Читаем The Great Movies III полностью

Paul insists on "no names," no personal histories. Their meetings in the apartment are not dates but occasions for sex, which he defines and she accepts. The pairing of the twenty-year-old girl and the unkempt fortyfive-year-old man seems unlikely, but Bertolucci enriches it through their extraordinary dialogue. Brando and Schneider seem natural and spontaneous. Their conversations are rare in not seeming written, not seeming to point to a purpose or conclusion; they are the sorts of things these people might really say, and it's remarkable how relaxed, even playful and sweet, Paul can be with her, when he is not dictating their brutal sexual couplings (at no point can they be said to "make love").

Schneider's performance has been discounted over the years. This is said to be Brando's film. "Both characters are enigmas,"I wrote in 1995, "but Brando knows Paul, while Schneider is only walking in Jeanne's shoes." Seeing the film again, I believe I was wrong. Schneider, who plays much of the film completely nude, who is held in closeup during long scenes of extraordinary complexity, who at twenty-two had hardly acted before, shares the film with Brando and meets him in the middle. What Hollywood actress of the time could have played Brando on his own field?

In 1995 I wrote: "He is in scenes as an actor, she is in scenes as a thing. "Wrong again. They are both in scenes as actors, but I was seeing her as a thing, fascinated by the disconnect between her adolescent immaturity and voluptuous body. I objectified her, but Paul does not, and neither does the movie. That he keeps his secrets, refuses intimacy, treats her roughly is explained by the scene with the body of his wife, and perhaps by his own experience of sex.

When I interviewed her in 1975, Schneider said she and Brando improvised the bathroom scene-the scene where he shaves while they talk. Brando always liked to have something to do with his hands, some kind of business, and here their dialogue is as close to overheard real conversation as it is probably possible to come. They even misspeak from time to time. There are little pauses and disconnects. The conversation seems to be finding its way.

In a film posited on two characters remaining strangers, Bertolucci and his actors achieve a kind of intimacy the movies rarely approach. Real behavior is permitted; in a scene with his wife's lover, Marcel, Paul coughs, and we sense that is Brando actually coughing, and accepting that he has coughed, and that in other movies actors never cough, except when it is in the screenplay.

The film is not perfect. The character of Tom is a caricature that only grows more distracting over the years. Leaud, the star of Truffaut's autobiographical films, behaves not as if he is a movie director, but as if he's playing one-not in this film but in another film, maybe a musical comedy. The dialogue between Tom and Jeanne seems unnatural and forced. We don't believe it, and we don't care.

What happens in the apartment between Paul and Jeanne is what the movie is about: how sex fulfills two completely different needs. Paul needs to lose himself to mourning and anger, to force his manhood on this stranger because he failed with his wife. Jeanne responds to a man who, despite his pose of detachment, is focused on her, who desperately needs her (if for reasons she does not understand). He is the opposite of Tom, who says he wants to film every moment of her life, but is thinking of his film, not of her. Jeanne senses that Paul needs her as she may never be needed again in all of her life. Her despair at the end is not because of lost romance, but because Paul no longer seems to need her.

Then there is the closing sequence, in which Paul abandons the behavior of the empty room, reveals his name, tells her about his life, seems to desire her in the banal way a middle-aged man might desire a sexy girl. That changes everything. Is it plausible, what she does to him when he follows her into her mother's apartment? I don't know, but I know the movie could not end with both of them still alive. Much has been said about Brando's death scene in The Godfather, but what other actor would have thought to park his chewing gum before the most important moment of his life?


Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Публичное одиночество
Публичное одиночество

Что думает о любви и жизни главный режиссер страны? Как относится мэтр кинематографа к власти и демократии? Обижается ли, когда его называют барином? И почему всемирная слава всегда приводит к глобальному одиночеству?..Все, что делает Никита Михалков, вызывает самый пристальный интерес публики. О его творчестве спорят, им восхищаются, ему подражают… Однако, как почти каждого большого художника, его не всегда понимают и принимают современники.Не случайно свою книгу Никита Сергеевич назвал «Публичное одиночество» и поделился в ней своими размышлениями о самых разных творческих, культурных и жизненных вопросах: о вере, власти, женщинах, ксенофобии, монархии, великих актерах и многом-многом другом…«Это не воспоминания, написанные годы спустя, которых так много сегодня и в которых любые прошлые события и лица могут быть освещены и представлены в «нужном свете». Это документированная хроника того, что было мною сказано ранее, и того, что я говорю сейчас.Это жестокий эксперимент, но я иду на него сознательно. Что сказано – сказано, что сделано – сделано».По «гамбургскому счету» подошел к своей книге автор. Ну а что из этого получилось – судить вам, дорогие читатели!

Никита Сергеевич Михалков

Кино