screen, as it is all enveloping (kinda like Bauby’s condition.
If there was one performance all year that was worthy of honoring with an award, it was Max Von Sydow in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
Sydow is good. It’s not a major role in the film, but certainly relates something as difficult to grasp as what afflicted Bauby to something easier to grasp like getting older. Of course, Sydow’s character in the film is not just a device. There is a humanity in his performance considering the polar difference in his two scenes: mundane (getting a shave) and extreme (pouring your heart out to your paralyzed son). The man has dignity and vulnerability down.
The thing that resonated the most was the simple statement that we are always hungry for approval, in moreso from a parent.
Indeed that is something that is prevalent in the film, but Von Sydows performance is what makes it ring true and not fake and forced. He only has two scenes to convey the lifelong relationship, and he makes it completely authentic.
Sydow’s role is one of the few treats in this film. I give it some points for visuals, but overall I really simply didn’t care much for Bauby, and question why people find this so powerful. A cynical part of me thinks some are fascinated more that he managed to write it through blinks, the same as some are fascinated that a child can produce good looking abstract art, but I want to think there’s something I’m missing.
I had no expectations of the film, other than to empathize with his locked-in syndrome, and that perhaps as a bonus his condition would lead him to have profound things to say. I didn’t feel either. Many are saying the repetitive nature of the letters allows us to feel his frustration, whereas I simply got more bored with what I was watching. There’s very little to show us who Bauby actually is – hooray, he likes to eat oysters and he had a girlfriend. wow. it’s only those moments with Sydow that the non-therapy scenes felt like anything more than filler.
I would certainly hope the book goes into more detail about what he went through, because like another acclaimed movie I saw months ago I didn’t care for (Thin Red Line) I’m finding it hard watching anyone describe what makes this movie work without a bunch of flowery language and subjective (often contradictory) analysis.
Sydow is great in this, you’re right. Sadly underused to boot.
I can TOTALLY see why you got bored with this one. I happened to see it very late on a Sunday night after a LONG day of Christmas shopping (or something), so I gave it the benefit of the doubt because I was so tired.
I think what works the best is the visual pallette that is pretty good looking.
As far as empathizing with the character, I think the film makers did a great job of putting us in his shoes. It was very frustrating to sit and watch – I didn’t personally feel bored though.