What I know going in
It is a French character directed by Jacques Tati, who stars as his
famous Monsiuer Hulot character. I have never seen one of Mr. Tati’s films, but
I understand it is a French comedy that satirizes modern French culture.
Apparently, Tati built an entire city for this film.
Immediate reaction
Playtime is a delicate
comedic symphony, carefully and deliberately conducted by the maestro
Jacqes Tati. I have never seen another comedy so intricate, so incredibly
well-designed, and so detailed. Every scene is jam-packed with tons of extras
that are all off doing their own thing, but never overpower the main action of
the scene. The set design is also phenomenal. Tati had to build his own city to
create the world of the movie. All of the interiors in the film are designed in
a grid-like fashion. Examples include the cubicles in the office building seen
near the beginning of the film and the table layout in the restaurant. In
addition, most of the buildings have huge, reflective windows. Personally, this
design made me feel like I was watching a museum display. In other words, I was
aware of the distance between myself and the movie. This was especially evident
during the scene where Monsieur Hulot runs into an old army friend, who invites
him into his apartment. The viewer is never allowed inside the apartment and
must watch everything unfold from the outside. Futhermore, Tati’s design made
the Paris shown in the film come off as very artificial and impersonal, the
“old” Paris is never really seen (the one time the Eiffel tower is seen in the
film is as a reflection).
The people in the film (there aren’t really any characters aside from
Monsieur Hulot and an American tourist named Barbara) initially start out by
obeying the strict and mechanical layout of the buildings around them. For
example, they walk in straight lines and try to maintain absolute order despite
the chaos of their surroundings. Since none of these people become the focus of
the film and there are absolutely no close-ups, the film becomes more about
France at this specific point in time, rather any one person. Based on the
slight focus applied to Barbara and Hulot, the two characters who stand out and
try not to conform, Tati is imploring the viewer to not follow the straight
line, to follow the curves and not conform to the impersonal nature of modern
life.
Further thoughts
I’m fascinated that Tati was able to both effective comedy and a highly
symbolic film. There are many sequences that function perfectly as comedic set
pieces, but by digging just a little deeper, they take on new context and
contribute to the film’s themes of alienation in the face of modernity. For
example, when Monsieur Hulot breaks the glass door of the restaurant in the
second half of the film, it is not only hilarious, but also represents the
breakdown of the pretentious and exclusive attitude the restaurant was trying
to put forward. Hulot destroys the very thing (glass) that has come to
represent alienation and confusion in the film.
In another instance, Barbara tries to take a picture of an old woman
selling flowers on a street corner. Sound simple enough right? No, an odd
assortment of people keep walking into her view and an American soldier walks
by and offers to take Barbara’s picture with the woman (something she probably
didn’t want in the first place). Again, this sequence is very funny and one of
the highlights of the film. But, if we look at the old woman as an example of
the old Paris Tati is so nostalgic for, the sequence takes on a greater
meaning. The dress and age of the woman stands out in contrast to the people in
black and grey suits who walk by her. The shabbiness of her stand and the
natural color of her flowers highlight the cold colors of the buildings around
her. Through Barbara’s failure to take the old woman’s picture, Tati is lamenting
the lack of that old Paris charm and how it is now impossible capture due
technological advancement.
I’m going to paraphrase a review by Philip Kemp, because he has a great
observation about Barbara’s scarf at the end that did not even occur to me.
Like I mentioned earlier, at the beginning of the film everyone is walking in a
straight line and following the path architecture and technology have set out
for them. At the end of the film, everyone is walking normally. The final note
on this subject comes at the end of the film when Barbara puts on the scarf
Hulot has given her: “By the end, she has united the curve and the line
(Hulot’s gift, a square scarf, is fitted to her round head).”
Why is it on the list?
It is rare for any film to pack so much symbolism into such simple
moments, it is even rarer for a comedy to do the same, and it is perhaps a
miracle that Tati was able to combine both comedic and symbolic elements so
perfectly.
No comments:
Post a Comment