Introduction
“Intimacy” was the film that became famous and infamous for its graphic sex scenes. Patrice Chereau’s “Bohemian world” forced the sex to make sense and used it as the way to tell story. Cold, unerotic, uncomfortable viewing, shaky and unfocused film was challenging. People saw – what lovers saw but they couldn’t enjoy it. While the audience was expecting the “lesson” – “how to get intimate with somebody”, – film itself was about feelings. People forgot – intimacy doesn’t have definition…
Patrice Chéreau was confirming that you don’t need words for intimate things: “The sex became a language. And they are saying a lot. Sometimes people say – “They don’t talk”. But nobody talks that much when they’re making love. Nobody talks that much in the life. But language wasn’t accepted and film became rather irritating and misunderstandable for majority of audience in the end. It seems that people “cached” only parodian part of “hollywoodian sex”, but symbolistic transference to the theatre was left untouched. Even did audience understand that it was parodia?
Presented in 2001 in Sundance and Berlin Film Festivals, “Intimacy” was the winner of the Golden Bear. Commission recognized film as the story that showed things you will never see in the real life. Moreover, these things were not pretty: “Sometimes the camera goes everywhere you don’t want it go, such as, ugh, behind the bedroom’s door. There, what it discovers isn’t pretty: Bodies unless toned, buffed, sunned and well lit, are pretty hideous – bloated, stretchy, raw things, with knobs and blemishes. Ugh.” “Intimacy” truths’ were painful, but “so sexy in Chéreau’s hands.
Written according to the Hanif Kureishi novels “Intimacy” and “Nightlight”, the script was total invention. Unfortunately, it became as the biggest French filmmakers mistake – dialogues were unnecessary: “Based on the wonderful short stories by Hanif Kureishi, the dialogue by Chéreau and
Anne – Louise Trividic is incredibly flat, feeling like it has been translated.” Filmmaker’s genial idea
1.http://www.indiewire.com/people/int_Chereau_Patrice_011016.html
2.Stephen Hunter, „Întimacy“: Too Candid Camera, Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2001; Page C01
to combine male and female points of view in the same story, needed to be left unspoken as the film itself. If Patrice Chéreau wanted to picture sex as the language, probably it would be better to leave it from any interference. Filmmaker tried to explain the situation: “At first I decided that I want to make “Intimacy”. But the book was almost impossible for filming”, but this excuse was not heard.
“Intimacy” would not work without brave Kerry Fox and Mark Rylance performances. “I don’t think that there are many actors who’d jump at the chance to make a movie like this, so you have to admire these two from really putting themselves out there.” Their characters were not very likeable, and their love scenes were extremely raw and filmed with poor lighting. Patrice Chereau used camera as voyeuristic eye, but irregretably as reality itself. Actors’ resistance wasn’t left without notice – in Berlin Film Festival Kerry Fox was rewarded as the Best Actress. Only Mark Rylance left this time without anything – but it was really challenging for Shakespearian actor such transference to cinema.
“Intimacy” was the story of Jay (Mark Rylance) and Claire(Kerry Fox). We don’t know how they meet each other. They are strangers who come every week on Wednesday to have sex. There is no speaking. They “masochistically” tear off their clothes and satisfy desires in the nasty, depressing, “Dostojevskian” style basement. Then Claire dresses and scurries out of the apartment. There is no agreement – only unspoken rules. Everything is typical until Jay decides to know a little more about Claire. He tries to get something more from her than sex, so he follows Claire. What Jay discovers doesn’t make him happy.
“Intimacy” was powerful yet unformed. Press was headlining about real penetrating actors’ sex and what they should or shouldn’t – do, when dealing with sex scenes. The idea to accept “Intimacy” as the whole story was ignored. Articles became “stamped”. Even if it was still attracting people attention, the thoughts about feelings were left in underground. Only ironical articles, interviews and extraordinary stories were telling something new – they and become the basis of this “dossier de press”.
Content
I. Instead of creating the feeling –“Intimacy” was sexually revealed…………………3
II. How objective can be articles:
1) recto/verso through intimacy…………………………………………………….5
2) recto/verso through the Rylance’s body…………………………………………6
III. “Any woman would know that this movie was directed by man”…………………..7
1) what feels woman about intimacy…………………………………….…………9
2) non-spoken characters are created by too much talk………………………..9
IV . From Shakespearian actor till “perfect” notice in CV………………………………..10
V. How to find difference between jealously and tolerance?
3) can tolerant definition for jealously be
created ………………………………..12
4) unfortunately, “there will be no trick” ……………………….……………..…13
.
5) can passive man feel the tolerance for active woman…………………………..14
VI. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………15
VII. Appendixes ………………………………………………………………………………17
VIII. Bibliography
Instead of creating the feeling –“Intimacy” was sexually revealed
As “Intimacy” was film about feelings, I was interested to find as much as it is possible different points of view from every different position: How Patrice Chereau understands the feeling if intimacy himself? Why he needed real sex scenes? Is it impossible to create intimacy without real sex between people who don’t know each other? Do different forms of intimacy exist? How felt actors themselves how challenging it was to accept such a role? How felt Mark Rylance’s wife or Kerry Fox boyfriend? How to explain for then that it is art? Before starting to do research, these were the main questions to which answers I was looking for. Nevertheless, after long analysis I was forced to accept different kind of reality. I couldn’t find one article that would be close to that what I was looking for. Only in that case if I would take every little part from 70-100 articles, I would get what I need.
At the moment, press was acting according to the audience desires and there was nothing surprising. However, in this situation the majority of articles became “stamped” – they were saying the same thing that actors were having the real sex, how much can be shown on the screen etc. – and tried to put it in the every sentence, but in different letters. Some of the publications even developed the ‘rules’:
In the beginning to remark about graphic sex scenes and censorship;
In the first example even (App.1), the technique of using camera is combines with hardcore porn! (3)
In the middle to write the general idea what story was about;
In the second example (App.2) the beginning of plot story is not managing to be written without mentioning sex – lately that kind of attention to love scenes becomes irritating. (3) The third example is even more annoying when Jay’s is starting to be compared with Tom Cruise. What it is about? Is it the “cock-tail” of Hollywood and French Cinema?
And finally to mention something about Patrice Chereau and film’s technique.
But in the third example (App.3) the situation goes at the top when compares love scenes with fight film scenes (Is it quite similar?) (2) and still manages talk about emotions and body language. (3)
My research hasn’t finished only with such “sex-oriented” examples. There was one article that managed to talk about film even without mentioning “intimacy”! (Appendix 4) But probably that type publications is example of what our society needs and actually it is not so boring till you real 3 -5 articles. But after 20 – 30, “the same” stores, you really become boring.
Recto/verso – through the Rylance’s face
As it is nearly impossible nowadays, appear in the press objectively, usually you are treated in right or wrong way. It is difficult to find middle. The same things were happening with “Intimacy” also. Trying to find “the real true”, I have chosen three articles one of them very positive, other two – quite ironical. The comparing of these publications, forces you to create another, maybe more objective opinion.
The first article (App.5) easily gives up with using: cleverly, powerful, amazing, brilliant. Barely three times mentioning word “sex” – article tries to stay away from this topic. Starting from non-effect making introduction, publication goes on with: “The film cleverly reveals these characters’ innermost thoughts and feelings through actions and reactions”. Then at the same time ironical side (App.6 –7) answers with unsatisfaction: “it is shame that such taboo-shattering scenes were wasted on such an otherwise tedious and unengaging film.” Moreover, another ironical side obviously agrees: “…it is mind-numbing boring.” Sensible article tries to give another argument that: “By the time we get to the eng, we have been through a considerably grualling journey.” At this time, positive article makes the mistake by only saying things but not giving any descriptions about it.
The irony “pays back” pointing out that without sex all film is “extremely irritating”, and that the only thing, which keeps you, is “tolerance for Mark Rylance”. But this time tolerance grows up in to irregretable details: “The camera is pitiless, emphasizing every line and wrinkle on Jace’s face.” It doesn’t sound so cruel still it is said about character, but latterly the comments comes out like this: “Mark Rylance has a small, gaunt face with a high forehead, a jaw line that bears stubble even after he has shaved and a pencil – point chin that emphasizes the soapy somberness.” As audience was already used to see naked woman body, it was a challenging decision for Rylance and press “didn’t forget” it.
The talks haven’t finished here – attention to Rylance body was continuing: “Chereau is no more interested in Fox’s body than
Rylance’s” or “Thought you have seen all you’ll ever want to see of Rylance”. The positive side stays shy from such a description proving that: “Rylance gives a solid center to the film”. Even if his acting could be treating as a little bit superficial – the explanation that it was most difficult role is acceptable in this publication.