1. are here any cinema of cruelty effects?
2. comment on the use of sound in the film
3. how effective is the use of Black and white stock?
4. rate the film out of 5

1.The scene where Collette is performing Artaud's work there is an obvious attempt to barrage the senses. The music and visual aspects are not there to support story line and structure but to act on their own which could be seen as indicative as cinema of cruelty. My problem with it however is that it does just seem to be thrown in with little thought as if the director has gone "ok here's the bit where we show what Artaud wanted from theatre and then be done with it" Apart from that I'd say not, we experiance cruelty on characters but as a viewer we do not I don't think.

2.I found the use of sound fairly tedious which perhaps may have been the point. Actually what I found tedious was the jazz/blues music they kept slotting into the film, yes we get it it's paris, it's cool everyone smokes and has affairs and they're artists we don't need a constant reminder of that with hip music at every scene change that sees them in a cafe or a street. The sound effects such as on the train were fairly standard but I did like how the sound builded heavily at one point I seem to remember

3.Black and White stock seemed like a fairly natural choice in creating atmosphere and the sense of Paris's place in history, also at the time film noir was starting to become incredibly cool and popular I think so there is a homage to that perhaps, correct me if I'm wrong. Asthtically it created beutifull cinematography. I do think however that when making a film about artists in Paris it is a device used fairly often.

4. I'd only give the film a generous 3. It was fine, but so cliche in places it was cringe worthy (that music) As an insight to Artaud, usefull certainly but the device of telling it from Pervel's perspective I thought was a little safe. It creates a distance from the subject matter in a very easy way.

Nick.