TCF340/French New Wave III: Éric Rohmer (Discussion)

From Screenpedia

1. Group 2 (Todd or Nikki): How is Rohmer using the word, "moral"? How is morality portrayed in Chloé?

   The article notes that the French word Moraliste is used to define an individual’s set of values or ways of thinking, not necessarily society’s ideas of right and wrong. If Rohmer uses the word “moral” in this way, Chloé emphasizes a character’s morality or immorality as his or her ability to stick to these individual beliefs and not make decisions based on desire or the moment. The long prologue is an obvious definition of Frederick’s morals; his ideas about his marriage and his wife, his opinions of other women and their appeal to him now.

2. Group 3 (Andrew or Sean): What is meant by "courtly love," in the context of Rohmer's films?

   Monaco says that courtly love is moribund, but the memories of it and the literary traditions that lasted for centuries are subject matter of Rhomer's films. Andreas warned that "marriage is no real excuse for not loving." Rhomer shows us that the converse in the 20th century is even more true: Loving is no excuse for not marrying, each protagonist finally decides in favor of marriage.

   • Dr. Butler notes: "suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex" -- Andreas Capellanus, 1174 (Monaco, 294)

3. Group 4 (Joe or Andrew): Monaco states that le pari ("the bet") is "the encompassing metaphor that Rohmer wants for the entire series" (p. 297). And he emphasizes "Pascal's wager" (see Wikipedia: "...posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.").
   • What ethical/existential issues does that wager/bet raise? Do you see them in Chloé?
     • The same basic concept applies to Chloe. Frederic had nothing to gain by sleeping with Chloe, and everything to lose (his family, etc...).
4. Group 1 (Stephen or Andrew): In a footnote (p. 304), Monaco quotes Rohmer saying, "The men in my films are not meant to be particularly sympathetic characters." Is Frédéric a sympathetic character? Provide evidence from the film to support your interpretation. How do you interpret his fantasy sequence?

Fredrick does not seem like a sympathetic character. His desire for Chloe seems unfounded they never liked each other before and now she uses him, always asking for things. Fredrick's desire for her seems to stem from his desire tor women other than his wife. Chloe isn't a romantic love but rather a device in which to implement his infidelity. The dream sequence shows his lust for women other than his wife, but the turn of the dream is when the last woman turns him down on the grounds of true love. This turn symbolizes his love for his wife, and foreshadows his not sleeping with Chloe.

Further questions -- All groups

1. Crisp contends that clothing serves a figurative or "symbolic" function in Chloé. How is this motif developed in the film and what meaning(s) does it signify, according to Crisp?

   Group 2: Crisp notes that clothing plays a symbolic role – green symbolizes permanence and is a preferred color of Fred’s. It is established that he likes green in the beginning of the film, when he compliments the color of his secretary’s jacket: “That green’s terrific.” He begins to wear red during his afternoons with Chloé and claims that he’s “sick of green.” Chloé wears red the first time she visits Frederick, and “takes off her red dress for him,” notes Crisp. Also, Crisp talks about the “modish” clothing that is not “made for [Frederick] him,” who is supposed to be a grounded character. Chloé, who is spontaneous and a bit vagrant is a former model and dresses in the “modish” clothes. Finally, the scene at the climax of the film uses clothing as a symbol of Fred’s decision to stay with his wife. Chloé, who is not wearing any clothing, removes Fred’s shirt. It is his decision to put his shirt back on that makes us immediately aware that he has quit his near affair.

2. Monaco notes that Rohmer often uses nonprofessional actors in the Moral tales. What impact does he say this has? Or what purpose does it serve? Do you agree with Monaco?

   Group 1: It produces a kind of natural intensity. It allows the characters to take on the voice of the actors who are plaing the parts (kind of) in feal life. The couple who play the married couple bring their marrage into the characters so that the characters may "cast shadows" through the real life bleeding into the acting. This is effective. The married couple don't seem to be passionatly in love but involved in a warm comfortable love that couples of extended periods possess.

3. Monaco says that Rohmer creates "mosaics" out of "mundane details" in his films. Why? Do you think that Chloé successfully "invests la vie quotidienne ["everyday life"] with some meaningful rhythms"?

   Group 3: This could tie in with Rhomer not using professional actors, making the films as real as possible by using real life. The entire movie is mundane details strung together. Frederic is always going to or at work, he eats lunch the same time, the shirt he buys, chloe always smoking. Even the book Frederic reads on the commute is "Voyage Around the World" which Rhomer thought was funny because it was a book about polygamy, foreshadowing Frederic's predicament in the movie.

Bibliography

• James Monaco, The New Wave (NY: Oxford University, 1976), .
• Crisp, C. G. Eric Rohmer: Realist and Moralist. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988.

External links

• Rohmer images