Let's discuss Bruno Dumont's Twentynine Palms

[B-side]

Watched it yesterday. Absolutely fantastic film. Thick with atmosphere and natural performances. This seems to be the peak of non-acting. Dumont built some excellent tension. Very moody, very... dare I use the term again, observant. Thoughts?

[Boner M]

I liked it, though in hindsight more for its sheer art-damaged audacity than anything truly meaningful. I don't know if it adds up to much (other than perhaps the best straight-faced parody of the bog-standard art film ever made) but it has stayed with me.

[Spinal]

It's awful. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=twentynine+palms)

[eternity]

It's one of the few films I can never bring myself to put a rating to.

[B-side]

It's awful. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=twentynine+palms)

Y'know, as bad as this sounds, I completely disagree, yet I can't give much else to back my stance other than I found it very intense, observant, well acted and well paced.

This "ugly sexual release" you speak of I see as their feeble attempts at communication and/or livening their sex lives up. If you recall, the film indicates by the seemingly identical roads and paths they take, that their relationship is growing stale. They've obviously taken the vacation to escape from their everyday malaise. But instead of finding new passion and reigniting their spark, they end up fighting, failing to properly express emotion and concern with the other, and subsequently killed. Word is it's meant as a horror/thriller, and I suppose it is. I wouldn't label it as a simple horror tale, though.

[Melville]

But instead of finding new passion and reigniting their spark, they end up fighting, failing to properly express emotion and concern with the other, and subsequently killed.
Sounds awesome.

[B-side]

Sounds awesome.

I'd say so.:lol:

[B-side]

:pritch:

[Izzy Black]

(Warning: Rambling free-association below.)

Twentynine Palms is a fine film. A good film even. I am not sure where it ranks in Bruno Dumont's filmography. I get the sense L'Humantie is by and large his best film, and may very well be regarded as his masterpiece in future times - it is hard to say just yet, or if he will ever earn such high marks in retrospect. Twentynine Palms is a significant film nonetheless that builds on Dumont's familiar themes. I read many reviews, including Spinal's, but I do not see many people talking about the important stuff going on. The film, like his others, are treatises on moral philosophy first and foremost. It is full of marvelous nuance - something which I should not conceal that I have a great penchant for. Whereas L'Humantie studied the latent inhumanity (or humanity?) in us all, Twentynine Palms is more concerned with the latent evil in relationships. Yet, both films do not just explore unexplainable acts of appalling violence, but the silent violence in the everyday moments of intimacy and the mundane.

A fine example is when Katia asks, "What are you thinking?" - A common question some of us might find ourselves asking our partners in moments of intimacy, but the perplexed rationalist male rejoins with impatient dismissal. His coldness causes her to cry. He puts on the image that he is being completely rational, but his rationality is no doubt used as a shield that prevents him from opening up to her. Indeed, he perhaps perceives the question to be silly, but that is beside the point. The seemingly random question is more than a question. He nonetheless feels obliged to critique the semantics. He does something similar at the restaurant and later in the film when they hit the dog. We see the rationalism of the male overtaking more intuitive sensibilities. He is bound by language even though meaning and feeling sometimes go beyond language. As a result, he is, in a sense, dehumanized, or is decidedly cold. On the other end, Katia's vice is her solipsism. Her love is so immense, and her regard for reasonable dialogue as trivial is so pervasive, that she isolates the rules of the external world from her own feelings. She takes such great offense when he looks at another woman in a diner that she does not allow "rules" and "customs" of society suggesting that men just happen to look simply out of habit and nothing more to be a satisfying excuse. It takes more than just reasonable arguments to placate her. At one end, both of these characters are extreme gender stereotypes, but they serve marvelously for a nuanced study of modern moral behavior in relationships.

There is also the sense of love as a form of intoxication or chemical madness. That is, rather than the romanticized transcendental direct connection to ineffable meaning that we often attribute to it, the film makes the indictment, along with its critique of morality and humanity, that love is little more than chemical fluctuations. This is underscored by the animalism and violence in their sex and arguments, and the silliness and game-like behavior of their breakups and makeups. It puts all of the superficiality and melodramatic histrionics of their relationship at the forefront.

There is also a slight critique of American society with the product placement/commercialism, rude behavior, and vacancy - and certainly comparisons are to be drawn to Antonioni's Zabriskie's Point - but I find it all rather muted in the film. The jabs are there, but nothing is pronounced enough to be in favor of a critical dialogue. The long takes, opaque photography, soft pastels, and drab, capacious framing creates an interesting look, however, that positions the the vacancy of their external environment in contrast to their insular egocentricism. It is as though they are the only people in the world that exist. It suggests that their relationship is a kind of masochism in its own right.

There are also comments about character history and the explainable violent behavior in the conclusion. This, again, I think, plays into the film's broader theme. The film seems to suggest there is a sense that we cannot "know other minds" in the Cartesian sense. This plays into the film's theme on solipsism. In the same way that Katia is rebuffed for her inquiry on the thoughts of her significant other, which is the root of almost all their arguments throughout the film - that is - miscommunication, there is no real explanation for her internalism or his rationalism, the motives of the rapists, or the dimension of his psychosis in the end. This is why the trope about the "thin line between love and hate" is not satisfactory in assessing the themes of the film and the main problem with their relationship. It is not that the line between love and hate is inherently blurred due to some abstract metaphysical nature of its essence, but more that love can become a kind of hate due to the limits of our connection to each other. We physically put ourselves inside of each other and often still feel the distance; the distance leads to anxiety; the anxiety leads to malice. In the end, it is not that he blames her per say, but that he goes mad by reveling in his own isolation from the world. He is repulsed that she can even fathom to express care for him when she cannot know what he has just endured. There is a fascinating moment of irony in the beginning of the film when he alleges that he has never seen her pee, but yet, we, the spectators, see her pee the first time we meet her as his back is turned. There is so much impenetrable privacy to the individual that it seems no matter how close we want to get to each other there is such great distance, mystery, and isolation that can lead to elusive behavior - at least, perhaps, in Dumont's worldview.

If Bergman is something of a psychological realist, I find that Dumont is something of a behavioral realist (or at least attempts to be). Some herald him as the second coming of Bresson and Dreyer, which are probably bars already unfairly set to high. He put off many with his pointed opposition to the latter two's theses on our human nature. He falls more into the camp and likes of say Kubrick or Bela Tarr in terms of his conclusions, but his approach could certainly be described as Bressonian.

[B-side]

Wow, great work, Israfel. Yeah, I'd say you're pretty much spot-on. It all ties into how truly observant I feel the film is. It simply observes their relationship through this series of fights, arguments, sexual encounters and the subsequent rape and murder(s). I loved that Dumont wasn't obtrusive with the camera, and didn't force any sort of real "story" to evolve. Rather, he simply allowed the events to unfold coupled with no judgment or bias. We watch as these two fail to truly connect and express emotion. Dumont built an incredible sense of tension, and the film had a penchant for unpredictability.

[Amnesiac]

I hadn't heard of Bruno Dumont before seeing this thread, so kudos on bringing him to my attention. The synopsis for Twentynine Palms is pretty intriguing ... sounds sort of creepy.

Anyways, I've now acquired L' Humanité and Twentynine Palms. I hope I'll enjoy them.

[B-side]

I hadn't heard of Bruno Dumont before seeing this thread, so kudos on bringing him to my attention. The synopsis for Twentynine Palms is pretty intriguing ... sounds sort of creepy.

Anyways, I've now acquired L' Humanité and Twentynine Palms. I hope I'll enjoy them.

Ahh. Well, I'm glad I could bring him to your attention. Obviously I know nothing of your taste, so I couldn't possibly predict whether you'd like Twentynine Palms or not, but I do hope you enjoy it as much as Israfel and I do.:)

[MacGuffin]

This is one of my very favorites. I think I've seen it three or four times, but not in a while. So if I see it anytime soon, I may bump this thread with comments, because I had written some about two years ago, but whose to know if I don't feel the same way? But one thing to know is that Dumont practically tells a story with his symbolism; this is a very multilayered movie. But yeah, it's very good and I think it has a lot to say about identity as well as masculinity and of course, warfare. Also check out The Life of Jesus, which is also amazing, but nowhere near as good as Twentynine Palms. L'humanité is great too, but nowhere near as good as The Life of Jesus.

[baby doll]

It's pretty great. I hope Dumont recovers soon.

[B-side]

It's pretty great. I hope Dumont recovers soon.

I wasn't aware he was ill. That's no good.

[Raiders]

I wasn't aware he was ill. That's no good.

I think he meant from Flandres, not that he is ill. I know he was just at Cannes presenting the Camera d'Or award.

[B-side]

I think he meant from Flandres, not that he is ill. I know he was just at Cannes presenting the Camera d'Or award.

Ahh. Heh. That's embarrassing.:P

I've only seen Twentynine Palms.

[baby doll]

I wasn't aware he was ill. That's no good.As Raiders has already said, I was referring to my disappointment with Flandres as opposed to any physical illness.