I caught the last two thirds of Claude Chabrol‘s L’Ivresse du pouvoir (2006) or Comedy of Power. Chabrol was one of the lesser figures in the French New Wave but he’s managed to last. Though I would not call this an amazing film, it is worth watching, and mostly for Isabelle Huppert’s performance.
It’s not that this is her strongest or most demanding role; that might be the repressed sado-masochistic piano teacher in Michael Haneke’s disturbing Pianist. Or most likely in some film I haven’t seen; she’s worked steadily since 1971, and most of the work is in European films that have not made it across the water. There’s a nice little quote on IMDB from her “I don’t believe one ever plays characters, one plays states of mind. A character is completely meaningless to me. One goes through states of mind and tries to link them together.”
What struck me though when I was watching this film which is about a judge pursuing corruption by a group of influential financiers in France was the lack of histrionics, the even steady pace of the film, and her quiet power in every scene. Beauty and intelligence and reason. Watching her is almost like meditation. If this film were North American, she would have been frothing, screaming or crying in half the scenes but she was a strong and reasonable woman taking what was coming in, responding thoughtfully and concisely, cutting like a knife into the knots laid in front of her.
Chabrol was content to let her just sit and think, the camera quiet as well. And I thank him for that approach and giving me another vantage point on our usual pointless cinematic emotional freneticism.
5 comments ↓
I read this morning your comment about preferring to read ideas and not feelings, which you feel many women writer’s do. Paired with this… maybe it’s just timing, but it almost seems like you have a certain fear of the emotional. That’s something I find to be true in many men. Don’t know if it is for you. It’s good to see that a woman can portray a calm, strong character, because many are, but I don’t think showing emotion is showing weakness.
At times quite the contrary.
What I was trying to say was that American film style tends to be over emotive, that it mistakes quantity for quality when it comes to emotion (and that too of course is a generalization). As far as writing, all writing has feeling but if there is only feeling I don’t feel its told me much new. Feelings are pretty universal so I can find them in myself and those around me but when I read I seek something I don’t know…ideas I haven’t heard before or experiences I haven’t had. This is why my most fulfilling reading often comes from nonfiction accounts of how others live(d) such as memoirs of the gulag.
I do agree that showing emotion is not necessarily a sign of weakness but nor is it a necessarily a sign of strength. Too many displays seem false to me, and worse, too many seem to be an insult to people who have real troubles.
That’s weird what you said about not wanting to read straight feelings, because feelings are universal. K, this is by me, but just read the opening paragraph. I wrote it months ago.
http://www.helium.com/tm/123575/often-people-write-poetry
I think you explain that perfectly. And I wholeheartedly agree. I did not mean to imply that emotional writing was lesser, but it needs, like you say, something to hang on. Emotion is inescapable and it will always be there somewhere but the indirect route seems best.
And I’m not trying to sidestep the fear of emotion suggestion…that might very well be true but I think it is independent of what I like to read.
[...] just might have to start my own Isabelle Huppert fan club. Not long ago I was raving about her performance in Comedy of [...]
Leave a Comment