Prevel (I think thats his name)

My life and times with Antoin Artaud. Not the life of Antoin Artaud. It was not suppose to be an in depth look at Artaud's methods but the effect he had on others, for example the anticipation Prevel has when waiting to meet him at the beginning etc etc... It is a look at how Prevel was effected by Artaud's life and supposed madness. Yes, there where moments of Artaud's method in the film but it was not the crux of the film. So if we were to look at a film point of view I find it difficult to give it less than a 4 because I found it entertaining and poignant. Yes, there are flaws but it did not detract from the enjoyment of the film.

As a way of studying Artaud there are moments where it is useful and many of his techniques where used to great effect but as an entire film it would be pointless to show a group of scholars. It would be better to show them clips of certain moments for exampl il etait un roi de thule! =D

'My Life and Times...'

I agree that this film is difficult to rate. What are we rating? The exploration of Artaud’s theory in the film, or the filmic quality of the story told? Like others in the class I found the insight into Artaud’s personal life interesting and I suppose an insight not easy to find through other means, such as writings between Artaud and contemporaries. In this sense I would give the film a 3/5 – not deserving full figures seeing as it is slow at times with irrelevant café scenes and love making (?!) I don’t think you can gain much, if anything, about Artaud’s cruelty theories however, and would rate it a 1/5 in this respect. The visual use of colour, the grainy black and white stock, and positioning of the camera throughout the film I did think had a specific artistic effect, though it is debatable how much it perpetuated Artaud’s ideas on cruelty. The black and white visually creates the bleak world that Artaud lived in, clearly expressing the extremes within which he lived and with which he struggled. The camera’s eye is Artaud’s, and so we see the world through his desolate eyes. When in public the camera is positioned so that the busyness of the world around him is something isolated from Artaud’s ‘eye’. At the train station, the camera stays still while the bustle of people rushes around it. The camera often focuses on a particular body or object such as a handbag and then follows this through the train station, giving the impression of Artaud’s scrutinising and objectifying eye isolated from the rest of society. Likewise, when Artaud and Prevel are on the train/bus the camera is positioned so that it can focus and then blur alternatively on the two men and on the busy streets behind them. The way the camera works in both these instances is to distinguish the isolated Artaud from the alien world around him. I don’t think it represents any aspect of cruelty however, just demonstrates Artaud’s artistic seclusion.

The contrast between piercing noise and blinding silence is however a clearer representation of Artaud’s ‘cruelty’. Silence and what seems like a ‘slowing down’ of the camera corresponds to the moments in the film that are most ‘cruel’. This silence is cinematic language for Artaud, where words cannot express the pain and anguish society inflicts upon us. So silence is used instead, strangely creating a noise much louder and piercing than any scream could affect. Colette silently rails at her audience, Prevel coughs and experiences near-death though with his spluttering muted, and Artaud’s funeral is filmed in absolute silence. These silences are combined with the camera seeming to either swirl around or flicker on the object, or focus on particular aspects of the scene while blurring others. I think these rare moments in the film correspond (remotely) to Artaud’s ideas on cruelty, though they could never express the visceral pain as directly as Artaud’s own live performances did.

All in all, an interesting biographic film that makes insightful decisions to express something of the ‘cruelty’ that Artaud experienced. You won’t learn much about his theories in this though other than when he screeches instructions to Colette in her rehearsal.

Artaud on film

I similarly found that the narrative style gave the film a documentary feel as opposed to a device to exploit Artaud’s theories. However it was the moment with Collette and Artaud alone in the room, whereby Artaud was continually pushing the actress to repeat the same line over and over that allied particularly to notions of cruelty. As an audience member it was uncomfortable to witness, the voice shrieking the same thing over again was piercing and completely inescapable. The apparent exhaustion of Collette as Artaud pushed her further was unsettling, her whole body was exhausted so his unforgiving attitude to her was cruel.

I would have to agree with previous responses that it was the brief moments of silence that had the most impact. The sequence of Artaud’s funeral was completely in silence, an aspect that added to the magnitude of this moment, and encouraged you to tune in on the images of the scene. Likewise Collette’s performance with the flashing lights void of any sound was interesting, you became acutely aware to the way the light fell and the shadows it created. The sounds of the harmonica that filled the movement between scenes seemed completely at odds to the atmosphere of the rest of the film, and I struggle to find the meaning or purpose behind its insertion.
Finally, I don’t think that the black and white stock particularly added anything to the film, other than maybe enforcing a bleak and dismal atmosphere that equates to Artaud’s state of mind.

With all of this in mind I would have to once again take the easy way out and give the film a moderate… three. I thought the film explored a number of interesting ideas and skimmed over Artaud’s theories, but as mentioned previously the documentary feel, for me, helped highlight how Artaud’s life was so deeply intertwined with drugs. Derrida’s purpose throughout was to find Artaud his drugs, which enabled him to function, the extent to which I hadn’t quite understood previously.

xxx

ROI DE THULEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

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

I didn't find Cruelty effects in the film. There was a certain form of cruelty being enacted on characters, but I as a viewer did not get the same effect. Perhaps this was because of a feeling of distancing. The black and white created an almost clinical feel, a washed out life. It had quite a documentary feel to it, as perhaps was intended. Likewise, the music was jarring with the piece. A little connecting jingle between scenes. It was the silence which had more impact, eg. in the scene with Collettes silent performance and flashing images. If this form had continued in a similar way, then maybe this would be cinema of cruelty?
I give it 3 our of 5. It didn't really engage me, didn't inspire me, but thought it was an insight to Artauds life (rather than his world? his theatre?)

I still think you should watch Requim for a Dream...

Yanno

My Life and Times with Antonin Artaud

Hello Artaudies!

Although I agree that the film was more a documentary than trying to establish a complete theatre of cruelty style there were definately cruel elements. As Sarah mentioned, I found the scene with Colette particularly poignant in that as well as forcing the viewer to take on a almost voyeuristic role, I also felt highly uncomforatble throughout the whole sequence because of the clear emotional and physical strain of the performer, when she finally gave up I too felt relieved. This seemed to be in keeping with Artauds concept of cruelty as I believe it was a physical experience, in as much as I felt myself saying the words with her in my head (loser).

As noted below, I also think it was not the questionable choice of music that was powerful in this film but the use of silence. Most significantly so in the scene where Prevel is choking uncontrollably. By using silence as Artaud often chose to do in his films the gesture, facial grimaces and distorted body were the focus, and I found this silent image of the body in utter turmoil, was far more powerful than when the sound was introduced; language was un-neccessary in creating this, the image was 'universal'.

Like Grace, I also found the black and white stock effetive as a visual metaphor of Artauds state of mind; depicting it as bleak and incoherent, as the image was often distorted and grainy. I also felt it had a distancing effect for the viewer, causing them to cast a more analytical eye over the film as it was not 'realistic' in colour.

Hmm rating it is a toughy, I am going to say 3. As a film it gave a good presentation of the effect of a drug addiction, and of Artaud's way of looking at the world, however it did seem at times to undermine itself with the choice of music for example, and not give a true depiction of Artaud as a theorist, there were indeed beautiful moments but I think they could have been pushed further.

Lauren
xxxxxx

Co-presence with the spectator?

I think you're right with the black and white stock being romantic Jeremy, although I doubt that's what Artaud would have wanted. It gives the film a distanced feel from a modern audience too, perhaps helping to show that we should not expect to be able to understand Artaud's theories and practice without understanding the context they came from.

I agree with most people who've said that this film was more documentary than a film that clearly demostrated elements of the theatre of cruelty. However, I do think that at times the filming took on the challenge of putting the actor and the spectator in co-presence (obviously metaphorically rather than physically). A possible example was where Prevel is looking through the window at Colette as she gets increasingly hysterical trying to 'use her scream box' (as a side note, this is an amazing turn of phrase!), the audience joins Prevel looking into the room, making us as much spectators as much as Prevel is to the scene. Francis Vayone describes that one of Artaud's main reasons for rejecting the cinema was that it did 'not place the actor and the action in a real and direct co-presence with the spectator' (p180, 'Cinemas of Cruelty?', A Critical Reader) but here I think the film attempts to break this divide.

I would rate the film 3/5 as I think it had some interesting artistic moments and was definitely worth watching. However, I agree with others that it was quite slow moving, and sometimes lost my interest. In my opinion, the soundtrack was also very misplaced, giving the film a relaxed feel which did not suit the action.