Left Field Cinema

A certain amount of reluctant discretion has to be considered when being critical of an established classic. Perhaps the quality of the work is simply something that you as a viewer have missed. The old maxim that the fault is not with the film but rather with the audience may be an important mitigating factor. However, it is not impossible that a film may be considered to classic but in fact be open to vast amounts of criticism. Tackling a classic from a negative light may not always be pleasant however sometimes it may just be necessary.

Eric Rohmer is a darling of World Cinema fanatics, his position as former editor of Cahier du Cinema and his prominent position within the French New Wave make him a near untouchable. Like other notable figures from the Nouvelle Vague, such a Jean-Luc Godard, Agnes Varda or Francois Truffaut it is very easy to find many articles praising their work but slightly more difficult to find anything that dares criticises them. They are destined to be beloved no matter the quality of the out-put. Much like Hitchcock and others it is almost the brand that seems to be loved rather than the single entity of work. Rohmer is another of these untouchables. Yet does he deserve this esteem?

Often considered to be the most durable of French filmmakers because of his film’s public popularity, Rohmer made many films within his lengthy career including three separate thematic series. He created 6 Moral Tales, 6 Comedies & Proverbs and the Tales of the Four Season; he also made a number of stand-alone films. Within this vast body of work many could argue what his best feature in fact is, however typically most arguments come down to The Green Ray. While other such films like My Night At Maud’s could be considered, the Golden Lion winning The Green Ray is usually held up as the zenith of Rohmer popular canon.

Yet The Green Ray simply is not that good. Let this be reiterated, it is simply not that good.

Delphine, a young Parisian secretary, plans to go travelling with a friend but at the last moment is let down by her, leaving her to find someone else to travel with and somewhere else to travel. Delphine spends some of her time in Paris and the rest of her time holidaying around France. This is pretty much the whole plot of the film, yet it does nothing to highlight the problems.

The flaws of the film are not solely from a personal viewpoint, though there are many of these, but also the criticisms can be levelled from a detached technical view as well. The direction of this supposed masterpiece must seriously be looked at. Every shot is a slightly closed off mid-shot, meaning that there is no scope to the film's intent. It is claustrophobic when it should be expansive and Rohmer makes many wrong choices in this film's design. The scene where they discuss the passe notion of vegetarianism is spoiled by the awful camerawork, Rohmer is completely unable to film multiple people at a time and he uses the embarrassing trick of shooting the person talking rather than directing the scene. Robert Altman would have made this scene sparkle while Rohmer's vision just lies limply on the cinematic canvas. The poor direction extends passed this scene into the majority of the film, where actors seem to be playing up to the camera as if they are in a mockumentary, Rohmer’s non-existent visual style with a close in camera is just awful to watch and the camera placement within this film is simply awkward throughout. Though the dramatic conceit of the inter-title cards seem competent at first they end up having the effect of cutting the film into vignettes. Rohmer uses this to extricate himself from a scene at any time the drama became interesting. It is an unusual and frankly self-defeating technique to move from a scene the moment it becomes interesting yet Rohmer manages this without fail on a number of occasions.

The vegetarian conversation mentioned above highlights one of the other main problems with the film, not only is it brutally shot with a complete lack of vision, it is also has terrible characterisation. Our protagonist is one of the most unpleasantly annoying and pathetic film characters to have to spend 90 minutes with. She is remarkably inconsistent, even within the same scene! That is what happens when you allow your actors to improvise, you can often lose the thread of the character without careful editing and direction. In this vegetarian conversation she is first easily cowed and inarticulate about her being a non-meat eater and then as if by magical powers she becomes a voracious and strident defender of all things vegetarian related, shouting down the whole table of nobodies. It is completely unbelievable in its transition and in it’s writing, this young secretary suddenly becoming the Peter Singer of the French countryside. The whole thing stinks of collapse of character. And The Green Ray suffers to breaking point from this. The lead female character whom we follow throughout this picture is a poorly created and executed plot cypher, she is nothing more than a basic identikit of faux emotions and silly tics. For someone who is so lauded for his creation of believable female characters it is disgraceful that his most respected film should have such embarrassment at the centre. And yet this character is let down even further by the performance. Marie Riviere, a Rohmer regular, gives a hideous performance at the centre of this, her awkward mannerisms more actorly than even the worst of Silent Film performers.

And yet The Green Ray has a tremendous reputation within World Cinema circles and is one of the most lauded films of the 1980s. However, it simply does not deserve this. Does it challenge the viewer? No. Is it profound? No. Is it well crafted? No. Does it have good dialogue? No. Good performances? No. Is it funny, dramatic or thrilling? No. Is it intelligent? No. Does it have a unique perspective on any aspect of human interaction? No. Is it anything more than a banal attempt at a holiday film by a director running on empty fumes while trying to fit his film around a proverb that is as empty as they product he produced? No.

"Ah, for the days/that set our hearts ablaze,"

Wilson McLachlan