Week 24/2024

“Do I really exist or is this just a dream?” my six-year-old daughter recently asked me, out of the blue, when I put her to bed. In the final scene of Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman’s little daughter disappears unnoticed while the couple muses about whether, after surviving all their “adventures”, “they were real or only a dream.” Cruise replies that ”no dream is ever just a dream.” With the film, Stanley Kubrick transposed the story of Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (1926) from Sigmund Freud’s fin-de-siècle Vienna to contemporary New York. In his review at the time, filmmaker and teacher Herman Asselberghs found Eyes Wide Shut to be “too much of Freud, too little of Lacan.”

On Thursday in Cinema Palace, Le P’tit Ciné organizes an exceptional screening of Jacques Lacan parle (1972). Restored for the occasion, the film is a rare record of Lacan’s 1972 lecture at the Catholic University of Louvain (UCL) where a young Situationist disrupts the 71-year-old psychoanalyst and vandalises his notes with water and flour. In a conversation with filmmaker Jorge Leon, the Belgian documentarian Françoise Wolff will present this film she made as a young RTBF journalist.

Jean-Pierre Melville’s self-invented Buddhist epigraph that opens Le cercle rouge (1970) states that people who are meant to meet will eventually do so “in the red circle.” And so was the fate of the students sitting around Lacan or the secret society’s red carpet circle in Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick said he gave up doing crime films because Melville already reached perfection with Bob le flambeur (1956). Yet Olivier Père’s reflection on Le cercle rouge equally counts for Kubrick’s final and finest work: “He doesn't film reality, but ideas, frozen dreams, bleak fantasies in maniacal detail.” To which Melville said: “I'm no documentarian; a film is first and foremost a dream.”

Le cercle rouge
Le cercle rouge , Jean-Pierre Melville, 1970, 140’

After leaving prison, master thief Corey crosses paths with a notorious escapee and an alcoholic former policeman. The trio proceed to plot an elaborate heist.

EN

Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, drew a circle with a piece of red chalk and said: “When men, even unknowingly, are to meet one day, whatever may befall each, whatever their diverging paths, on the said day, they will inevitably come together in the red circle.” – Rama Krishna

Title card opening the film

 

“The script of Le cercle rouge is an original in the sense that it was written by me and by me alone, but it won’t take long to realize it’s a transposed western, with the action taking place in Paris instead of the West, in the present day rather than after the Civil War, and with car instead of horses. So, I start off with the traditional – almost obligatory – conventional situation: the man just released from jail. And this man corresponds pretty much to the cowboy who, once the opening credits are over, pushes open the doors of a saloon.”

Jean-Pierre Meville1

 

“I believe in this kind of romanticism. […] The romantic values of friendship and brotherhood expressed in this movie are almost impossible to find today. […] Jean-Pierre Melville was the coolest, most stylish auteur of his time.

I have never fired a gun in my life. I learned how to hold a gun, and subsequently taught my actors, by watching Alain Delon in the films of Melville.”

John Woo2

  • 1Jean-Pierre Meville, cited in Rui Nogueira (ed.), Melville on Melville (London: Secker and Warburg, 1971), 155-156.
  • 2Filmmaker John Woo quoted in the press kit of 2002 restoration of the film that he initiated.

NL

“Traag, ofschoon nooit vervelend, trekken de beeldenreeksen voorbij. De wereld – het decor – is vertrouwd en mooi: de stad, het na-winterse landschap, de bossen en eenzame wegen, een restaurant langs de baan. Zo te zien zijn ook de personen ons vertrouwd; in werkelijkheid zijn ze ieder op zichzelf een mysterie, zoals ieder mens.

Soms denkt men: het duurt te lang, die of die sequentie kon beter worden ingekort. Gewoon als wij zijn aan een cinematografie van ellipsen, suggesties, afgebroken handelingen, verwondert Melville door de volledigheid van iedere handeling. Dat is ZIJN ritme, konsekwent volgehouden tot het einde; coupures zouden het ritme verstoren en de hele film zijn bewonderenswaardig evenwicht ontnemen.

Maria Rosseels1

  • 1Maria Rosseels, “Le cercle rouge. Niemand ontsnapt aan zijn noodlot,” De Standaard, 30 oktober 1970.

FR

Çakyamuni le Solitaire,
dit Sidarta Gautama le Sage,
dit le Bouddah,
se saisit d’un morceau
de craie rouge,
traça un cercle et dit
“Quand des hommes, même s’ils l’ignorent, doivent se retrouver un jour, tout peut arriver à chacun d’entre eux et ils peuvent suivre des chemins divergent, au jour dit, ineluctablement, ils seront reunis dans le cercle rouge.” – Rama Krishna

Pancarte au début du film

 

« Le cercle rouge, je le dis tout net, est un film admirable. Il faut voir Le cercle rouge pour comprendre ce que peut le cinéma quand il est fait par quelqu’un qui l’aime, qui est doué pour cela et qui, en plus, est malin, qui est rusé, qui est patient. Comme cela fait plaisir, mes amis […] Je vois très clair. Je dis tout simplement que Melville, et ça n’a pas été plus facile pour lui que pour aucun autre – et je sais ce dont je parle – est arrive, avec ce film, à la seule place dans le cinéma français qu’il mérite : la première. »

Alexandre Astruc1

 

« Un nouveau film de Melville. Encore un policier. Pratiquement les mêmes personnages. Il semble qu’il n’y ait à en dire que ce qui fut déjà dit à propos des autres Melville : qu’il a su élever le genre policier à une certaine hauteur, une certaine dignité, et qu’il est un parfait réalisateur, maître de sa camera au point qu’elle glisse sur le récit avec une facilité déconcertante. Un maître, en somme.

Et on s’aperçoit que le film « se fait » dans la mémoire – ce qui est toujours un bon signe. On est oblige d’y revenir, pour verifier certains details, certaines concordances. On s’aperçoit enfin que si on y revient, c’est en même temps pour en retrouver la Valeur plastique et les indications de caractère qui se sont glissées dans le récit. Des indications de caractère on passe au movement psychologique, en on s’aperçoit de ceci : à propos d’un suspense qui apparait comme proprement « policier », Melville nous invite à la réflexion.

Il est evident que ce film, très concret, qui nous montre des policiers et des bandits dans une vaste partie de gendarmes voleurs est allégorique. Il se veut un récit d’aventures et il l’est. Mais il se veut aussi une exploration du destin – et il l’est. Si on reportait les personnages dans un climat de tragédie ancienne, on verrait apparaître aussitôt « la terreur et la pitié » resorts de la tragédie et aussi l’accomplissement dans la mort, finalité de la tragédie. »

François Weyergans2

  • 1Alexandre Astruc, “Du cinéma fait par quelqu’un qui l’aime,” Paris Match, 31 octobre 1970, 72.
  • 2Franz Weyergans, “Le Cercle rouge,” Le Ligueur, 20 novembre 1970.
screening
Jacques Lacan parle
Jacques Lacan parle , Françoise Wolff, 1972, 54’

In September 1972, Jacques Lacan was invited to give a lecture to students at the Catholic University of Louvain. As much as the content of his remarks, what impresses here is the way Lacan stages his speech. His thought slowly gets under way from silence, suddenly accelerates and finds its rhythm, until the intervention of a young Situationist interrupts the show. The second part of the film is an interview between Françoise Wolff and Jacques Lacan.

EN

“In France, Lacan’s rock star status owed much to his popular public seminars. The charismatic iconoclast had been giving free public lectures for decades, and those lectures were usually packed with students, colleagues, skeptics, young radicals… and fans. The video gives you an idea of what the fuss was all about. Even at 70, Lacan still owns the room, and he has the presence of a stage actor, complete with dramatic pauses, ironic self-reflection, and pitch-perfect storms of emotion. [Suddenly,] a politically inspired heckler tries to ambush him. It’s a moment right out of a comedy show, if the comedy show were chic and grainy and edited by Jean-Luc Godard. Note the grace with which Lacan neutralizes the poor guy, lights his cigar and then concludes the lecture, even though the fallout from their encounter is still stuck in his hair.”

Sheerly Avni1

 

“On October 13, 1972, the charismatic and controversial French theorist and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan is giving a lecture at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, when a young man with long hair and a chip on his shoulder walks up to the front of the lecture hall and begins making trouble. He spills water and what appears to be flour all over Lacan’s lecture notes and then stammers his way into a strange speech that sounds as if it were taken straight out of Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle. The 71-year-old Lacan never loses his composure. (His cigar appears bent out of shape, but it was that way from the beginning.) The audience, too, retains a certain Gallic nonchalance.”

Mike Springer2

 

“A few minutes in, we see a young (somewhat unsteady) kid approach Lacan’s desk, dunk his hands into a pitcher of… something, pour that something all over Lacan’s materials and then start making grand proclamations in the idiom of The Situationist International. Not content to simply soapbox on Guy Debord, the Situationist wackadude flings the formerly pitcher-bound residue on his hands directly into the face of the much smaller Lacan, apparently in an effort to prove his “authenticity”. Over 70 years old at this time, Lacan continues talking. And Lacan continues smoking.”

Amber Frost3

 

“Perhaps it’s because the young student knows how difficult a target Lacan will be that the student crosses the line from intellectual argument to a gesture of physical confrontation, a gesture of touch. The act of physical protest is also a perfectly valid form of communication, as any fashionable semiotician must know, and Lacan coolly accepts it as such. He says, ‘I understand’. A few others in the room jump to Lacan’s aid, and the young man wishfully asks if he is going to be “roughed up”. He’ll have no such luck.

In fact, the young protestor’s nervous demeanor as he explains the purpose of his protest makes him so easy a target for the 71-year-old master that Lacan’s attempt to respond calmly and without rebuke begins to appear condescending. He asks, ‘Shall I carry on from here?’, inviting the young man to sit down, and the audience laughs.

The young man, realizing that he is in danger of becoming a comic figure of inarticulate youthful intensity, refuses to play along, and soon attacks Lacan a second time. Unlike the first act of physical confrontation, which Jacques Lacan tried to gently laugh off, the second seems to make him angry, perhaps against his will. As the mood in the room intensifies, the intellectual coherence of the confrontation between Lacan and the young protester begins to dissipate. Nothing has been decided or debated, but perhaps something has transpired.”

Marc Eliot Stein4

screening
Palace, Brussels
Eyes Wide Shut
Eyes Wide Shut , Stanley Kubrick, 1999, 152’

A Manhattan doctor embarks on a bizarre, night-long odyssey after his wife’s admission of unfulfilled longing.

EN

Nicole Kidman: There is something very important that we need to do as soon as possible...

Tom Cruise: What’s that?

Kidman: Fuck.

Last lines of the film

 

“There is also a novel by Arthur Schnitzler, Rhapsody: A Dream Novel, which I intend to do but on which I have not yet started to work. It's a difficult book to describe – what good book isn't? It explores the sexual ambivalence of a happy marriage and tries to equate the importance of sexual dreams and might-have-beens with reality. All of Schnitzler's work is psychologically brilliant, and he was greatly admired by Freud, who once wrote to him, apologizing for having always avoided a personal meeting. Making a joke (a joke?), Freud said this was because he was afraid of the popular superstition that if you meet your Doppelgänger (double) you would die.”

Stanley Kubrick1

 

“As an actor, you set up: there’s reality, and there’s pretend… And those lines get crossed, and it happens when you’re working with a director that allows that to happen. It’s a very exciting thing to happen; it’s a very dangerous thing to happen.”

Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise’s wife at the time2

 

“In some of the scenes, the backgrounds were rear-projection plates. Generally, when Tom’s facing the camera, the backgrounds are rear-projected; anything that shows him from a side view was done on the streets of London. We had the plates shot in New York by a second unit. Once the plates were sent to us, we had them force-developed and balanced to the necessary levels. We’d then go onto our street sets and shoot Tom walking on a treadmill. After setting the treadmill to a certain speed, we’d put some lighting effects on him to simulate the glow from the various storefronts that were passing by in the plates. We spent a few weeks on those shots."

Cinematographer Larry Smith3

 

Chantal Akerman: I find that La captive (2000) is not far from Kubrick’s film. His last film…

Dominique Païni: Eyes Wide Shut

Akerman: Exactly. In the fact that when Richard Gere discovers... 

Païni: No, it’s Tom Cruise.

Akerman: Yes, Tom Cruise discovers there’s something about his wife that he doesn’t know and that he’ll never know. And maybe it’s something that has to do with the early 20th century. I’d say Freud. Because those were things we didn’t ask before. 

Païni: Really an early 20th century question. 

Akerman: And also one which refers to women.

Païni: Discovering that the other has an unconscious. It’s not only his unconscious, but the fact that the other has one. 

Akerman: And that the other is the other. And that we’ll never know everything about the other. And he [Tom Cruise’s character] is both obsessed and romantic. He has this idea that loving someone means becoming one with the other. She [Nicole Kidman’s character] tells him: “We’ll never be one. We’ll always be two.” I don’t know how old that idea is. I think all teenaged kids think about the love of their lives. That they’ll become one. But even if we dream about it, we find out that’s false. 

Chantal Akerman in conversation with Dominique Païni4

  • 1Stanley Kubrick, cited in Michel Ciment, “Interviews with Stanley Kubrick: A Clockwork Orange,” Kubrick (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston), 156.
  • 2Nicole Kidman, cited in Robert Kolker & Nathan Abrams, Eyes Wide Shut: Stanley Kubrick and the making of his final film (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 90.
  • 3Larry Smith, cited in Stephen Pizzello, “A Sword in the Bed: Eyes Wide Shut,” American Cinematographer 33 (1999).
  • 4Chantal Akerman and Dominique Païni, "Conversation: Chantal Akerman and Dominique Païni." On La Captive. DVD. Directed by Chantal Akerman. Gemini Films, 2004.

NL

“Sociaal acceptabelere verlangens kunnen in talloze televisieprogramma’s worden ‘waargemaakt’. Er lijkt een maatschappij van de wensvervulling te zijn ontstaan, waarin niet zozeer Traumdeutung als wel de al dan niet virtuele vervulling van dromen is gevraagd. In de huidige cultuur is het Id door de ratio tot hoogste principe verheven, waarbij de waarheidsdrift van de markies de Sade echter is vervangen door het genot van het rollenspel. Ook het Wenen van Arthur Schnitzlers tekst is een grote maskerade, maar in de Traumnovelle bedekken de maskers een duistere, naakte waarheid, die zich in de orgie aan de mannelijke protagonist openbaart. Hier neemt Eyes Wide Shut een volkomen andere wending: de maskerade is de waarheid.

De camera, door Kubrick zelf bediend, lijkt door het trage tempo een haast paranoïde aandacht voor de zichtbare werkelijkheid te hebben. Alles wordt bedreigend. […] De tergende herhaling van de nachtelijke reis en de banale ontknoping zorgen voor een uiterst ongewone structuur. De tweede helft van de film demonteert het eerste deel: de anticlimax wordt door Kubrick tot kunst verheven. […] Met een flinterdun happy end achter een adembenemende anticlimax is Eyes Wide Shut een uitstekend laatste werk, juist omdat het niet afsluit, omdat het geen grafsteen op Kubricks oeuvre is. Het is een tartend non-einde dat ertoe uitnodigt alles nog een keer te gaan zien.”

Sven Lutticken1

 

“Liever ontleedt Kubrick het samenlevingscontract tussen de moderne man en dito vrouw tot op het bot in het zeldzaamste aller fenomenen: de heterofobe mainstream film, de enige beschuldiging die dit meesterwerk verdient en die zijn maker ongetwijfeld als eretitel had gedragen.”

Herman Asselberghs2


“Nu de meester dood is, kunnen de media ongegeneerd hun als cinefilie vermomde necrofilie botvieren op een oeuvre dat zo handig en overzichtelijk oogt.”

Edwin Carels3

  • 1Sven Lutticken, “Een schitterende anticlimax. Stanley Kubricks Eyes Wide Shut,” De Witte Raaf, 83 (2000), 5-6.
  • 2Herman Asselberghs, “Eyes Wide Shut. Een heterofobe mainstream film,” De Tijd Cultuur, 8 september 1999, 10-11.
  • 3Edwin Carels, “Eyes Wide Shut. Van cinefilie tot necrofilie,” De Tijd Cultuur, 8 september 1999, 11.
screening
De Cinema, Antwerp
This Week
-

index