The American Spectator : Death of a Genius

Text Size

Death of a Genius

By James Bowman on 1.12.10 @ 6:07AM

Eric Rohmer, who died yesterday, was one of the greatest artists ever to work in film.

Eric Rohmer, one of the greatest geniuses ever to work in film -- a medium (and a business) not quite hospitable to genius -- died yesterday at the age of 89. Born Maurice Schérer in Tulle, in the Dordogne, in 1920, he studied literature at the University of Nancy and became associated with the French New Wave of directors through his editorship of the influential periodical Cahiers du Cinéma in the 1950s. Although he is usually lumped together with the great names of the Nouvelle Vague -- Godard, Truffaut, Chabrol -- he stands apart from them in a number of ways. For one, he got a much later start than any of his confreres, not producing a successful film until he was in his 40s and not embarking on the work for which he will be remembered until he was near 50. This part of his career commenced with My Night at Maude's (Ma Nuit Chez Maude) of 1969 -- the movie to which Gene Hackman was referring when he said in Arthur Penn's Night Moves (1975) that watching a Rohmer film was like watching paint dry.

This bon mot must owe its reputation to those who have taken it as their excuse never to have seen a Rohmer film, for it is just exactly wrong. There is always something going on in his movies, and it requires considerable mental agility on the viewer's part to keep up with it all. Even some of those who profess to be his fans must not be up to the task, as I have seen them claim that plot was not so important to him when it is nearly always central. His films were always true to a dictum of Hitchcock -- about whom he co-wrote a book with Claude Chabrol -- that plot was the soul of the cinema. I can understand that people might be tempted to forget about the intricate plot of Maude through the sheer effort of attending to the heavy philosophical talk of the main characters about Pascal, as well as the human drama of sexual attraction both pursued and resisted. But Pascal is being considered as a theorist of probability, as well as a religious thinker, and the plot consists of a series of coincidences. Likewise, we are invited to see the sexual pairings of the film as crucially dependent on the order in which things happen -- as they nearly always are in Rohmer, as in life.

Ma Nuit Chez Maude was the third, though the fourth to be released, in Rohmer's series "Six Moral Tales," and his first undisputed masterpiece. The final two in the series, Claire's Knee (Le Genou de Claire) and Chloe in the Afternoon (the American title of L'amour l'après-midi) appeared in 1970 and 1972 respectively and are considered by many Rohmerians to be his greatest work, though I prefer his second series of six films, which he called "Comedies and Proverbs" and which came out in the 1980s, when he was in his 60s. Not the least astonishing thing about these six wonderful, miraculous films is the contrast between his age at the time and that of his characters in them, who are nearly all in their teens or 20s. They are full of the confidence, the awkwardness, the passions and the frustrated longings of youth on which Rohmer trains a calm, compassionate eye. Moreover, they are unlike the Moral Tales in being all told from the point of view of women, often difficult, willful, even foolish women, for whom their creator always seems to have infinite patience and affection.

The greatest of these six are, in my opinion, The Aviator's Wife (La femme de l'aviateur) of 1981 and Pauline at the Beach (Pauline à la Plage) of 1983, both of which explore -- as, indeed, do the other films in the series -- the links between love and self-deception. That may make them sound "deep" and depressing but in fact the Rohmerian lightness of touch, affection for his characters with all their imperfections, and precise observation of manners and morals in a world often supposed to have little of either all work together to make them live up to their description as comedies -- though comedies with a serious side to them and ambiguous or even sad endings. In his 70s, Rohmer produced another series, this time of four films, called "Tales of the Four Seasons" which combined the moralism of the "Six Moral Tales" with the focus on young love -- though it is now shading into middle-aged love -- of the "Comedies and Proverbs." These are characterized by a wintry grandeur and hard-won wisdom.

One particularly interesting way into the Rohmer oeuvre would be to take one film from each of these three series all starring the same actress, Béatrice Romand, portraying three stages of a woman's life. In Claire's Knee she plays a young girl with a reputation as a flirt who is first said to have a crush on a much older man, the film's hero played by Jean-Claude Brialy, and then rejects him, as she rejects all those whom she is able to attract. In Le Beau Mariage of 1982 she plays a young woman who breaks off an affair with an older, married man, by announcing that she has decided to get married too, even though she has no idea to whom. She sets her cap at a young lawyer, full of the sense of her own powers of attraction just like the girl she had played twelve years earlier in Claire's Knee, but he proves to be just not that into her. Almost as painful to watch is her performance in A Tale of Autumn (1998), in which she is a middle-aged divorcée who doesn't want another relationship but who finds herself falling for a man with whom she has been set up by a married, match-making friend -- who really wants him for herself.

Once again, it all sounds very heavy but somehow comes off as being very light. Rohmer doesn't permit himself to be tragic because he knows his human materials won't bear so much weight. Like the very greatest artists, like Shakespeare or Mozart, he has the almost magical ability to see his characters, and to make us see them, as God must see them -- that is, with compassion but never with sentimentalism -- all the while keeping them in their mundane, bourgeois lives, so much like that of those for whom he made his films. That, of course, he was criticized for, but the left-wing political tendencies of the rest of the Nouvelle Vague never seem to have held any charms for him. Conservatives can admire him especially, perhaps, for insisting on preserving as his own artistic sphere a world, increasingly unavailable to the rest of us, where politics is not permitted to intrude. That, to me, is the very definition of a conservative artist, which Rohmer also was, in addition to being a great one.

topics:
Eric Rohmer

About the Author

James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

Dr_X| 1.12.10 @ 7:42AM

My favourite film of his is L'ami de mon amie ( Boyfriends and Girlfriends ) I know most people think it is his worest film and I will admit it does seem a bit forced. I guess I just have a thing for Emmanuelle Chaulet !

scott| 1.12.10 @ 3:23PM

Unlike many, he believed a film should stand without crutches like music.
His films work on the mind like good books. One of the most subtle directors/writers. Nothing forced--no lecturing, moralizing, or posturing. Nothing spoon-feed. Like his predecessors, he proved beyond a doubt that exceptional, intelligent films need not be expensive.

Paul Dorell| 1.12.10 @ 8:27PM

I rarely agree with any articles on the site but in this case do completely. Some of the Rohmer films I've seen are astounding. Fortunately I still have more to see. It's odd that a conservative, American-first website like this would appreciate Rohmer, because there is no way in hell that the U.S. could produce an artist like him.

Dave Pryor| 1.12.10 @ 9:55PM

James Bowman is a very interesting thinker and writer, and he nails it here. A "world where politics is not permitted to intrude" sounds like a great place ...

Raymundo Aleman| 1.12.10 @ 10:34PM

I introduced Rohmer to all my friends. I liked the moral tales serious except for Claire's which I thought boring and I wondered why a man would be interested in a silly young girl's life. My ex-girlfriend and I both agreed with Joanne Woodward who claimed she fell asleep watching that film. What I enjoyed as a young man in those days of anything goes (the 60's and 70's) was the theme that actions had consequences. I remember the Playboy magazine reviewer enjoyed many of these films but was annoyed by this theme sometimes accusing the characters of hypocrisy for their failure to be completely sexually liberated.

yancy| 1.13.10 @ 12:22AM

This is probably one of the most awesome movies I've seen in a while. The Japanese create a device called the DC Mini that allows psychiatrists go into peoples dreams and research them. When one of the devices goes missing, however, people start losing their minds and dreams start crossing into reality. Just watch the trailer...it's amazing.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Acai.....id=3544397

Bilwick| 1.13.10 @ 9:18AM

Paul Dorell writes: "I rarely agree with any articles on the site but in this case do completely. Some of the Rohmer films I've seen are astounding. Fortunately I still have more to see. It's odd that a conservative, American-first website like this would appreciate Rohmer, because there is no way in hell that the U.S. could produce an artist like him."

Prejudice is such an ugly thing, isn't it? Good thing enlightened, free-thinking people like Mr. Dorell are always manning the barricades against it.

But seriously . . .

Paul Dorell| 1.13.10 @ 12:31PM

Bilwick,
Good art transcends politics. But note that conservatives see no purpose in paying taxes to support it. If your friends Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin are mourning the loss of Eric Rohmer, I'll eat my hat.

Bilwick| 1.13.10 @ 4:08PM

Paul Dorell writes: "But note that conservatives see no purpose in paying taxes to support it."

I'm a libertarian, so I shouldn't speak for conservatives; however, since you're probably deep in the Pauline Kael Cocoon, operating out of prejudice;, and I used to be a conservatve myself, my thoughts on what conservatives think are probably closer to reality tahn your straw men. And among the many thoughtful conservatives I know and have known, it isn't a question of whether there's a"purpose" for tax-subsidized art. The question is: should people be forced to subsidize art? Especially art they find offensive and/or stupid? In that light what filmakers Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin like or do not like is irrelevant.

Bilwick| 1.13.10 @ 4:20PM

I should add to my comment above that I'm an artist, too--and that favorite of the steal-money-for-the-arts crowd, a struggling artist at that! And while I would love it if some pro-freedom "angels" subsidized me voluntarily, with their own money, so I could quit my pooly paying day job and concentratrate on finishing my novel, I see no reason why my neighbor should be forced to help me.

Paul Dorell| 1.13.10 @ 4:40PM

The problem is that if you want art you have to pay for it. As a matter of preference, I would rather be taxed to pay artists whose work I dislike than settle for the commercial products of Hollywood. If you've spent any time in Paris, you must realize that we’re living in a cultural wasteland, no thanks to the hordes of aesthetically challenged cheapskates who would rather spend ten dollars at Wendy's than at a museum. What chance do you think Rohmer would have had of succeeding if he had had the misfortune of growing up in America?

Bilwick| 1.14.10 @ 9:59AM

"The problem is that if you want art you have to pay for it." And people do. Mostly (at least I hope "mostly", until the day we have a truly free society, and "miostly" becomes "solely") with their own money, at their own violition.
"
As a matter of preference, I would rather be taxed to pay artists whose work I dislike than settle for the commercial products of Hollywood." And of course you're willing to force your preference on the rest of society.

"If you've spent any time in Paris, you must realize that we’re living in a cultural wasteland, no thanks to the hordes of aesthetically challenged cheapskates who would rather spend ten dollars at Wendy's than at a museum. " Spent no time in Paris, but spent half of my life in New York City, including Manhattan, often compared to Paris. Now I live in Atlanta, which is certainly a cultural wasteland compared to NYC. As much as I wish Atlanta were less of a cultural wasteland, I don't see that wish empowers me to put a gun to head of a redneck and force him to spend the ten dollars he spends at Wendy's in some way I prefer. It's his ten dollars, not mine.

"What chance do you think Rohmer would have had of succeeding if he had had the misfortune of growing up in America? " Don't know; don't care. I'm glad he grew up where he did and made the movies he made. But as much as I like his movies, I value individual liberty, and a genuinely free society, even more.

That raises the question taht's always puzled me. I'm an artsy type who mostly moves among artsy types, and yet I'm always odd man out in my circles because I actually think my life, time and property belong to me and not to the State. Why is that? You'd think artsy types, who like to see themselves as free spirits, would be more libertarian; but in my experience, both here and in NYC, the artsier a person tends to be, the bigger the State-fellator. Why is that, do you think?

Paul Dorell| 1.14.10 @ 11:43AM

You haven't said much about your background, but perhaps it has more capitalism in it than your artsy friends'. Artsy people in the U.S. are often several generations removed from their toiling ancestors who came through Ellis Island and were entranced by the opportunity to become wealthy. After years of wealth, many families become blasé about it. If you don't care much about money and have enough of it, libertarianism isn't very interesting. Another angle is personal psychology. Artists tend to be divergent thinkers, and the predominant themes of liberty and capitalism are the status quo here against which they rebel.

I once had some inclination to become a libertarian, but don't think it represents my views very well. One of the chief problems of the country is that too many people have already had the freedom to trash it out. In the end, libertarianism and capitalism have resulted in a landscape of strip malls and extreme contrasts in standards of living. Without some governmental restrictions, a country like this becomes an eyesore with the population split into the poor and the rich, the latter living in gated communities. I don't think that makes much sense, and frankly Ron Paul seems like a lunatic to me.

lay123| 4.2.10 @ 3:05AM

www.in-watch.com

karen| 4.2.10 @ 7:05AM

Not only are www.herveleger-outlet.comsuitable attire for most occasions they are also a very comfortable form of for men. The fabric they are usually made from is flexible and comfortable with plenty of ‘give’ in the cheapwww.us-chaneloutlet.com if you need to stretch, zcount jordan shoes they have a collar to protect your from the sun if you are likely to be spending time outdoors and they have buttons at the if the weather should turn a bit chilly.