Picture courtesy: screendaily.com
SOUNDING OFF ABOUT SIGHT
FEB 20, 2010 – WHEN THE TITLES FLASH ACROSS THE OPENING FRAMES of this presently Oscar-nominated foreign film, the text flickers in small fissures upon a dark screen, as if alphabets in white were bubbling up from underneath a sea of black. The effect is that of an iris-out (or an iris-in), a mask closing down on (or opening up from) the names of cast and crew. We think, at first, that this is just a style element – perhaps reflective of the gloomy insides of the prison where this drama unfurls, or perhaps indicative of fleeting glimmers of hope in the midst of all the bleakness. The possibilities for imaginative extrapolation, based on this title sequence, are endless. We have yet to step into the story of Malik El Djebena (Tahar Rahim), who’s incarcerated for six years for an unspecified crime that resulted in injuries to a policeman, and who, subsequently, rises from errand boy of a Corsican criminal fraternity – headed by César Luciani (Niels Arestrup) – to cunning wheeler-dealer with his own network of nefarious operations.
But once the title sequence ends, we note the same technique being applied to the first scene, where Malik is hauled off to prison… And yet again, when Malik, who’s illiterate and who learns to read in prison, pores over an elementary alphabet book… And yet again, when Malik, in a hallucinatory dream, wrestles with the spirit of a man he’s murdered. This excessively showy effect appears at odds with the life-sized verité feel of the rest of the narrative – so why is it employed ever so often? Is there a purpose? Or is it simply one of those gold-plated carrots that art-film directors like to dangle in front of excessively committed audiences in order to sit back and laugh about the various “meanings” that will be unearthed, much like how The Beatles wrote in the willful obfuscations of Glass Onion so their worshipful listeners could engage in connect-the-dots-that-aren’t-really-dots guessing games.
Since we’ll never really know, here’s a shot at interpreting this mysterious effect. After Malik starts out on his own, he finishes a bit of business and is on his way back, when he passes César, sitting alone in his cell. Something – force of habit, perhaps, from the errand-boy days of asking César whether coffee needed to be made, or if more bread was required – makes Malik knock. César looks back, and asks, “Where were you?” Malik replies that he was at the registrar’s office. César asks if it went well, and if Malik has eaten. Malik replies that he’s in a rush, that he has to see a guy, but César insists, “He’ll wait. Come and have a coffee.” This could be the older man’s way of showing the upstart Malik that he’s still boss. Malik walks in and seats himself, as César begins, “I want to talk to you. I’ve seen you with that tall guy, the Gypsy, in the yard. What’s your thing? Hashish? Pills?” Malik says it’s hash, and smirks, “You want your share?” But that’s not it. César laughs, “It’s your business. It concerns you.”
But there is something that concerns César, and that’s the possibility that Malik’s activities, if discovered, could end his trips to the outside world, during which he carries out tasks for César – and that César cannot have. He takes his spoon out of the coffee cup, licks it clean, and without warning, he stabs Malik’s eye. “What did I tell you last time?” he barks. “I said to watch your step. Don’t risk your leave. You’re of use if you go on leave, Djebena. If you don’t, then what good are you?” César yanks the spoon from Malik’s eye, shoves the screaming man towards the door and asks him to get lost. The next time they meet – after a night Malik has spent huddled in agony over his wounded eye – we see César the way Malik sees him, a flickering iris-out vision in the centre of a screen that is otherwise black.
“No longer scared of me?” César snarls. “If you can walk around this place, it’s because I had made you porter. If you eat, it’s thanks to me. If you dream, think, live, it’s thanks to me… Dumb shit! The name Luciani is branded on your face. You live off me, Djebena.” The vision of César becomes a blinding white, as if Malik’s is truly in pain. César continues, “People look at you and see me. Otherwise what would they see?” The scene ends, the screen fades to black, the next scene begins to play out with that by-now familiar visual effect – and it does seem that, finally, it means something. The effect, all along, has been foreshadowing this moment where Malik begins to live with a damaged eye. And if you’re wondering what foreshadowing has to do with anything, you just have to look back at the film’s title. Malik, thereon, evolves into a vague prophet, a seer afflicted with visions of events before they happen – and the first thing he sees, apparently, is that he’ll never see the same way again.
Un Prophète (2009, French, Arabic, Corsican; aka A Prophet). Directed by Jacques Audiard. Starring Tahar Rahim, Niels Arestrup, Adel Bencherif.
Copyright ©2010 The New Indian Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
brangan
February 19, 2010
Trying to cover the five Foreign Film Oscar nominees over the next five weeks…
LikeLike
Upamanyu
February 19, 2010
Are these films releasing in India?
LikeLike
Aravindan
February 19, 2010
Whoa! Gonna watch it tonight (got others too!)! Will read it after that 😀
Saw “The White Ribbon”. Waiting for your piece! And, err, has the order of these reviews got anything to do with your preferences? 😉
LikeLike
brangan
February 19, 2010
Upamanyu: Er, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Aravindan: No, but I did prefer this to White Ribbon, which seemed a little too self-important (and also very reminiscent of Cache, though it’s clearer this time who the perpetrators are and the ending isn’t *as* ambiguous). I hope Haneke doesn’t end up a one-trick shock-and-awe pony.
LikeLike
arijit
February 19, 2010
i wouldn’t say haneke is a one trick shoch and awe pony…did you see the piano teacher?
LikeLike
Shalini
February 19, 2010
BR, do you ever watch the films that you have to review with friends or family? Just curious if “professional” movie watchers like you would find that too distracting or if you can will yourself into a “bheed ke beech akelaa” type mode.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
February 19, 2010
Aha. Now we’re talking! I’ve only seen three of those five. Felt TWR was an average work. This one is fantastic.
Well, the blurred vision was central to the narrative, as you have brilliantly derived. I felt the film WAS about the vision of the world in this particular decade affected by terror and equally appalling war on terror.
And in this war you are Muslim if your name and birth says so, no matter what you believe in. It’s a truly deep film, unlike Haneke’s one note illustration, that will get better and better with time for sure.
LikeLike
brangan
February 20, 2010
arijit: I was talking about the more recent stuff. I’m not a big fan of Funny Games either. There’s a sadistic streak that’s become more prominent in the way he writes his characters.
Shalini: I try to watch films alone. It’s way too distracting to watch films as a “job requirement” when everyone else is watching it for fun (even the serious ones). Plus, you don’t want to be influenced by random reactions, which can colour your viewing.
JAFB: I didn’t quite extrapolate the film to the global sense that you did (for me, it worked as a very personal story), but now that you mention it, it’s interesting. Thanks.
LikeLike
prasun
February 20, 2010
This post should have come with a spoiler alert 🙂 . Although I am not sure I am going to watch this considering I missed the screenings at the film fest here.
LikeLike
Rahul
February 20, 2010
Niels Arestrup has an uncanny resemblance to Mahesh Manjrekar..He even has similar mannerisms!
LikeLike
Arif Attar
February 20, 2010
I don’t think you have reviewed any of last year’s nominees . The Baader-Meinhof Complex, Waltz with Bashir, Departures Have you?
LikeLike
Vikas Bhargava
February 21, 2010
How do get to see this movie BR? Do you order DVDs from abroad or what? I dont know if they are shown in discrete film festivals in India or is it through the dreaded “T”?
LikeLike
brangan
February 21, 2010
Arif Attar: No, I didn’t. Got the ides just this year, and depending on availability of prints, I hope this becomes an annual feature during Oscar-time.
Vikas Bhargava: In this particular case, an ad-filmmaker acquaintance gave me a DVD. Otherwise, if you know the right Burma Bazaar-type people, no movie (Or TV series) is too difficult to source 🙂
LikeLike
Abubaker
February 21, 2010
If you haven’t checked this..
http://www.flicksandbits.com/2010/01/15/jacques-audiard-interview-director-of-a-prophet/
LikeLike
Varun
February 21, 2010
Wow! I had seen The Prophet at a french film festival in Mumbai and today, around 3-months later, after reading this, the film seems complete to me.
Watching good cinema on big screen is, i think, the greatest ‘time pass’ (in the sense Beckett writes in ‘Waiting for Godot’ – what is life, if not passing time?) available to the mankind. And this one ranked as the best i have had in some years.
I interpreted this much that the ‘effect’ had something to do with him being a Prophet and hence the visions. Also, the whole angle about an Arab being a prophet (yet again) in a world so badly skewed against Muslims today, was a masterstroke.
But, as i said, your interpretation completed the story for me in a magical way. Thanks!
LikeLike
Aravindan
February 22, 2010
It’s great to read this piece as soon as i finish watching the film, adds more value to my watching! Thank you!
For me, the single greatest thing in the film is Tahar’s performance. I suspect i woundn’t able to see him as someone else in other films for a long time.
LikeLike
Sid
February 26, 2010
Looking forward to your write-ups on the other nominees. I will be watching A Prophet very soon.
I think The White Ribbon is excellent (typically formalistic and unnerving work from Haneke but also quite different from his other films). I think Cache is still his best, though.
LikeLike