I watched this film all the way through last night - very endearing, pretty little girl, but quite sad and
depressing. I felt rather beat up by the experience, so unrelenting was the portrayal of poor, constantly abused, little Eliane.
But, one detail keeps gnawing at me: I've seen many French (and other European) films featuring young girls, and I don't ever recall seeing one where in
every scene in which a girl is changing clothes or bathing, she self-consciously covers her naked chest in the peculiar way that Eliane always does. In the first such scene, Eliane's alone in the bathroom with her two older sisters, sitting in the tub and having her hair washed, and holding her hands tightly to her chest. In another scene she's having the bruises on her back treated by her older sisters, with her shirt off, and she's holding her hands tightly to her chest. In another, she's being bathed by one of the older neighbor girls, standing in a wash basin in just her knickers, and
again, she's holding her hands tightly to her chest. I think I'm beginning to detect a pattern here ...
Now, here comes my
Cahiers du Cinéma critique.
It's nonsensical that a 9 year-old French girl (of all people!) would be so self-conscious about her undeveloped chest, particularly while in the company of closely related females. It's that sort of incongruity that makes me question the integrity of the filmmaker, who in this case, also happens to be the young actress's father (his wife and the girl's mother also produced the film and wrote the screenplay).
Et, voilà! I think that's the true crux of the problem: An overprotective father, possibly overcompensating for already "exposing" his little girl in order to make an overwrought "message" film about child abuse. Who would have thought that a French filmmaker (of all people!) would be so preciously sensitive about committing the image of a bare-chested, female child to film? Serge Gainsbourg this guy ain't.
I've read several French reviews that all seem to make a similar point about the heavy-handedness of the "message" of this film. It wasn't at all well-received by the critics, primarily because the filmmaker was so intent on pounding home his all-important message that the story and the supporting characters seemed almost an afterthought. That may overstate it, but I think that attitude informed the filmmaker's decision-making - and, a small but significant manifestation of that attitude was the 9 year-old protagonist's unrealistic sense of modesty.
Instead of feeling that I was experiencing an authentic portrayal of a young girl's tragic life, that small, seemingly insignificant choice made by the filmmaker had me thinking: "Ah. This is just some guy's movie. That's his daughter. He's self-conscious of the audience looking at his child. He doesn't want to 'expose' her anymore than he already has. As long as he gets his message across, he's not going to 'risk' her any further. Too bad, that."
Ultimately, he's signaled to his audience that he doesn't really care that he's made an inauthentic choice that damages his film's narrative, and, ironically, the truth of his message. As father first to his child, and filmmaker second, he's chosen emotional compromise over artistic integrity. That makes him a better dad than a filmmaker. My advice to Mme. and Msr. Volta: Next time, don't cast your own kid in your movie.
Those are just my thoughts.
Je suis particulièrement intéressé par la perspective de l'un de nos membres de l'espace francophone. Que pensez-vous?
- Hieronymus
[Awaiting the first response of, "Whatever, dude - we just wanna clear view of her boobies!" in 5-4-3-2 ...]