Minority View: Lemming by Dominik Moll blog
A question that should engage film critics pertains to the way in which a thriller may be written about. Should facts about the narrative be concealed - so that the suspense or surprise is kept alive - or should the critic be open about them in order to sustain his/her conclusions? While the review of a recent thriller should not divest it of its mystery, it can be argued that the more reflective kind of criticism cannot function under this constraint. Great thrillers - from The Manchurian Candidate to Vertigo - bear repeated viewing and it is only in the second or third viewings that narrative ingenuity becomes apparent. Indifferent thrillers, on the other hand, lose most of their appeal once the resolution is revealed.
Dominik Moll has made only three feature films so far but his work already suggests intelligence comparable to Hitchcock's or Claude Chabrol's. I was led to Lemming (2005) by his first thriller With a Friend like Harry (2000) and while the latter may be a superior film in terms of character development, Lemming is more intricately plotted. Lemming is about an automation engineer named Alain Getty and his attractive young wife Bénédicte. Alain has just invited his boss Richard Pollock (André Dussolier) and his wife Alice for dinner. While the two are preparing to receive their guests, Alain discovers that the kitchen sink is mysteriously clogged - though he doesn't give it too much attention to it.
The evening's dinner is a disaster. Alice (brilliantly played by Charlotte Rampling) is a jealous wife convinced that her husband has been consorting with prostitutes. To make matters worse, she sees Alain and Bénédicte drawn to each other and appears to resent it extremely. In any case, there is a sordid exchange between the Pollocks and the guests leave without dinner. That night Alain investigates the clogged kitchen sink again and finds a small rodent stuck inside - one still alive and later identified as a rare Lemming from Scandinavia.
The next day at the office Richard Pollock apologizes profusely for the previously evening. But a short while later Alain is privately accosted by Alice who, after wishing her husband dead, makes a deliberate attempt to seduce him. Although Alain is attracted to Alice he resists her advances, but still conceals the episode from Bénédicte when he returns home. The very next day, when Alain is at work and Pollock is away on business in Korea, Alice visits Bénédicte apparently to apologize - but reveals to Bénédicte her encounter with her husband the previous day when he barely resisted her advances. Then, under the pretext of resting awhile, Alice locks herself into the spare bedroom and kills herself with her own pistol.
From this point onwards, the story takes an intriguing turn and it is difficult to assert what is real and what has been imagined by Alain. Bénédicte begins to behave strangely - and even viciously with Alain. She leaves him and commences to live with Richard Pollock, who genially admits his good luck with Bénédicte while denying that he seduced her. The issue of the Lemming remains unresolved and Alain sees his house infested with them one night. More importantly, Alain is gradually convinced that the dead Alice with her haunted, hooded eyes has taken possession of his life and Bénédicte's as a means of getting even with Pollock.
Lemming is bizarre and creepy and it is not easy to explain the role plated by the rodent in the film. Since it plays no part in the story of Alain, Bénédicte, Pollock and Alice, why did the director place it there at all? The film, it is evident, is essentially a supernatural tale about possession by a dead person. Films that rely on supernatural explanations need to make that extra bit of effort to convince the spectator that what he/she is seeing is credible and they tend to rely on special effects to achieve this. Since such effects are rarely convincing - Regan's antics in The Exorcist are even comical - Dominik Moll uses the motif of the Lemming strategically. The unlikely occurrence of Alain's kitchen sink clogged by a Scandinavian rodent is perhaps offered to us as a kind of bait. The improbable Lemming may have been placed there to be ingested and to prepare us to receive a larger proposition - a story of possession told without any of the standard contraptions. Where special effects naturally awaken our suspicions, the sub-plot of the Lemming effectively puts them to rest.
The title of Moll's film also merits some comment. The film is not about the rodent but the director still uses it for his title. Apart from diverting attention from the fact that the rodent is extraneous to the central story, the title also draws attention to a narrative device rather than to the plot. Dominik Moll is perhaps suggesting that his film is actually about storytelling, and about disbelief and its suspension in the reception of a supernatural tale by the wary spectator.
Comments( 20 )
Lemming more reminds me of something
Lemming more reminds me of something which has been increasingly appreciated in the modern times: art without heeding direction, when painting layers upon layers of something is more essential even if you have an unresolved plot at hand. It's a serious weakness.
To the comments above, they wallow in their own poor taste: I don't have anything to add. As for the review, this one in fact seemed to me just a poor one. There are no two styles for me. If people like to read something and get closer to cinema, then it's good. Instead of differentiating people like "oh, you've got a poor taste" or "you are one of the masses", I thought reviewing is in fact to integrate everyone into a common liking for thoughtful, good, or entertaining cinema.
For a novice film watcher, it might. I
For a novice film watcher, it might. I understand that dearcinema is made up of people who understand and appreciate films as objet d'art and are devoted to criticism as a genre of literature. I would sincerely like it to stay that way. Nonsensical comments like Mr. Agarwal's above, reflects badly on it. If possible, I suggest a screening for comments - so as to dissuade people from commenting without serious engagement with the subject.
Hmmmm... it brings us back to the same
Hmmmm... it brings us back to the same square again -- what criticism is all about? If you don't know a plot (I'm not even considering the story) how can you appreciate things told about that? Who will read that criticism? Of course that leads to the opinion that criticism is a totally unnecessary phenomenon.
Few Remarks: 1. Not understanding a
Few Remarks:
1. Not understanding a film by terming it 'unresolved' is undoubtedly a clever way to wriggle out.
2. Psst! If your remarks halt at defining a film as 'Stupid', why risk talking about film criticism? Try the anthropology of timbuctoo.
3. There is a difference between 'criticising' and criticism (of any text/film), you know. Go, check that dust covered dictionary.
4. "The review here is more than two-thirds a recounting of the story of the film: where is the analysis, the criticism by which the author seems to swear so much?" - Ah, this finally proves the insufferable itch that commenting provides. Don't worry, it will slowly, (very slowly), go away - once you get over the hurdle of the opening credits.
Honestly, we all understand if you don't understand. Why worsen it by blabbing where you shouldn't?
"Lemming" is an unresolved film to a
"Lemming" is an unresolved film to a large degree: the director himself seemed a little confused. I wouldn't place it near Hitchcock at all. Yet what Diggines said is quite to the point; to me it seemed that what the vet's nephew gave the explanation--that lemmings only cross streams and if they are wide then they get drowned, rather than any romantic suicides--corresponded quite a lot to Alain's predicament. He had wanted to cross the stream--the desire awakened for Mrs Pollock when she tried to seduce him--and found the stream too wide for his courage to break the artificial sweet domestic life of his plus to do it with his boss's wife, and thereby the rest of the film.
I consider the film weak since the film strangely focuses upon Bénédicte more than upon Alain: this does make the film kind of more mysterious, but also more stupid.
And completely agree with N. Ramu: the film is spoilt for someone who hasn't seen the film. Criticising a film doesn't give someone a right to anticipate the twist: if the author considers the twists so "cheap", then he should first ask himself why did the director include it first of all? O'Henry was a brilliant author; maybe only people who only wrote criticisms instead of fiction themselves castigated him for including surprise twists. His fiction didn't simply stand on those endings; he had a brilliant knowledge of American ways and mannerisms--much better than Mark Twain; and he had the story's tempo and tone at his control: it could be racy, it could be dully sweet, as he wished. The review here is more than two-thirds a recounting of the story of the film: where is the analysis, the criticism by which the author seems to swear so much? It is more Mr. Diggines's comment which has saved it!
Can I suggest a middle path, we put up
Can I suggest a middle path, we put up some sort of a spoiler alert for readers like N Ramu?
Let me put it this way: There are
Let me put it this way: There are different levels of enjoyment and this column is clearly not meant for cinephiles who enjoy cinema - and criticism - at the level at which you appear to enjoy it. IMDB may be a better option for you.
Rather lame. So you are saying that to
Rather lame. So you are saying that to be film 'literate', one has to discard the enjoyment of the surprising twists? Why would anyone want to know more about something they can't enjoy anymore?
I was waiting for this question so
I was waiting for this question so eagerly that I was actually becoming impatient! I suggest that the 'surprise ending' is the cheapest kind of thrill provided by cinema - and literature - and writers like O'Henry have even been castigated for relying so much on it. The thriller is not very different and it is only the worst kind of thriller that does not actually improve on second viewing; such thrillers will not be written about here. The reason that reviewers don't reveal the ending in newspaper reviews is that most of the film viewers who constitute the market for film spectatorship are film illiterate and may not see a thriller if they know the end. The present column is intended to introduce a level of film literacy in the cinephile and the sooner one gets over with the surprise, the better. In this review of Lemming, it is impossible to talk intelligently about what the film sets out to do without dwelling on the various devices employed. I think it is impossible to talk about the various devices employed and also keep the 'surprise' intact.
Isn't the attempt rather a failure when
Isn't the attempt rather a failure when the reviewer can't write about the film without giving away the entire story? The relevance (time of release) shouldn't matter here since you are already talking about films that are on dvd! One won't feel like watching the film, especially a thriller, after the story is told!
Personally, I don't favor
Personally, I don't favor psychoanalytical explanations and 'deep' interpretations of films I like although this does not preclude psychology itself. I will go along with Susan Sontag's essay 'Against Interpretation' who regards them as the 'revenge of the intellect upon art'.
Interesting. This is probably what I
Interesting. This is probably what I was trying to get at, though Mr. Diggines explanation is perfect. So, there can be a psychological explanation apart from being an effective narrative device, for the rodent in the narrative.
Lemming is full of signifiers perceived
Lemming is full of signifiers perceived as hostile to the bourgeois family; alien animals in the domestic zone (the lemming); prostitutes; Charlotte Rampling and indeed Andre Dusollier. But at a more pshychological level the ideal (model) couple come across as strangely repressed, with each other, and to others. It is only when they get entangled with Rampling and her whore-mongering husband that their true and dark emotions are revealed. There are certainly many traces of Hitchcok; but more tellingly Lynch and Haneke. I think the lemming, in a sense ,stands in for Alain's unconscious fears; not the animal itself, who is given a very rational explanation by the small rodent specialist ( myths about lemmings comitting suicide are 'romantic') but Alain's perception of the Lemming as dangerous. This is underlined in the quasi nightmare sequence where Alain is horrified to see his kitchen overun by hundreds of lemmings, and when the Lemming actually bites his hand. Are these not references to Alain's fear of his own overunning/excessive desire for the spectral character of Rampling? Also the lemming biting him seems to be a metaphor for the fear he has of his own previously repressed desire( which is reinforced by his voyeuristic fascination with surveillance gadgets). That the return of the repressed can bite, cause trauma. The way Moll interchanges the spectral character of the revanent Rampling and Alain's young wife (the other Charlotte (Gainsbourg) reminded me of the way Bunuel uses the same device in 'That Obscure Object of Desire'. Both Fernando Rey and Laurent Lucas are cast into roles which project male desire as ultimately unable to differentiate the desired sexual object in terms of specific identity (maybe a more general comment the male gaze as impervious to actual women as people); this is skilfully mirrored in Charlotte Gainsbourg who internalises, in Lynchean manner, the spectre of Rampling, as a catalyst to to her own, and her husbands desire. I enjoyed "Lemming' as much as Brice Cauvin's 'Hotel Harabati'(also with Laurent Lucas), and Haneke's 'Hidden'.
"I do not remember watching any
"I do not remember watching any Hitchcock film which comes even close to the intrigue created by this film".
That is tall praise indeed! Cant wait to catch hold of this film.
I was probably judging the film by
I was probably judging the film by Indian standards. It is simply unthinkable to accept something completely alien in the framework without it having a narrative significance through symbolism, isn't it? You are probably right. Makes me want to watch the film again. I do not remember watching any Hitchcock film which comes even close to the intrigue created by this film.
Lemming is not similar to Hitchcock but
Lemming is not similar to Hitchcock but it is a brilliantly plotted thriller. Not so many filmmakers who plot thrillers so brilliantly that we are hypnotized. Difficult to write about all aspects of a film in a review.
U should have also talked about the
U should have also talked about the ingenuous sound treatment in Lemming... I have to yet watch the film. But from what I read and heard, sound painted the backdrops for the narration in a most brilliant way.
Thanks for bringing this film to our
Thanks for bringing this film to our notice. It is really very intriguing. A lemming in the kitchen? Seems to be a nod to Hitchcock's The Birds. It also reminded me of another French Film La Moustache where the symbolic device of a missing moustache leads to the breakdown of a healthy marriage and personality disintegration. Moustache was another fascinating film as I am sure this one is too. But methinks these films are too outlandish due to their surreal narrative devices to be compared with the structured thrillers of Hitchcocks. Styles are not very similar.
This is an extremely clear and
This is an extremely clear and reasonable disagreement with my review. While I concede that the lemming could be symbol for the relationship Johnson's view does not contradict my own view that it is extraneous to the central plot. My own sense is that something can't be put into a film only as a 'symbol' but must play some part in strengthening the the film's narration. I will suggest that the 'tension' created by the lemming in the unfolding of the film is entirely different from the 'tensions' one experiences in relationships. I would like to add that if Dominik Moll wanted the lemming to be a 'symbol' about surprise impediments in excessively cordial relationships instead of simply being a narrative device, it would also make Lemming a lesser film, don't you think?
I actually thought the lemming was
I actually thought the lemming was supposed to represent the kind of underlying tensions that we have in our relationships, even with our closest people. I know, it sounds a little farfetched, but, all that I could get through the film was that Alain's character wasn't fully exposed. The problems that spring up on the 'ideal' couple are as unexpected as the appearence of the scandinavian rodent. And they do not lie at a distance, they are within Alain himself, like the lemming in the kitchen sink. Alain's sexual affinities are never made clear, nor the tensions beneath the layer of his 'happy', married life. Isn't it superficial to maintain that level of cordiality? I think the most accessible character was probably that of Alice, though the most powerful. Your review is simple and logical, but, I find it a little difficult to accept your proposition that the lemming was placed simply as a narrative device to prepare us for a larger improbability, though it might have been a major intent.