The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

[Mysterious Dude]

A while ago, I read an article by Bordwell and Thompson about the use of handheld cameras, in particular, by Paul Greengrass and Tony Scott (here it is (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1175)). I must admit, I like Tony Scott's style, especially in Man on Fire, though the film itself is not that great. He's not just using handheld cameras though; he's all about flash frames, double exposures, jump cuts, among other things. None of them are new techniques, but they all play with the accidental nature of using film. Many silent films have jump cuts, but they were not used for any kind of stylistic effect. They were just accidents. In the many decades since then, filmmaking has been perfected to such a degree where such accidents can be avoided more easily, and now that many filmmakers have turned to digital video, we can even avoid things like negative scratches.

But one of the reasons I like silent films is because the filmmaking is less perfect. The lack of sound, in addition to all the things I just mentioned, forces you to realize that you are watching a film. Many people would prefer to get lost in the story, but film is not just about telling stories. I know that a lot of people dislike such stylistic elements, and I bet you're probably not going to like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, either, because it is full of them.

The cinematographer is the great Janusz Kaminski, who has photographed all of Steven Spielberg's films since Schindler's List. I suspected it was him when I saw a light source reduced to straight, vertical lines through a technique I know not the name of. Credit is due also, of course, to director Julian Schnabel (Before Night Falls), who was a painter before he became a filmmaker, and that is not surprising, given the film's emphasis on visuals.

Much of the beginning of the film is shot from the main character's point of view, as he wakes up from a coma without the ability to speak or move anything other than one eyeball. Even when he blinks, we get to see it through his eye. This is important, because blinking is the only we he has to communicate with people, and it was by blinking that he wrote the book upon which this film is based.

Many years ago, I saw a TV movie about a football player who was paralyzed, but so strong was his faith in God and so determined was he to walk again that he made a complete recovery. I think it was Rise and Walk: The Dennis Byrd Story. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is not that kind of movie. It is a story about a man trying to deal with a terrible infirmity, but it is not so much about battling against it. It is, rather, about showing us what it is like to be inside a man's worthless body while his mind is still as alive as it ever was. It is a series of moments. Some of sad. Some are funny. After a while, the film does show us his face, and I am grateful, because it allowed me to understand what little you can really learn from just a person's face.

[megladon8]

That sounds fascinating, Antoine.

I'm particularly interested becuase of Kaminski's involvement. That man is a genius.

[Melville]

That does sound interesting. And thanks for the link to Bordwell's blog. That site is full of good stuff.

[baby doll]

It says something about how few foreign movies are playing in Toronto right now (having been squeezed out by all the big year-end Hollywood movies) that this is starting to look pretty good. Still, the subject matter seems to rule out any kind of politics what-so-ever--kind of like Schnabel's paintings--and although one reviewer has praised it for its appropriation of experimental techniques, it seems to me (as you point out) that Schnabel is simply relying on familiar commercial techniques; jump cuts, hand-cranked cameras, etc. Then again, it has probably the most impressive cast of any movie this year: Mathieu Amalric, Max von Sydow, Marie-Josée Croze, Isaach de Bankolé.

[Derek]

It says something about how few foreign movies are playing in Toronto right now (having been squeezed out by all the big year-end Hollywood movies) that this is starting to look pretty good. Still, the subject matter seems to rule out any kind of politics what-so-ever--kind of like Schnabel's paintings--and although one reviewer has praised it for its appropriation of experimental techniques, it seems to me (as you point out) that Schnabel is simply relying on familiar commercial techniques; jump cuts, hand-cranked cameras, etc. Then again, it has probably the most impressive cast of any movie this year: Mathieu Amalric, Max von Sydow, Marie-Josée Croze, Isaach de Bankolé.

And heaven forbid a movie about a man who loses the function of everything but one eye rule out politics...?

[Watashi]

Dreamgirls (Condon, 2006) 2.0

Please tell me family forced you to watch this.

[baby doll]

And heaven forbid a movie about man who loses the function of everything but one eye rule out politics...?You know what I mean. Obviously, this is something that happened to this guy, and maybe it's an entertaining film, but the subject matter itself is inherently safe. It's not a film that's going to challenge anyone. That's not to say all political films are good (Michael Moore doesn't require you to think anymore than Schnabel does), but taking the example of his previous film, Before Night Falls, no sane person thinks that Cuba is a socialist paradise or that homosexuals should be imprisoned for being homosexuals, so the morality of the film is extremely clear cut. And looking to his work as a painter, Schnabel is some one who knows how to flatter his audience; he plays the game really well and that's why he's a rich man. And yeah, his paintings are pretty, but so what?

[Derek]

Please tell me family forced you to watch this.

It was taped and waiting at home in glorious HD. What a waste of good technology. :) But seriously, simply calling Jennifer Hudson's performance the worst to ever win an Oscar is cutting it too much slack. Her breakdown after first getting the boot was absolutely hysterical. And when did Bill Condon attend the Michael Bay School of Meandering Camera Moves and Pointless Cutting? It can't even properly set the rules for non-stage performance singing in the film. It starts off as a regular film with a lot of musical numbers and then, like, a half hour in three characters randomly sing one line before we're back to talking. I'm kind in my rating b/c at least the film had aspirations in tracking the growth of African Americans in the recording industry, but it's sad that the result is such a turd.

[chrisnu]

I think the camera keeps spinning around during the "we are a family" song in Dreamgirls, because it's trying to make us dizzy and forget how much the film has sucked by that point.

[Derek]

You know what I mean. Obviously, this is something that happened to this guy, and maybe it's an entertaining film, but the subject matter itself is inherently safe. It's not a film that's going to challenge anyone. That's not to say all political films are good (Michael Moore doesn't require you to think anymore than Schnabel does), but taking the example of his previous film, Before Night Falls, no sane person thinks that Cuba is a socialist paradise or that homosexuals should be imprisoned for being homosexuals, so the morality of the film is extremely clear cut. And looking to his work as a painter, Schnabel is some one who knows how to flatter his audience; he plays the game really well and that's why he's a rich man. And yeah, his paintings are pretty, but so what?

I haven't seen Before Night Falls or any of Schnabel's paintings so I can't speak to those, but Diving Bell is a pretty great film. True, the material isn't challenging if you're looking for something laced with political subtext or full of philosophical depth, but the formalist techniques he uses make it an engaging and rewarding film. The extended use of the first-person camera is particularly impressive not only for how it places the viewer in the trapped mind of the protagonist, but how these extended sequences work with the scenes shot "out-of-body". Along with the fascinating personal story (which I agree could easily remain safe in the hands of a hack), this interplay between protag and viewer paralysis actually works quite brilliantly. His horniness adds a layer of scopophilia, allowing the film to become a wonderful sort of free-flowing combination of the fears, dreams, desires and frustration that reflect the mindset of Bauby by transferring it to, or more accurately into, the viewer. It uses its formal techniques not for showmanship or gimmick, but as a means of interacting with the viewer and playfully, yet meaningfully, connecting our own experience of watching to that of the protagonist. Outside of porn, direct looks into the camera have rarely been used so explicitly for sexual stimulation, which in turn allows us to feel his frustration at complete impotency along with our own inability to penetrate the screen. The sensual nature of these glances and the sexual energy they carry are no mistake and are more valuable that the simplistic audience connection device that others have described them as.

http://www.popmatters.com/images/news_art/d/diving-bell-and-the-butterf.jpg

http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/lff/files/images/diving_bell_butterfly_03.jpg

Watching the subjects/objects watch the watcher also plays an important role, but I'll need anther viewing to work through that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/filmslide/thedivingbell/a3.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/24/arts/Cannes600.jpg

http://www.fest21.com/files/images/THE%20DIVING%20BELL%20AND%20TH E%20BUTTERFLY_0.preview.jpg

[Derek]

I think the camera keeps spinning around during the "we are a family" song in Dreamgirls, because it's trying to make us dizzy and forget how much the film has sucked by that point.

Succeeds in the first, but not the second. ;)

[NickGlass]

Argh. This is one of the last films of 2007 that I really would like to see (along with Persepolis, A Walk into the Sea and There Will Be Blood), but I missed the press screenings a month ago in Boston and now I'm stuck in the 'burbs. I should be catching it soon in NYC, but for now I'm just a bit worried about the film's quality, so I'm glad to hear it's very good.

My friend really hated it. He claims that Schanbel uses Bauby's writing and condition to serve himself and flaunt his formalist tricks, not offer human insight into Bauby's situation or philosophy.

I think Basquiat is useless trash (well, with the exception of the performances by Bowie and Wright), but I'm hoping for the best here.

[Sven]

I think Basquiat is useless trash (well, with the exception of the performances by Bowie and Wright), but I'm hoping for the best here.

I don't know how you could call Baquiat "trash". Useless is a fine word for it, but trash seems kind of harsh. That's a word you should reserve for more deserving pictures.

[Ezee E]

Argh. This is one of the last films of 2007 that I really would like to see (along with Persepolis, A Walk into the Sea and There Will Be Blood), but I missed the press screenings a month ago in Boston and now I'm stuck in the 'burbs. I should be catching it soon in NYC, but for now I'm just a bit worried about the film's quality, so I'm glad to hear it's very good.

My friend really hated it. He claims that Schanbel uses Bauby's writing and condition to serve himself and flaunt his formalist tricks, not offer human insight into Bauby's situation or philosophy.

I think Basquiat is useless trash (well, with the exception of the performances by Bowie and Wright), but I'm hoping for the best here.
I'd say it uses his tricks to create an inspiration of how he managed to finish the book. How he kept himself alert, instead of just being miserable the entire time. Granted, the POV-vision can be a little strange sometimes, did his eye just fly out of his socket? But it's easily one of the best of the year.

But I'm thinking you won't like it. You already have a reason.

[Spinal]

For a film with such an extreme stylistic perspective, I'm surprised at how little impact this seems to have had on me. I saw it just this afternoon, and already it feels like it is fading from my memory. I kind of felt like the film accomplishes all it is going to accomplish in about the first 20 minutes. Max von Sydow is great (naturally) and I very much enjoyed the performance of Marie-Josée Croze. However, beyond the camera stunts and first-person perspective, I just didn't feel like there was much to the film. And yet I still give it three stars. Perhaps I'm being generous.

[Boner M]

For a film with such an extreme stylistic perspective, I'm surprised at how little impact this seems to have had on me.
Yeah, my thoughts mirror yours. It was consistently engaging and I never checked my watch once, but afterwards it just sorta disappeared from my memory. I think what mainly bugged me was how reductive it was towards Bauby's subjectivity, turning everything about his experience into a neat little cinematic shorthand. Ooh, let's do some Brakhage for the disorientation part. Then some Fellini for the wild imagination thing. Add some soft piano keys, then some metaphoric archive footage... voila, instant inspiration. Granted there's a little more complexitity there, but I always felt Schnabel was doing his best to make the film un-alienating more than anything; I think that's where his year-end accolades are coming from. Methinks an avant-garde short would do this material best.

That said, really excellent performances and stellar work by Kaminski go a long way.

[Raiders]

Yeah, my thoughts mirror yours. It was consistently engaging and I never checked my watch once, but afterwards it just sorta disappeared from my memory. I think what mainly bugged me was how reductive it was towards Bauby's subjectivity, turning everything about his experience into a neat little cinematic shorthand. Ooh, let's do some Brakhage for the disorientation part. Then some Fellini for the wild imagination thing. Add some soft piano keys, then some metaphoric archive footage... voila, instant inspiration. Granted there's a little more complexitity there, but I always felt Schnabel was doing his best to make the film un-alienating more than anything; I think that's where his year-end accolades are coming from. Methinks an avant-garde short would do this material best.

That said, really excellent performances and stellar work by Kaminski go a long way.

Indeed. I believe it was Keith Uhlich who wrote a good piece that chastised the film for its overly literal-minded gimmicks. I couldn't agree more.

[Rowland]

Agreed with you all. It didn't have any impact on me either, so I gave it **½, wrote a slapdash response in the FDT, and moved on. Maybe I was being overly dismissive, but I wasn't inspired to feel otherwise. I later commented to someone that half the movie is like taking a "trapped-in syndrome" ride at Universal Studios, and that's actually the best part, in a neat-o kinda way.

[monolith94]

You know what I mean. Obviously, this is something that happened to this guy, and maybe it's an entertaining film, but the subject matter itself is inherently safe. It's not a film that's going to challenge anyone. That's not to say all political films are good (Michael Moore doesn't require you to think anymore than Schnabel does), but taking the example of his previous film, Before Night Falls, no sane person thinks that Cuba is a socialist paradise or that homosexuals should be imprisoned for being homosexuals, so the morality of the film is extremely clear cut. And looking to his work as a painter, Schnabel is some one who knows how to flatter his audience; he plays the game really well and that's why he's a rich man. And yeah, his paintings are pretty, but so what?

I'd argue the opposite: that all "political" films are safe, because an audience member already knows where they stand politically, and can use that skein to interpret any simply "political" film. What I see as interesting is when filmmakers dive into the deeper questions of what it means to be human: to live. And a story about a man completely paralyzed seems to have that sort of potential.

[Duncan]

Hmm, the only thing I really remember from this film is a collage of beautiful women's faces.

[baby doll]

I'd argue the opposite: that all "political" films are safe, because an audience member already knows where they stand politically, and can use that skein to interpret any simply "political" film. What I see as interesting is when filmmakers dive into the deeper questions of what it means to be human: to live. And a story about a man completely paralyzed seems to have that sort of potential.You're talking about the kind of political films Michael Moore makes, as opposed to some one like Godard in the mid-60's (and La Chinoise, in particular), Fassbinder in the 70's and Jia Zhang-ke today, who are recording the times they live in without taking a political stand one way or another. They're engaged without being propogandistic, and what more resonant subject is there than the world we all live in? Yes, Godard eventually became a full-on Maoist, but at the time he made La Chinoise (1967), he was objective enough to show his characters as stupid and dangerous (I doubt Fassbinder's The Third Generation, as singular as it is, would've been conceivable without its example). One reason to be skeptical of Schnabel's appropriation of avant-garde techniques is that the innovations of Brakhage (and Godard, for that matter) serve to express new content, while Schnabel's film is just another Inspirational True Story About Overcoming Adversity.

[monolith94]

You're talking about the kind of political films Michael Moore makes, as opposed to some one like Godard in the mid-60's (and La Chinoise, in particular), Fassbinder in the 70's and Jia Zhang-ke today, who are recording the times they live in without taking a political stand one way or another. They're engaged without being propogandistic, and what more resonant subject is there than the world we all live in?

I didn't see much that's political in the two Godard films I've seen, but I agree with you that the world we all live in IS the resonant subject. But politics often has little to do with the world we all live in.

[Ivan Drago]

All the nominations this got at the Oscars this year makes me want to see it. WHY WON'T IT COME HERE???

[Derek]

Hmm, the only thing I really remember from this film is a collage of beautiful women's faces.

Well yeah, it's a very deliberate move on Schnabel's part...not that anyone wanted to talk about it.

[Spinal]

Outside of porn, direct looks into the camera have rarely been used so explicitly for sexual stimulation, which in turn allows us to feel his frustration at complete impotency along with our own inability to penetrate the screen.

So you're saying that the whole film is a metaphor for the fact that I will never have sex with Marie-Josée Croze?


"I still don't know a damn thing about Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff." - Spinal

Rascal. :)

[Derek]

So you're saying that the whole film is a metaphor for the fact that I will never have sex with Marie-Josée Croze?

Kinda depressing, huh?


Rascal. :)

As some whose purposefully remained in the dark on all things Potter-related, I'm sure I found the quote far more amusing than most other people, but it cracked me up.

[baby doll]

I didn't see much that's political in the two Godard films I've seen, but I agree with you that the world we all live in IS the resonant subject. But politics often has little to do with the world we all live in.I think there's an element of reportage in just about all of Godard's films and videos from the 60's and 70's, from the dispassionate treatment of the Algerian war in Le Petit soldat to Claude Brasseur and Sami Frey reading from the newspaper in Bande a part to the drab office buildings in Alphaville (the film is practically a documentary of what certain parts of Paris looked like in the mid-60's) to scenes in which characters reenact the Vietnam war in Pierrot le fou and La Chinoise to the Black Panthers sequence in Sympathy for the Devil (One Plus One. He famously said he wanted to put everything in the frame, and part of what's exciting about these features is that he has to continually invent new ways of describing the world. In his recent work, he's turned away from current events to a certain extent, although not completely (the end of the cold war surfaces in Germany Year Ninety-Nine Zero--a kind of sequel to Alphaville--and the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo in Eloge de l'amour and Notre musique).

When you say politics has little to do with the world we all live in, I can only assume that you mean the purely symbolic act of voting, which has to be the narrowest conception of politics humanly imaginable.

[NickGlass]

Yeah, my thoughts mirror yours. It was consistently engaging and I never checked my watch once, but afterwards it just sorta disappeared from my memory.

I agree, but I think I enjoyed it more than everyone else that is agreeing with you. I think Schnabel has finally found his most appropriate subject, as him and Bauby are complete showboats. Alamric's performance is fantastic and his methods of channeling Bauby's sense of humor really save most of the sequences.


I think what mainly bugged me was how reductive it was towards Bauby's subjectivity, turning everything about his experience into a neat little cinematic shorthand. Ooh, let's do some Brakhage for the disorientation part. Then some Fellini for the wild imagination thing. Add some soft piano keys, then some metaphoric archive footage... voila, instant inspiration. Granted there's a little more complexitity there, but I always felt Schnabel was doing his best to make the film un-alienating more than anything; I think that's where his year-end accolades are coming from. Methinks an avant-garde short would do this material best.

This is spot-on, and it's exactly what should be expected from a film by Schnabel. Have you seen any of his artwork? His canon is filled with collages of mangled references. I'm not a fan.

[Benny Profane]

I agree with the posters above who say the film is a hodgepodge, but I also like what Antoine had to say. The film never reached the emotional high point I was expecting, but that's OK. I thought the soundtrack was excellent, but I wasn't expecting to hear a soundtrack in this film, let alone songs in English, so that was a little off-putting. The shot of the back of Ines's hair in the breeze as they were driving to Lourdes is one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

Anyone read the book?

[balmakboor]

I'd say Diving Bell and An Angel at My Table are to two best films I've seen in years.

[Ezee E]

The shot of the back of Ines's hair in the breeze as they were driving to Lourdes is one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

I never thought about it the first time I saw it, but my friend also thought it was the best shot of the movie.

[balmakboor]

There's something about car driving shots in general that're just so damn cool. My favorite shot in Pulp Fiction is the one of Travolta driving to Mia's house for instance. I wouldn't mind a whole feature film with nothing but car driving shots. (Night on Earth came close.)

[Ezee E]

There's something about car driving shots in general that're just so damn cool. My favorite shot in Pulp Fiction is the one of Travolta driving to Mia's house for instance. I wouldn't mind a whole feature film with nothing but car driving shots. (Night on Earth came close.)
My movie is probably 75% in a truck.

[Morris Schæffer]

I guess I rather liked this. It's sobriety taken to an extreme and this goes both ways I guess. It's not immensely powerful, but it's not cloying, sentimental crap either. Yeah, it's visually striking, unique. I was reminded of this year's tremendous Buried oddly enough what with the first-person focus of much of the movie. You are with Bauby nearly all the time. There's a poetic beauty to some of the imagery and Bauby's musings. I liked how a little things become important to a man once he's reduced to a vegetable.