Eric Rohmer, 1920-2010

"My films, you say, are literary: The things I say could be said in a novel. Yes, but what do I say? My characters' discourse is not necessarily my film's discourse.

There is certainly literary material in my tales, a preestablished novelistic plot that could be developed in writing and that is, in fact, sometimes developed in the form of a commentary. But neither the text of these commentaries, nor that of my dialogues, is my film: Rather, they are things that I film, just like the landscapes, faces, behavior, and gestures. And if you say that speech is an impure element, I no longer agree with you. Like images, it is a part of the life I film.

What I say, I do not say with words. I do not say it with images, either, with all due respect to partisans of pure cinema, who would speak with images as a deaf-mute does with his hands. After all, I do not say, I show. I show people who move and speak. That is all I know how to do, but that is my true subject. The rest, I agree, is literature."

—From "Letter to a critic [concerning my Contes moraux]"

 Below, three images from this frequently misunderstood artist and artisan, who has left us at age 89:

 

 

 

From top: Françoise Verley and Bernard Verley, Love in the Afternoon, 1972; Françoise Fabian and Jean-Louis Trintignant, My Night At Maud's, 1969; Haydeé Politoff and Patrick Bauchau, La Collectionneuse, 1967.

Comments

[Dan]

I was wondering why he was a trending topic on Twitter. Crap.

[Match Cuts Glenn]

Great quotes above. RIP Mr. Rohmer. You'll be missed.

[The Siren]

Such beautiful screen caps, Glenn.

[bill]

Just bumped some Rohmer up in the queue. It's taken me too long to get around to him, and I hate that I waited for his passing as an excuse, but I'm very much looking forward to finally diving in.

[susan]

unforgettable memory http://usspost.com/eric-rohmer-3948/

[Tim Lucas]

The LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON shot is piercing. When I think of that film, I think most readily of Zouzou and what a brash and unlikely object of romantic allure she was; I too often forget what the film gained by casting Françoise Verley, the real life wife of star Bernard Verley, and how her contrasting birdlike fragility produced so much dramatic tension. The film's final scene, wherein this troubled married couple renegotiate their future and retire (offscreen) to the bedroom to restate and reconsecrate their devotion to one another is simply devastating.

[Ed Howard]

This is truly sad news, Rohmer's films meant a great deal to me. I've posted a brief tribute to him as well: http://seul-le-cinema.blogspot.com/2010/01/eric-rohmer-1920-2010.html

Bill, you have many pleasures ahead of you in exploring his work.

[Glenn Kenny]

Agreed, Tim. "Love" is always the film I recommend to the poor misguided friends I have who imagine that Rohmer is all talk. Its mise-en-scene can't be called elaborate, but it is gorgeously fluid and nuanced. And the cutting—to things such as a ringing telephone—creates instances of suspense that are thoroughly and deliberately Hitchcockean. And you are exactly right about that shot: it's piercing, and it seems almost to come out of nowhere, although finally it's the whole reason the film exists. Nobody else could pull that sort of thing off, let alone with the precision and compassion with which he did.

[bill]

So...LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON, I guess. Need to do some reshuffling...

[The Chevalier]

Bottom right = Anton Chigurh as a young man...

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=669847202]

Bill,

It's kind of slight, but...maybe it would be better to start with the other "Moral Tales" because (MINOR SPOILER)...some of the actresses feature in the previous movies make cameos in "Love in the Afternoon", and their appearance give the final film added frisson.

What do you think, Glenn

JC

[hisnewreasons]

And he was funny, too. In "Love in the Afternoon" a man gets turned down by a woman in his own fantasy. The woman is Beatrice Romand, so that's gotta hurt.

I'm also remembering the goofy, pleased look on Jean-Louis' face when he thinks he's scored one on Pascal. ("I can say, 'This is good!") And, of course, it later comes back on him.

So long, Mr. Rohmer. You done good.

[PaulJBis]

On the one hand, terribly sad. One of my favorite filmmakers (if not my favorite), and the first one to make me discover at age sixteen that "other" kinds of movies were possible, apart from Hollywood-style blockbusters.

On the other hand, a fulfulling and lengthy life, lived to the end, and spent creating works that have inspired millions of people around the world.

What was it that one of Kurosawa's characters said in his "Dreams"? That a funeral for someone who has had such a fulfilling life should be a celebration, or something like that.

[Tess]

@PaulJBis, yeah, I've been to some funerals for some real losers and those really suck, lol.

[Glenn Kenny]

@ JC: I think the gag works either way, but I see your point.

@ Paul: Point well taken, it was a long, apparently well-fulfilled life and a brilliant career and should be feted as per your arguments. In such cases we mourn for ourselves, that we are deprived of his presence in the world, and that the world's a poorer place without him. It absolutely is, I think.

[Ben Sachs]

I'm in the celebratory mood myself. Rohmer lived and worked entirely on his own terms, from the early critical essays to the end of his directorial career. And having gracefully bowed out after ASTREE AND CELADON, he didn't even leave unfinished work behind him.

It's telling that none of Rohmer's colleagues could bring themselves to estrangement. Godard attempted something like a disavowal during his Maoist period but went on to cite him in HISTOIRE(S) DU CINEMA and ELOGE DE L';AMOUR with the utmost reverence.

I feel that Rohmer will be remembered as long as Hong Sang-soo is making movies. I don't mean that as a slight--Hong is a very different filmmaker (He's often more critical of his characters than Rohmer ever was, for one thing), but his work reveals shows how mutable Rohmer's influence is. What most comes across in Rohmer's films is a sense of patience, a willingness to study behavior at length before judging it. (This is why, to return to the quote you shared, Glenn, his films were 100% cinematic.) To imitate Rohmer well really means learning to observe better.

[Kavi]

Perceval!

[Tom Russell]

PERCEVAL is the only Rohmer film I've been able to warm up to-- or perhaps "warm up to" is underselling it; I love that movie with a frightening passion. But reading such appreciations as Glenn's over the last twenty-four hours has made me want to give the rest of Rohmer's work another try.