The Dreamers (2003/2004)
Note; Some spoilers.
The minute I saw the radiant face
of Michael Pitt, the minute I heard his voice in narration,
the minute "The Dreamers" really began, I knew I was
seeing what was going to be my favorite film of 2004,
perhaps my #1 film for the year. Less than 2 hours
later, those dreams were shattered. Not only because
the film refused to go where it had promised to go,
where I wanted it to go, but also because it ended
so abruptly and so pointlessly (while pretentiously
presuming it was making some grandiose point), that
I could be nothing less than drastically disappointed.
Now, don't get me wrong; "The Dreamers"
is a "must-see" film, the first one of 2004. Bernardo
Bertolucci is without a doubt the most daring and
provocative filmmaker from the old school still working
in films. His images are bold, captivating and, in
this film, imminently erotic. And Michael Pitt looks
sexy as hell. For those of us who drooled over his
half-naked, pop star angel Tommy Gnosis in "Hedwig,"
the dream is revived. Pitt goes full frontal here,
including a kinky cock shot where his member is curved
and obscured in an obscene way that I refuse to divulge,
and does so in some of the most sexy and scandalous
nudity since Bertolucci's other French- set X-rated
film, "The Last Tango in Paris." Pitt is beautiful,
lanky, scrawny, pale, wan and the ultimate in desirable
from the first moment he appears in the film. He is
without a doubt the most realistic (it seems he really
could live right next door) and edible girlish boy
working in film today.
Have I said enough about how sexy
Pitt is? I don't know that one can say enough because
his is, without a doubt, the most beautiful and languid
body of the three main young stars here that are the
primary reason to see "The Dreamers." Of these, Pitt
is, for me, the focus - his luscious full lips, his
hungry, wide, open eyes, his lithe frame, his pale
pallor, his gazelle-like posturing make him so desirable.
And in this film, his smooth chest,
his boyish butt, his masculine legs and his desirable
cock are as important as anything he says in the film.
When Pitt exposes his ass in the film, it is the ass
of the all-American boy. There is no body double and
no make-up to hide his pimples. It is a real boy butt
and that makes it all the more sexy. It is the ass
of youth, the ass of desire, the ass of God. Pitt
also seems to have some birthmarks and (perhaps even)
some scars on his legs. These too are beautiful and
distract only in the sense that they remind one that
he is a real and living young man, much more real
than the refracted light we see on the giant screen.
Pitt is the "It Boy" of the new
millennium. When he appears at the start of the film
in tight fitting sport coat, high- water cigarette-legged
slacks, and adorable yet dorky white socks with black
dress shoes, he looks as much the 60's as he does
2004. He is fashionable because he IS fashion. Whoever
chose that outfit for him shouldn't be given an Oscar,
they should be given a medal.
Anyway, sadly, back to reality.
I wanted this film to be the next
"Y tu mama tambien." (Wouldn't it be hot to see Pitt
and Ryan Gosling make the American version of that
film!) The ad promises us lots of homoeroticism and
three way action. And while the film delivers somewhat
on these promises and, most probably, reflects the
true mores of the 1968 society it seeks to represent,
there is a real lacking in the homoerotic element
of the film that leaves us wanting. The unexplored
sexual relationship between Pitt and co-star Louis
Garrel is nothing short of frustrating. (It doesn't
matter that it is supposed to be). The truth of the
matter is that the film is nothing like the ads promised
and can ultimately be seen as a cop- out. (Garrel's
Theo's assertion that Pitt's Matthew "isn't my type"
is the most ridiculous thing in this film). There
is lots of sexual exploration, a strong and interesting
incestuous element, discussion of sexuality versus
perverse childhood curiosity as well as certainly
images of and discussions about voyeurism, masturbation,
menstruation, pregnancy, and homosexuality. But none
of it is very shocking, insightful or as complex as
it should be. The film is erotic, no doubt, but nothing
about it is compelling psychologically or sexually,
really.
Worse, "The Dreamers" seems to ultimately
expresses the idea that only the most typical male/female
relationships are "adult" (I.e. acceptable) and that
any form of alternative sexual expression is "childish."
Sadly, for a film that should be the ultimate in perversion
and taboo kink, its underlying message seems to be
that grown-ups should only couple into male/female
units and have sex via the missionary position. (This
is, of course, my own idea of the film's message extrapolated
from the plot and dialogue).
And while sexuality is at the core
of "The Dreamers," much of the time is also spent
discussing film and art of the period. The backdrop
of Paris in 1968 leaves much room for depiction of
an artistic and cinematic culture on the crest of
a wave. Bertolucci loves exploring parallels between
his film and the French new wave films of the period
as well as the classic cinema that influenced that
movement. "A Band Apart" and "Queen Christina" are
just two of the films that are emulated and discussed
while reflective clips from them are sliced into the
film. This cinematic influence however seems truly
unimportant to the sexual themes being discussed here.
With the anti-perversion angle of the film's ultimate
message, one wonders if the film isn't suggesting
that the perversion of film, via the French New Wave,
was ultimately wrong. But if this is the message,
then why isn't the film presented as a Hollywood blockbuster
instead?
Or perhaps it is. Pitt is certainly
the most important young actor working in independent
film today. (I'm sure Matt Damon would never take
the role). It's no accident he is cast here. And the
film begins with a homage to 60's French films opening
titles (maybe even a specific film I am unaware of
as I am not a cultist of that period) while utilizing
CGI effects to make the titles seem interwoven in
the iron girders of (presumably) the Eiffel Tower.
It's a very "Hollywood" opening, recalling David Fincher's
"Panic Room."
But it is Bertolucci's real lack
of focus here, his inclusion of all these film clips
and discussions of films as well as the film's blurry
intentions of including political ideals and imagery
that make the film fail. Maybe we are only suppose
to understand, like Pitt's character Matthew, that
something like revolution is afoot without knowing
what it is about. (I know much more now that I've
done some research. The film offers no road map into
history. It expects you to walk in knowing about the
cultural riots in Paris in 1968 that began when Henry
Langlois was fired as the director of the Cinematheque).
But it isn't so much our lack of
knowledge of the history but rather Bertolucci's refusal
to explain it to us that makes the film so fucking
frustrating. I am no history buff and as a cinema
buff who knows very little about the French new wave
and the political implication of the films of that
genre, I was completely lost within the political
ethos of this film. There is a discussion of communism
and Maoism with some Mao symbols used in the film,
but how this is important to what is going on in the
streets of Paris is never really exposed in the film.
It is simply expected that the viewer is already well-versed
in this history. And if you are not, you are left
out of the loop by the film. Worse, the ending will
be nearly meaningless to you. After acting as mere
subplot in the film for 100 minutes, this political
theme suddenly becomes the force that ends the film.
It is bewildering.
Now, I am smart enough and in tune
with storytelling enough to understand the implications
of the ending of the film. But I guess after comparing
it throughout to "Y tu mama," I wanted a sort of "Y
tu mama" ending, an epilogue where we find out where
the story ultimately evolves and what happens to the
characters. When the two friends meet at the end of
"Y tu mama" and the narrator, who has made the film
a poem throughout its running, tells us that "they
will never see each other again," it is one of the
most poignant, sad and heartbreaking moments in the
history of film. When Pitt turns and simply walks
away from his young lovers at the end of this film
(far too simple a gesture for such a complex relationship)
and the film ends, the viewer simply thinks, "Hmmm.
I wonder what happened to these characters next?"
Sadly, perhaps in the language of
the French New Wave, Bertolucci's only reply is, "And
then the credits ran."
Note:
Also with Eva Green.
Importantly, the sounds of Janis
Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison (of the Doors)
are the primary musical sources besides French film
music here. These three influential musical artists,
who all embodied the spirit of rebellion, all also
died of drug related causes soon after the film's
time setting of 1968.
Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton,
Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Godard, and others are discussed
in the film.
The Cinematheque and the artistic
director fired in 1968, Henri Langlois, are important
to the start of the film. Clips from a short film
called "Langlois" are also included.
An odd end title tells us that "indigenous
trees" were planted to replace the oxygen depleted
by the film. (Presumably by some fire related special
effects).
Other films referenced or shown
in the film include "Top Hat," "Breathless," "Freaks,"
"Scarface," "Blonde Venus," and "Shock Corridor" among
others.
Shot in Paris with a sequence filmed
in the Louvre. Released in late 2003 in Europe, the
film appeared in American arthouses in February 2004.
At one time Jake Gyllenhaal was
considered for Pitt's role.
Viewed in Austin in February 2004
at a sneak preview at the Dobie. This was packed and
I had to sit in the front row. A really hunky college
guy sat behind me. He was going to college in Georgetown.
He had just moved here from Atlanta. I know this because
he talked to a guy he had obviously just met in the
line to see the sneak and though they were both so
obviously gay it practically reeked of Calvin Klien,
their conversation never once touched upon this. In
fact, they were talking about everything but sex:
School, religion (Methodists, Baptist and Catholics),
and "The Passion of the Christ" as well the cool theaters
in Austin, more than we discussing anything that revealed
their true desires and interests. It was silly.
