← Back to Reviews
in
Like the opening number to Blue Velvet, Le Bonheur starts with such a perfect caricature of absolutely perfect household living, so perfect that it's obviously fake to the point of artistic notability. But instead of just an opening sequence, it's almost a full act. Already I dread where the plot will go for the sake of the characters. In fact, the three-year-old mentality that powers the dialogue of the child is plain adorable. And for the most part it pretty much stays adorable. Through the plethora of exaggerated colors, we're basically seeing a metaphor for happiness as opposed to the real deal. The exaggeration creates a charm that makes the darkness of the actual plot not only watchable but all the more concerning and thoughtful. It;s basically saying that the happiness we strive for for the sake of normality is built on sacrificing a big chunk of real happiness, and that that is oftentimes made up for by sin and breaking moral conventions.
However, its titular vibe can also be its biggest flaw. See, the cheerful 60's Pleasantville vibes get in the way of any sense of dread or concern regarding its main plot. So, it's a little too sweet and sugary when its subject matter is a little bitter. Having said that, there really isn't much of a plot when I consider that thing kind of thing is so normal now to the point that a movie like Fatal Attraction only makes for a good movie because the one person Michael Douglas had to cheat with just turned out to be a psycho.
I feel like this is one of those movies that's more well-shot than engaging, and in the end it relies on the occasional extra boost of charm to keep the movie drawing for enough breathe to remain the bare minimum of classic cinema that Varda was obviously hoping to achieve. She obviously had some skills to hone, but cinematographically speaking (if that isn't a real word, I don;t give a damn), she did a fantastic job. Because of its lacking plot, the 80 minutes is only slightly overlong. This plotless and visual look on simple life is comparable to the last movie I reviewed, Akerman's Hotel Monterey, in this sense. But because it's not testing patience and it has a clearer message, the movie is much better, even better than Jeanne Dielman, including its shocking (and morally conflicted) twist at the end.
However, this is far from perfect. It deserves to be a classic for its cinematography and bold message, as well as the unique way this message is told. However, Varda has done a perfect movie before with Cleo from 5 to 7, a truly visionary experiment, and came damn close again with Vagabond. I just can't compare this movie to those two. Varda's outlook on life is stronger than any "realist" director I can think of, and this early piece reflects that despite the simplicity.
= 72/100
Le Bonheur
(1965) - Directed by Agnes Varda
-----------------------------------------------------
Drama / Romance / Left Bank
-----------------------------------------------------
"It's like a new wine for me."
(1965) - Directed by Agnes Varda
-----------------------------------------------------
Drama / Romance / Left Bank
-----------------------------------------------------
"It's like a new wine for me."
Like the opening number to Blue Velvet, Le Bonheur starts with such a perfect caricature of absolutely perfect household living, so perfect that it's obviously fake to the point of artistic notability. But instead of just an opening sequence, it's almost a full act. Already I dread where the plot will go for the sake of the characters. In fact, the three-year-old mentality that powers the dialogue of the child is plain adorable. And for the most part it pretty much stays adorable. Through the plethora of exaggerated colors, we're basically seeing a metaphor for happiness as opposed to the real deal. The exaggeration creates a charm that makes the darkness of the actual plot not only watchable but all the more concerning and thoughtful. It;s basically saying that the happiness we strive for for the sake of normality is built on sacrificing a big chunk of real happiness, and that that is oftentimes made up for by sin and breaking moral conventions.
However, its titular vibe can also be its biggest flaw. See, the cheerful 60's Pleasantville vibes get in the way of any sense of dread or concern regarding its main plot. So, it's a little too sweet and sugary when its subject matter is a little bitter. Having said that, there really isn't much of a plot when I consider that thing kind of thing is so normal now to the point that a movie like Fatal Attraction only makes for a good movie because the one person Michael Douglas had to cheat with just turned out to be a psycho.
I feel like this is one of those movies that's more well-shot than engaging, and in the end it relies on the occasional extra boost of charm to keep the movie drawing for enough breathe to remain the bare minimum of classic cinema that Varda was obviously hoping to achieve. She obviously had some skills to hone, but cinematographically speaking (if that isn't a real word, I don;t give a damn), she did a fantastic job. Because of its lacking plot, the 80 minutes is only slightly overlong. This plotless and visual look on simple life is comparable to the last movie I reviewed, Akerman's Hotel Monterey, in this sense. But because it's not testing patience and it has a clearer message, the movie is much better, even better than Jeanne Dielman, including its shocking (and morally conflicted) twist at the end.
However, this is far from perfect. It deserves to be a classic for its cinematography and bold message, as well as the unique way this message is told. However, Varda has done a perfect movie before with Cleo from 5 to 7, a truly visionary experiment, and came damn close again with Vagabond. I just can't compare this movie to those two. Varda's outlook on life is stronger than any "realist" director I can think of, and this early piece reflects that despite the simplicity.
= 72/100