“On September 3, 1973 6:28 pm and 32 sec a blue fly of the Calliphorides species, whose wings can flutter 14670 times per minute landed in Saint-Vincent Street, Montmartre.”
These are the opening lines to a film. Over Christmas, a friend of mine decided to show me the film from which these words came from. Fabuleux destin d’Amelie Poulain, Le, or the simpler Amelie was released under UGC-Fox Distribution in 2001 in France before proceeding to sweep the global Indie scene. 7 years later, I watched this film for the very first time and immediately realised I had wasted the last 6 years of my life. Well, OK, that may be somewhat of an exaggeration, but the point remains. The initial reaction lasted several days- the feeling that all artists (and as writers, we can be artists!) receive after viewing something fresh and different remained within, and not only inspired me to buy the film myself and re-watch the day after, but think upon the feelings, why I felt them, and how I could inspire such feelings amongst others in my own work. Then, a question came to me- a question I’ll pose to you later.
The film itself is typically French in its empathic approach to the audience. For a French audience perhaps this would be no issue, indeed normality, however for a wider audience, expanding into Europe and eventually overseas, requiring such strong empathy is risky, and as such the film may not appeal to all. To clarify, the film centres 100%, utterly and totally on the viewer’s ability to empathise with the protagonist- Amelie Poulain, an ultra-introverted recluse, in her struggle against her own years of childhood isolation. For those like me, who have been in similar situations in the past, the connection was an immediate hit, and I was entranced from the start. Indeed I am not ashamed to admit as a man that Amelie’s scene of despair when she believed her love was lost was the first scene in 6 years to make me shed a tear- the empathy I felt to her being so strong. That in itself, analytically, is a prime example of what the film possesses for those who can find the empathic link, however, of course, should that link be missed, the film quite possibly could appear boring or simply very average.
I make the point of discussing this as it spawns from the writing- directorially, the film can be praised in many other avenues, location shooting, for instance, being a good example, however, this empathy can only exist in character, and whilst Audrey Tautou’s appearance was fitting and her performance stunning, the character and her interactions in the film originated in the writing, thus meaning that the film’s critical selling point existed through Jeunet’s (writer/director) original character writing and translation onto the camera.
The story and thus plotline and narrative of Amelie is practically extremely simple- a modern day Hollywood High Concept simplicity: conflicted woman finds one man she loves and faces uphill struggle against obstacles (in this case, her own mentality) until in the end, she gets the man and she lives happily ever after. On paper, that sounds sickeningly simple, and cheesy. On paper, had I read that, I would have automatically turned off through its sheer simplicity- an issue that is pivotal to the question I referred to before, however it is the sheer simplicity of the story that made the film so refreshing and so different- to allow this character to go through the motions on-screen IS the entire film, and that is why the empathic link is dependent if the film is to be enjoyable. I personally recommend anyone who has not seen this work of art, to get off your arses NOW and go buy a copy (£5 from HMV- worth the cost and then some believe me!) because as writers, even if we cannot find the empathy and do not like the film, it stimulates this very good question, the one that hit me when I saw it, and one that we as writers should think about…
IN TODAY’S FILMOGRAPHIC TERMS, DO WE WRITERS CONSCIOUSLY NEGLECT TELLING STORIES FOR NARRATIVE TRICKS OR GIMMICKS?
Bluntly put the obvious answer is no, because by being fictional they are already technically stories, but my point is that in modern day film, our common expectation of film is either: simple reprised story, shunted in favour of epic sound and visuals in mainstream film, or complicated, conflicted, diversity for indie. Now I know that’s a gross generalisation, however you get where I’m coming from. Critically speaking, Mainstream offers little in terms of writing so I will exclude those at this point and by Mainstream I mean High Concept films.
So in terms of the critically acclaimed best films of the 21st century, it has now become not only commonplace but part of our expectations as an audience member to see a film, the narrative of which deceives us, tricks us, strings us along then twists us, and should a film be declared “too predictable” or “lacking narrative innovation” and fail to achieve the afore mentioned things, it’s a failure, or ‘average’. Why?
Rewind 40 years and the aftermath of mainstream film that followed the Hollywood Golden Age we saw, inspired by the French New Wave, an outbreak of Auteuristic and artistic films, the most famous of which being works such as A Bout de Souffle (Godard) and Easy Rider (Hopper). It was these classic works which set aside rules and followed no guidelines, and yet, more often than not, featured a recurring style- simple story, with compelling characters, told from A-to-B, making no attempts to disguise the simplicity in which it was told, and making use of eye-catching and artistic setting. As we passed into the late 80s and 90s the likes of Fincher and Tarantino once again re-invented cinema, using quadrilateral narrative and clever cinematography and editing to create complexity within the narrative to tell the story in a way in which the audience were forced to watch until the end to even understand what was going on. The art within cinema became not the location and setting on shot, but the method in which the film was pieced together to reveal narrative. Tarantino’s first two works- Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction being prime examples of my point- grim settings and locations, with the beauty and intrigue of the film being presented through narrative structure and cinematography. The question is: are these such films good stories? Or are they average stories, told very well?
Had Reservoir Dogs been told and filmed in the manner of Easy Rider, for example, where the story would have been told laterally and the locations been vastly improved, would it have reached the level of success and worldwide critique it did? Clearly, the hole in my point is that the grim location and settings of heightened realism were, in fact, chosen deliberately that way to supplicate the story. Having recoginsed that, I still pose that had the above been true the film would not have been as successful- the story being exposed as being just another gangster flick.
This evolution in cinema needed to happen. I love Tarantino’s works, and I love quadrilateral narrative. My point is not that such cinema is wrong or indeed poor, because clearly it isn’t. However, with such works as Memento & The Prestige (Nolan) and Mulholland Dr. & Inland Empire (Lynch) three of which I also love, the boundaries of quadrilateral narrative have been pushed perhaps as far as they can go. Perhaps another revolution in cinema is needed. I believe we may now be at the point where we are just waiting for the next breakneck work to come through- a piece of writing which will inspire a decade of such style cinema. Perhaps we may see a revert to the works of old- the complex narratives being ditched in favour of us as the audience needing to see beauty to take us away from our dull and grim world, or perhaps a brand new, never before seen style is about to dawn.
My rating of Amelie is high. Admittedly it may not be so high had it not been a refreshing break away from modern day complex narrative, however the film’s story, whilst simple is brilliant and riveting, and asks the question of the actual quality of the story and plot of such quadrilateral narrative films. Today’s audience expects it- as such, we, as writers are expected to produce it, and if we don’t, chances are we get nothing. However as the first decade of the 21st century draws to an end and our world continues to change around us, is it time we decide to throw off the shackles of complex narrative and write something different, new and fresh, a return to telling brilliant stories that may captivate an audience that needs it, and start a new era in cinema? Or is this simply a load of horse-shit?
FABULEUX DESTIN D'AMELIE POULAIN, LE (JEUNET) (2001): Rating: 9/10
Posts
