"The Dreamers"
**** (out of ****)
Sex, politics and cinema. Few filmmakers have devoted their careers to such themes in the way Italian maestro, the late Bernardo Bertolucci did. When "The Dreamers" (2004) - which is celebrating its 20th anniversary - was released in theaters it felt like a comeback for a director that never went away. It had a revitalized energy that had been missing in previous Bertolucci films such as "Stealing Beauty" (1996), which dealt with similar themes.
Much like "Stealing Beauty", "The Dreamers", based on a novel by Gilbert Adair - who also wrote the film's screenplay - is a story about youth, friction between the generations, sex, and art. But unlike "Beauty", Bertolucci had found the perfect setting for his story, to compliment its themes, Paris 1968. What begins as a cinematic protest over the firing of Cinematheque Francaise founder and director Henri Langlois, grows into larger political and social unrest, mirroring actions in the United States over Vietnam protests, which erupted at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago. For a moment in time, change seemed possible. Optimism and revolt were in the air, as illustrated by one of the lead characters display of Chairman Mao ornaments and posters.
The film revolves around a college aged American tourist in Paris named Matthew (Michael Pitt) who forms a friendship with Parisian siblings Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel). The three often spot each other at the Cinematheque and one day during the protests over Langlois, Isabelle and Matthew finally exchange words. While they each share a passion for cinema - going beyond that of everyday film buffs - Matthew soon finds himself often the outsider of Isabelle and Theo's "games" and seemingly incestuous relationship. This allows Bertolucci to pay a kind of homage to Jean-Pierre Melville's "Les Enfants Terribles" (1950), while he peppers the rest of his film with various other cinematic references, ranging from Bertolucci's own films to Greta Garbo and the work of Jacques Demy.
This is all meant to not only comment on our connection and obsession with movies but also intended to illustrate the generational clash that existed between the counter-culture with the prior generation. Isabelle and Theo's father is a poet, who doesn't comprehend his children's rebellious spirit. In a rare moment of lucidity, the right-wing troll of film criticism, Armond White, described the generational split in his New York Press review as "Bertolucci muses on that epochal split where a philosophical generation faced a generation of romantics."
It is easy to understand why a project such as "The Dreamers" would appeal to Bertolucci. Being a great artist, he most likely believed art could (and perhaps should) make social and political commentaries and that art could change society. The film's trio of lead characters represent this belief. The wonderful movie critic Michael Wilmington stated in his positive Chicago Tribune review, "For better or sometimes worse, "The Dreamers" is quintessential Bertolucci."
At its best "The Dreamers" takes us back to a time when society spoke and thought about art differently. When college students formed film clubs to debate and intellectualize about cinema with fierce passion. While I'm not on a college campus anymore, looking at today's American cinema, there seems to be a dynamic shift from "artists" today as to what makes great art and its purpose. Even when Roger Ebert reviewed "The Dreamers" in the
Chicago Sun-Times back in 2004 he was able to lament the differences occurring within society and film culture expressing the film "evokes a time when the movies - good movies, both classic and newborn - were at the center of youth culture."
Of course, youth and idealism is at the core of Bertolucci's film. How else do we interpret the title? But within a changing world idealism is soon challenged as the trio's conversations shift from the arts to politics. While the subject matter changes Theo and Matthew debate with the same heightened level of passion, as if the subject doesn't matter, only one's devotion does. As they debate Vietnam and the draft, Theo believes if you don't support the war, simply don't go and fight. Matthew explains what the consequences would be if someone didn't report after being drafted. The debate is as heated as when they discuss the merits of Jimi Hendrix vs Eric Clapton.
When "The Dreamers" was released in the United States, Bertolucci was 63 years old. And yet he was able to capture the essence of youth in a way that was seldom seen even by younger filmmakers. Bertolucci tapped into the emotional and sexual innocence of a youthful generation. The setting may be 1968 but nothing in the film feels necessarily nostalgic or old. Perhaps a point of the film. Life is a cyclical and the idealism of youth will repeat itself generation after generation for better or worse.
What managed to cause a stir with the public and critics was the sexuality of the film. It received an NC-17 rating which no doubt hurt its distribution and lead to misconceived notions from the public. Many equate an NC-17 rating to pornography. "The Dreamers" is not a pornographic film. While A.O. Scott at the New York Times described the film's sex scenes as "more explicit than even the most notorious scenes in "Last Tango." A reference to Bertolucci's often declared masterpiece, "Last Tango in Paris" (1972). I however didn't find the film to be shocking and / or explicit. The NC-17 rating comes from brief glimpses of both male and female frontal nudity. To disparage the film nevertheless as porn is to not appreciate the merit and significance of the film and speaks to this country's uncomfortable attitude towards sex. The "movie critic" Jonathan Rosenbaum correctly noted this in his Chicago Reader review stating, "If Adair and Bertolucci had sliced and diced their characters the way Quentin Tarantino chopped up his in Kill Bill - Vol. 1, The Dreamers might well have been given an R rating."
Sex in movies - and to an extent in life too - is never really just about sex. There is a power dynamic at play. By discovering his own sexual pleasure Matthew matures and begins to cause a rift between Isabelle and Theo. The games between them are foolish and naïve. Matthew has outgrown them and asserts his newly found masculine authority to make Isabelle choose between the two men in her life. Matthew also makes the two siblings confront what is beyond their games and movies - protesting in the streets. Yes, Theo may talk about Vietnam but he is not actively engaged. Instead this trio is confined to Isabelle and Theo's beautiful apartment. There is a great big world out there that is passing Isabelle and Theo by. Bertolucci suggest sex and movies may be a distraction from the outside world.
It's not a new concept for Bertolucci. The general public may think "Last Tango in Paris" was about sex but the film is actually about grief. Sex is how we alleviate the pain. In his equally controversial
"La Luna" (1979), Bertolucci places a mother in the difficult position of trying to cure her teenage son of a heroine addiction. The only means available to her to handle this situation is through sex.
By the end of "The Dreamers" I was left with a sad feeling. These characters and the world around them is being torn apart. The dividing lines are being set and the actions they take will have long lasting ramifications. The greatest divide may be between Theo and Matthew. Can their division be due to their emotional growth or lack thereof? Or is a due to each person's ideal of masculinity. Perhaps both. But I sensed a feeling of history will only repeat itself. The wrong decisions are being made. Such is youth and what it means to be a dreamer.
Bernardo Bertolucci (3/16/1941 - 11/26/2018) was viewed as a political radical early in his career and heavily influenced by the French New Wave and Jean-Luc Godard in particular. These films spoke to a disillusioned generation not engaged in politics with his second feature-length film, "Before the Revolution" (1964) being a prime example. His first significant international success was
"The Conformist" (1970), my own choice for Bertolucci's best film, about an assassin hired to kill one of his former professors, a known anti-Fascist. That was followed by his first English language film, "Last Tango in Paris", a film considered so sexual it initially earned an X rating in the United States but went on to receive Academy Award nominations for Marlon Brando's performance and Bertolucci's directing. It was slow going for Bertolucci with his films being greeted with mixed receptions, unable to achieve the critical acclaim he once did. It wasn't until "The Last Emperor" (1987) Bertolucci's talents were correctly recognized, with the film winning the Oscar for "Best Picture". But mixed reviews followed once again with the critical landscape only changing when "The Dreamers" was released. It became his second to last film. His final film, "Me and You" (2012) was released nearly a decade afterwards and not given wide distribution in the U.S.
In addition to acknowledging "The Dreamers" 20th anniversary, this is also the year of
Was I Right? on this blog. My year long theme of looking back at back I placed on previous year end top ten lists to determine if I was right to select them. Viewing "The Dreamers" again leads me to believe I was correct in my decision to declare this film as one of
the best movies of 2004.
Ever since the pandemic there has been a lot of talk about art and politics resulting in some overreach in the name of political correctness and inclusion and diversity. That makes "The Dreamers" seem relevant by addressing these topics but Bertolucci doesn't reach the same conclusion today's activists have.
I suppose that's what spoke most to me while viewing the film again and I why I believe it holds up. Personally I delight in its romanticized view of cinema and its ability to consume our lives and distract us. I enjoyed hearing the discussion about film and how serious art is taken. And I was pleased with the social commentary and what this time period is supposed to represent.
The question is can audiences in 2024 relate to the film? They didn't seem able to back in 2004. "The Dreamers" wasn't a box-office success and yet 2004 was a heated political year. Not only was there a presidential election but much debate about the Iraq War. You would think the political environment of the times would make "The Dreamers" relatable. In 2024 we have once again come off a political election with social unrest still in the air. Could "The Dreamers" not be political enough for today's audiences? Or are its views too simplistic for today's activist class?
While most of the positive reviews I read came from male critics - Roger Ebert, Michael Wilmington and A.O. Scott, I wondered does a film like "The Dreamers" allow them to wallow and bask in their own memories of youth? Is "The Dreamers" too male centric? I did read a couple of female critics review the film and their reaction to "The Dreamers" was negative. Both critics emphasized Isabelle's importance to the plot as Kimberly Jones in the Austin Chronicle put it, "The central dilemma is Isabelle's internal tug between mind and body". All of the male critics focused on Matthew. Something like this may prevent the film from finding an audience these twenty years later as the social environment has become "woke". It will provide activists the opportunity to dismissively label "The Dreamers" as too heterosexually male.
Still despite good reviews the film unfortunately didn't receive any major American award nominations, being completely shut out at the Academy Award and Golden Globes. It did receive various European award nominations however - Goya Award, European Film Award, and David di Donatello Awards (the Italian Oscars).
"The Dreamers" is a beautiful, romanticized look at cinema and politics. A tale about youth and its folly. For me it stands as one of Bernardo Bertolucci's best films and one I found as entertaining as I did twenty years ago when first viewing it.
Posts
