When asked to respond to Bazin's question (What is cinema?), Rohmer says something to this effect: it is the art of space. His film seem to deal with space not as a geographic thing but as an area between people that deserves consideration.
Space was the first thing that really struck me in the film. There are very few edits during conversations. A "normal" film will edit back and forth consistently between those talking and usually the person that is currently speaking will have the camera's attention. But in Maud, there are very few edits during dialog and a camera will remain on one character for a good while even if that character isn't talking. The absence of many edits creates an absence of space between the characters. Continuous editing between one character and another establishes and keeps reestablishing that the characters have space between them; that type of editing doesn't bring the characters closer but rather splits them apart, literally cutting. But when there are few edits, the audience is able to see and focus on a character's body language more clearly and watch them not only talk, but listen too. It's as if the audience is a character, completely enraptured by the conversation, looking at the other characters as if what they have to say is very important... and the space just seems to melt away. Watching Jean-Louis and Maud talk reminded me of being on a date and thinking that everything she has to say is amazing, but watching her say those things is just as amazing. And "the physical space between us evaporates."
People natural feel comfortable in their own space. Once someone comes to close in another person's space it breaks a comfort zone. For example, when the elevator is crowded, everyone's space is invaded. I think Rohmer did an excellent job by showing how he believes cinema is an art of space. Through his film Maud, space is not only displayed within his characters but also a sense of freedom. In the film, the characters seem explore their space when they are together or far a part. For instance, when they are all having conversations together, when they are seperately grouped together, or when one is all alone. These aspects stand out in the film. It almost reminded me of theater and the importance it is for blocking to send messages to their audience. Rohmer's films, seems to take the same thing into a great consideration. The space between these characters on film, helps Rohmer to exucute his meaning of the film.
During the scene, which the main character spends the night at Maud’s the space is very upfront. The camera remains on the characters for a long period of time allowing the conversation and thought process to go at its own pace. Yet, it doesn’t seem impersonal like other French New Wave films like Godard’s films. The viewer almost gets to see the cogs turning in J- L’s head. The reactions and emotions were much more apparent and profound through this technique used by Rhomer As mentioned by Patrick it was like being on a date when watching that scene. You just sit there and take in the other person’s words and digest them. You become totally focused on the other person and enjoy the person's company by just sitting back and taking it all in. Watching Maud react to J-L and respond was really something and visa versa. IT gave a different glimpse into a relationship being built on screen. There was this space, but it was allowed the audience to get even closer to a character in how they thought or felt about the actions or words taking place within the film. It wasn’t the kind of space that took away from the emotions but rather enhanced them at times. The edits within this film created a very special relationship with the viewer and the characters.
As Patrick pointed out, it's interesting how restrained/minimalistic the editing is in this movie. In a way, this style is actually more conducive to cinema's suturing effect; due to the established shot-reverse-shot convention, however, it somehow seems more jarring to maintain Rohmer's relatively static shots during conversations. My instinctive thought coming away from this movie was that it wasn't especially "cinematic," at least not in the way Godard or Resnais or Truffaut are. The film seemed focused more on the "content" (inasmuch as you can really make a distinction between form and content...which you can't, really, but unlike the aforementioned filmmakers, Rohmer seems disinterested in flashy "THIS IS A MOVIE" formal play), and it seemed almost like it could have worked as a stage play or a short story.
BUT:
On second thought, however, that's a load of crap. By eschewing both the numbing editing conventions of classical cinema (I mean "numbing" in a neutral way, just to say that it minimizes audience engagement; I just can't really think of a term that sounds less value-judgment-y right now) and the FNW's more Brechtian tendencies, Rohmer forces the audience to focus on what's going on onscreen in a way he couldn't with a different medium. As a result, we get a better sense of the somewhat heavy stuff the characters are discussing--and by extension the moral questions the film is asking its audience--as well as the way the characters all interact with a) each other and b) the conversations themselves. By keeping the focus as fixed on the characters as it does, the film's point ironically becomes MORE open-ended, as we see the subtle differences in the way each characters conducts him/herself (as opposed to just adhering to Jean-Louis' point of view).
Rohmer presents a world where all major characters are unknowingly connected, but structuring the film in a rather unique way to show the present throughout the film, but then reveal the past through the future. The main protagonist of the film, J-L discovers Françoise at church and falls in love immediately. He then coincidentally runs into his old friend Vidal, who through him, he is introduced to Maud. After he spends the night with Maud, he finally asks Françoise out, while at the same time, still entangled with Maud. J-L ends up deserting Maud for Françoise. We then discover that Francoise once had an affair with a married man. This means very little until the film cuts into the future when J-L, Françoise and their child coincidentally run into Maud at the beach.
For a film that uses very little cinematic technique, relying more heavily on dialogue, the very last scene reveals it all. The camera captures Françoise’s nervous facial expression as she passes Maud and this scene being the future of the present (night at Maud’s), fills in the pieces by revealing the past that Françoise had an affair with Maud’s ex-husband.
Each character links to another one to create a chain, not of events, but information. We learn more and more about J-L as he encounters Vidal, but even more when Maud attempts to penetrate his core thoughts. But at the same time, we learn more about Maud through her entanglement with J-L. And even further, we get to know Françoise through her relationship with J-L, however we discover more about her through her past involvement with Maud and Vidal.
in this film Rohmer utilizes the use of medium shots to use the camera to construct a personal connection with his characters. by forgoing traditional panning shots or long shots for medium and tighter shot the camera glorifies its figure, creating a longing sensation that helps to connect the feelings off passions that the character are experiencing and attempting to control. The medium shot also adds intermentcy to shots as it is the most reconstructive of real vision. the film highlights the inconsistencies that we all hold and show the moral struggles that are fought in our heads. i felt that J-L passion for math was an interesting character trait representative for his ideas of preparing for the improbable
I also noticed the lack of the shot reverse shot technique in this film. It created a focus on characters and dialogue rather than a storyline that is moving in a forward direction. The camera lingering on characters faces even after they have stopped talking and are now listening (as the film does many times), produces a sense of space between the characters by giving the viewer and intimate connection to the character being lingered on. In this way we are shown how different these characters are and through this difference we find the space between. It is also interesting because this filmic technique gives the audience the feeling of being their in the conversation with the characters and in some way we feel as if we know them, although, this is clearly not the case. Although we may feel close to these characters, we do not know them and that is the intriguing space that Rohmer reflects on. This space is not necessarily distancing because it seems clear that the characters connect intimately to one another in many ways, but it is inevitable. People are different and complex and in some ways it is almost impossible to fully know someone else. For instance, the last scene at the beach shows that Francoise and Jean-Louis after being married for some time still have parts of themselves that have not been revealed (like Francoise’s affair with Maud’s husband). We are left on the beach with this couple and their daughter unsure of where this space between the characters leaves us, but what better way to end a film about space than by something so vast as the ocean?
This film I found to be an interesting tale on the moral values of religion and love. The characters coonverse deeply about the manner of philosophy,moral codes, and religion. This would be a great film for religious studies students, because it tests the faith of a man, who encounters both an atheist woman who tries to seduce him and a frim marxist believer who is tightly wrapped around Blaise Pascal's wager, that if God did not exist and you werent a believer, then you have nothing to lose, but if he did exist an you beleived you gain everything. Betting the odds for or against God's existence, also creates an odds for or against Jean-Louis and the conflicts within himself. As he tries to remain within the boundaries of his faith, and follow his heart and not his head, he finds himself torn between the two. Torn between his faith and the temptation of passion, he doesnt know whether the choices he makes are right or wrong.
The film has lots of space from the long takes and the shots focusing on the characters. This allows you to pay attention to them and what they are saying. This give you a connection with the characters as if you are there and the voice over of the main character’s thoughts also reinforce this.
I thought this was an interesting yet complex story about morals. The medium shots created, in a sense, a lack of attachment to any particular character. It allowed more of a focus on what was going on in the story, and how that created the characters, rather than emotions. I found it interesting how the non-religious Maude was the person who was honest, and Francoise and J-L were dishonest.
Space was the first thing that really struck me in the film. There are very few edits during conversations. A "normal" film will edit back and forth consistently between those talking and usually the person that is currently speaking will have the camera's attention. But in Maud, there are very few edits during dialog and a camera will remain on one character for a good while even if that character isn't talking. The absence of many edits creates an absence of space between the characters. Continuous editing between one character and another establishes and keeps reestablishing that the characters have space between them; that type of editing doesn't bring the characters closer but rather splits them apart, literally cutting. But when there are few edits, the audience is able to see and focus on a character's body language more clearly and watch them not only talk, but listen too. It's as if the audience is a character, completely enraptured by the conversation, looking at the other characters as if what they have to say is very important... and the space just seems to melt away. Watching Jean-Louis and Maud talk reminded me of being on a date and thinking that everything she has to say is amazing, but watching her say those things is just as amazing. And "the physical space between us evaporates."
ReplyDeletePeople natural feel comfortable in their own space. Once someone comes to close in another person's space it breaks a comfort zone. For example, when the elevator is crowded, everyone's space is invaded. I think Rohmer did an excellent job by showing how he believes cinema is an art of space. Through his film Maud, space is not only displayed within his characters but also a sense of freedom. In the film, the characters seem explore their space when they are together or far a part. For instance, when they are all having conversations together, when they are seperately grouped together, or when one is all alone. These aspects stand out in the film. It almost reminded me of theater and the importance it is for blocking to send messages to their audience. Rohmer's films, seems to take the same thing into a great consideration. The space between these characters on film, helps Rohmer to exucute his meaning of the film.
ReplyDeleteDuring the scene, which the main character spends the night at Maud’s the space is very upfront. The camera remains on the characters for a long period of time allowing the conversation and thought process to go at its own pace. Yet, it doesn’t seem impersonal like other French New Wave films like Godard’s films. The viewer almost gets to see the cogs turning in J- L’s head. The reactions and emotions were much more apparent and profound through this technique used by Rhomer As mentioned by Patrick it was like being on a date when watching that scene. You just sit there and take in the other person’s words and digest them. You become totally focused on the other person and enjoy the person's company by just sitting back and taking it all in. Watching Maud react to J-L and respond was really something and visa versa. IT gave a different glimpse into a relationship being built on screen. There was this space, but it was allowed the audience to get even closer to a character in how they thought or felt about the actions or words taking place within the film. It wasn’t the kind of space that took away from the emotions but rather enhanced them at times. The edits within this film created a very special relationship with the viewer and the characters.
ReplyDeleteAs Patrick pointed out, it's interesting how restrained/minimalistic the editing is in this movie. In a way, this style is actually more conducive to cinema's suturing effect; due to the established shot-reverse-shot convention, however, it somehow seems more jarring to maintain Rohmer's relatively static shots during conversations. My instinctive thought coming away from this movie was that it wasn't especially "cinematic," at least not in the way Godard or Resnais or Truffaut are. The film seemed focused more on the "content" (inasmuch as you can really make a distinction between form and content...which you can't, really, but unlike the aforementioned filmmakers, Rohmer seems disinterested in flashy "THIS IS A MOVIE" formal play), and it seemed almost like it could have worked as a stage play or a short story.
ReplyDeleteBUT:
On second thought, however, that's a load of crap. By eschewing both the numbing editing conventions of classical cinema (I mean "numbing" in a neutral way, just to say that it minimizes audience engagement; I just can't really think of a term that sounds less value-judgment-y right now) and the FNW's more Brechtian tendencies, Rohmer forces the audience to focus on what's going on onscreen in a way he couldn't with a different medium. As a result, we get a better sense of the somewhat heavy stuff the characters are discussing--and by extension the moral questions the film is asking its audience--as well as the way the characters all interact with a) each other and b) the conversations themselves. By keeping the focus as fixed on the characters as it does, the film's point ironically becomes MORE open-ended, as we see the subtle differences in the way each characters conducts him/herself (as opposed to just adhering to Jean-Louis' point of view).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRohmer presents a world where all major characters are unknowingly connected, but structuring the film in a rather unique way to show the present throughout the film, but then reveal the past through the future. The main protagonist of the film, J-L discovers Françoise at church and falls in love immediately. He then coincidentally runs into his old friend Vidal, who through him, he is introduced to Maud. After he spends the night with Maud, he finally asks Françoise out, while at the same time, still entangled with Maud. J-L ends up deserting Maud for Françoise. We then discover that Francoise once had an affair with a married man. This means very little until the film cuts into the future when J-L, Françoise and their child coincidentally run into Maud at the beach.
ReplyDeleteFor a film that uses very little cinematic technique, relying more heavily on dialogue, the very last scene reveals it all. The camera captures Françoise’s nervous facial expression as she passes Maud and this scene being the future of the present (night at Maud’s), fills in the pieces by revealing the past that Françoise had an affair with Maud’s ex-husband.
Each character links to another one to create a chain, not of events, but information. We learn more and more about J-L as he encounters Vidal, but even more when Maud attempts to penetrate his core thoughts. But at the same time, we learn more about Maud through her entanglement with J-L. And even further, we get to know Françoise through her relationship with J-L, however we discover more about her through her past involvement with Maud and Vidal.
in this film Rohmer utilizes the use of medium shots to use the camera to construct a personal connection with his characters. by forgoing traditional panning shots or long shots for medium and tighter shot the camera glorifies its figure, creating a longing sensation that helps to connect the feelings off passions that the character are experiencing and attempting to control. The medium shot also adds intermentcy to shots as it is the most reconstructive of real vision. the film highlights the inconsistencies that we all hold and show the moral struggles that are fought in our heads. i felt that J-L passion for math was an interesting character trait representative for his ideas of preparing for the improbable
ReplyDeleteI also noticed the lack of the shot reverse shot technique in this film. It created a focus on characters and dialogue rather than a storyline that is moving in a forward direction. The camera lingering on characters faces even after they have stopped talking and are now listening (as the film does many times), produces a sense of space between the characters by giving the viewer and intimate connection to the character being lingered on. In this way we are shown how different these characters are and through this difference we find the space between. It is also interesting because this filmic technique gives the audience the feeling of being their in the conversation with the characters and in some way we feel as if we know them, although, this is clearly not the case. Although we may feel close to these characters, we do not know them and that is the intriguing space that Rohmer reflects on. This space is not necessarily distancing because it seems clear that the characters connect intimately to one another in many ways, but it is inevitable. People are different and complex and in some ways it is almost impossible to fully know someone else. For instance, the last scene at the beach shows that Francoise and Jean-Louis after being married for some time still have parts of themselves that have not been revealed (like Francoise’s affair with Maud’s husband). We are left on the beach with this couple and their daughter unsure of where this space between the characters leaves us, but what better way to end a film about space than by something so vast as the ocean?
ReplyDeleteThis film I found to be an interesting tale on the moral values of religion and love. The characters coonverse deeply about the manner of philosophy,moral codes, and religion. This would be a great film for religious studies students, because it tests the faith of a man, who encounters both an atheist woman who tries to seduce him and a frim marxist believer who is tightly wrapped around Blaise Pascal's wager, that if God did not exist and you werent a believer, then you have nothing to lose, but if he did exist an you beleived you gain everything. Betting the odds for or against God's existence, also creates an odds for or against Jean-Louis and the conflicts within himself. As he tries to remain within the boundaries of his faith, and follow his heart and not his head, he finds himself torn between the two. Torn between his faith and the temptation of passion, he doesnt know whether the choices he makes are right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe film has lots of space from the long takes and the shots focusing on the characters. This allows you to pay attention to them and what they are saying. This give you a connection with the characters as if you are there and the voice over of the main character’s thoughts also reinforce this.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an interesting yet complex story about morals. The medium shots created, in a sense, a lack of attachment to any particular character. It allowed more of a focus on what was going on in the story, and how that created the characters, rather than emotions. I found it interesting how the non-religious Maude was the person who was honest, and Francoise and J-L were dishonest.
ReplyDelete