Written and Directed by Eric Toledano and Olivier Nakache
*** (three stars)
It never fails. There will always, always be someone to rain upon someone else's parade.
This review arrives to you with a healthy amount of impassioned incredulity, a feeling which I will fully explain shortly. "The Intouchables," from filmmakers Eric Toledano and Olivier Nakache, has already gained an enormous reputation from the international film community as it has become France's second highest grossing film in its history, just nine weeks after its November 2011 release. The film has also garnered significant major awards as well, as "The Intouchables" has received the Tokyo Sakura Grand Prix award for Best Film at the Tokyo International Film Festival. Additionally, leading actor Omar Sy has even received France's Cesar Award for Best Actor earlier this year, besting Jean Dupardin's masterful performance from "The Artist" (2011)! While I will admit to carrying a natural aversion to films that are described and even advertised as "feel good," and I was not as overwhelmingly swept away with the film as others have been, I will happily say that "The Intouchables" is indeed a most agreeable, congenial, sharply comic and often razor sharply hilarious, supremely humane and highly entertaining and effective film. It is a film I am pleased to recommend to you and it is also one that I could easily find myself watching again in the future.
My problem at this time does not concern the film itself but some of the reaction that has been launched against it by some so-called "well meaning" film critics who seem to be harboring a desire for stirring up a healthy dose of non-controversy instead of viewing the film as it obviously is. My concern lies deeply within the title of this piece, one that may carry a bit of a jolt to some of you and your sensibilities but I assure you was not designed for shock value.
For those familiar or not with the disparaging term, I will explain. "The Magic Negro" is a pejorative describing the unfortunate storytelling device of a seemingly saintly and almost supernaturally insightful black person who mysteriously enters the lives of white people and exists, not as a three dimensional human being, but solely as a conduit to effect change in the lives of those aforementioned white people. This term has been hurled at "The Intouchables" from several critics upon the film's American release regarding the character portrayed by Omar Sy and the role he plays in the lives of the film's white characters. But after having seen the film, that description baffled me at best and is profoundly insulting and offensive to me at the absolute worst in more ways than one. Dear readers, it's about to get savage up in here!
Before I take off my cinematic gloves, please allow me to first provide you with a brief overview of the film itself. "The Intouchables" stars Francois Cluzet as Philippe, a quadriplegic aristocrat who owns a vast mansion in Paris, occupied by himself and his bratty teenage daughter Elisa (Alba Gaia Kraghede Bellugi) and operated by his staff, including his assistants, the saucy Magalie (Audrey Fleurot) and the warm Marcelle (Clotilde Mollet).
One day, as Philippe and Magalie are tiredly interviewing candidates for a new, live-in caretaker, the two are surprised, to say the least, by the arrival of Driss (Omay Sy), a brash, brazen, impatient force of a young man from the Parisian projects. To Philippe's initial confusion, which eventually leads to a keen interest, Driss boldly expresses his disinterest in the position of becoming Philippe's caretaker and that he solely wants a signature, proving that he has been interviewed and ultimately rejected for employment, a status that will ensure he can continue to receive welfare benefits to assist his family. Philippe informs Driss that he may be able to return the next day to receive his signature yet when Driss arrives at the arranged time, he soon discovers that he has actually been hired on a trial period basis.
Driss is immediately given his own room which he sloppily occupies. He flirts shamelessly with Magalie, begins a gradual friendship with Marcelle and all the while stumbles and fumbles, in an extremely cavalier, careless and non-compassionate fashion, with Philippe's care giving services. Yet, a friendship between the two men begins to slowly emerge, as Philippe clearly enjoys working with a man who, while inconsiderate and completely unprofessional, never treats or sees him through the eyes of pity. Driss soon begins to understand the fullness of his newfound responsibility as he becomes a diligent caregiver over time and most importantly, a much needed confidant and treasured friend to Philippe.
"The Intouchables" is indeed a type of film that typically wins me over as it is not a film about a plot but a film that is entirely about the characters, their relationships and behavior while presenting a semblance of life as it is truly lived. Yes, the credits of the film announce that it is indeed yet another film "based upon a true story," but these days, I tend to not place terribly much credence with that particular descriptive. Whether "The Intouchables" follows the lives on which the film is based to either the veritable letter or just barely, the success or failure of "The Intouchables" lies completely within the relationship between Driss and Philippe. For me and my sensibilities, this cinematic relationship is one that felt to be authentic, as all of the drama remained inherent and unforced. The three dimensions of both men unfolded and were revealed with skill, respect, a tremendous sense of heart and humanity and as I have stated previously, this film is often, and unexpectedly, funny as hell!
The humor of "The Intouchables" is something that I do wish to touch upon as the levels to which the film brought me to loudly enthusiastic laughter was truly remarkable as the comedy never unseated the drama of the piece whatsoever. Much like Director Jonathan Levine's strong "50/50" from last year, I felt that the comedy actually enhanced the drama. I found myself laughing in "The Intouchables" so frequently that when the dramatic sequences occurred, the film reached a level of poignancy that nearly upended me with its heft and soulfulness. Toledano and Nakache quickly and very effectively established that difficult, sometimes elusive yet always essentially proper sense of tonality that allowed the true rhythms of life and interpersonal relationships to inform any sense of cinematic formula on display.
Through humor and drama, the relationship between Philippe and Driss is the key to the entire experience of "The Intouchables," as I have previously stated. While I won't get into any specifics, as to not produce spoilers and to allow the film to work its magic over you in the same way it did for me, I found this film to exist as an eloquent duet of two angry, sad, damaged men who not only see and fulfill the missing pieces within each other, but discover new levels of potential for themselves to lead richer, fuller lives. And to think, Toledano and Nakache achieve this feat without utilizing any maudlin or disastrously cloying storytelling devices. They just allow Philippe and Driss to speak, live and breathe for themselves, allowing the audience, for the most part, to connect any emotional dots for themselves.
I have absolutely no idea if Francois Cluzet is truly paralyzed from the neck down or not. And in many respects, despite my curiosity, I do not think that I even really want to know. As Philippe, Cluzet is outstanding as he is able to convey a completeness of a life lived with only the usage of his face and voice. His emotional state, during all stages of this film, are crystal clear and go a long way with enlightening those of us who are completely able bodied, to an aspect of a paralyzed person's physical existence and emotional inner life. His resentments, disappointments and rage are certainly evident. But, when we have the opportunity to become privy to Philippe's insecurities, his hopes, exasperations, to even his sexual habits and desires, that is where "The Intouchables" rises to a stronger level than most films of this sort would ever begin or even attempt to reach.
But, now I must turn my attention to Omar Sy who is undeniably an astoundingly magnetic and supremely charismatic on-screen presence. You simply cannot take your eyes off of this man due to his attractiveness, and physicality certainly, but his strengths as an actor cannot be denied in any conceivable way. While for my money, I would never unseat Jean Dujardin's exraordinary performance in "The Artist" with Sy's work in "The Intouchables," Sy does elicit a marvellous performance that is more than deserving of any accolades it has already received and will hopefully continue to receive.
And here is where my cinematic gloves need to come off...
The outcry of racism directed towards "The Intouchables" is completely asinine and frankly, unfounded as there is absolutely nothing in this film, as far as I am concerned, that felt to me to be false, offensive, or remotely stereotypical as far as the character of Driss is concerned. In fact, and without any knowledge of the real world circumstances that have inspired this film, I even felt the character of Driss (despite a key line of dialogue here and there) could even exist as race neutral, a person that could have even been portrayed by a white actor. Yes, Driss is from the projects. Yes, Driss has had some run ins with the law. Yes, Driss listens to 1970s funk music, with Earth, Wind & Fire as a personal favorite. But, if "The Intouchables" were a film that could be classified as racist, then those elements would be the only things we would ever know about Driss. But, Toledano, Nakache and the wonderful Omar Sy wisely understand that these elements are aspects to this character not binding definitions about his behavior and overall humanity. Simply stated, the projects, a criminal past and funk music are all elements about Driss but they do not define who he is as a black man or as a human being.
But even so, some critics have cried foul and have branded Driss as "The Magic Negro" of "The Intouchables" as he is not only able to utilize his insight to enact a sense of change in Philippe's life but also the lives of his daughter and his assistant Marcelle as well. But, again if that were the sole thrust of the film, then those critics would have a leg to stand upon...and firmly so. But, I vehemently disagree with those critics wholeheartedly because as Driss does indeed enact change for several of the film's white characters, he also gains new insights about himself and discovers moments of change through his interactions, new experiences and most certainly, his building friendship with Philippe. Yet, do not think that "The Intouchables" is a situation like some misbegotten, severely misguided "Diff'rent Strokes" fantasy where the rich white people teach and show the poor black man a better way of life he could never obtain for himself. Quite the contrary, Driss is defiantly his own man, with his own world view, hopes, fears, outlook and design for his existence at the forefront of his being. The way the character is written and performed, I easily had the feeling that Driss would have possibly arrived at many of the same crossroads and revelations in his life whether he had met Philippe or not.
Even so, Driss' evolution in "The Intouchables" is firmly linked with Philippe's evolution, making the events of the film a shared journey and not a film where the hapless, shiftless negro learns valuable life lessons from the advanced, wealthy white folks who simply know better due to their race and level within the social/economic hierarchy. In turn, Driss' sense of insight towards Philippe's life is not at all based in the supernatural world of 'The Magic Negro," but completely in being a completely fresh set of eyes in a world where all of the internal issues and tensions have stagnated due to the act of living with them for so long. Anyone could have entered Philippe's mansion and arrived at the exact same conclusions as Driss. The fact that Driss is black has nothing to do with it.
Even one line of dialogue in the film has raised some critics' ire as well. At Philippe's birthday party, an evening classical music themed event at the mansion, which Philippe's morosely attends himself, Driss arrives, soemwhat reluctantly, in mostly formal dress. After he makes more playfully suggestive remarks to Magalie, she then makes a quip about Driss' resemblance to President Barack Obama. This line, and Driss' response to it (which is hysterical) was obviously designed to satirize the white characters while also being delivered in flirtatious jest and not racial comeuppance. To me, that tiny bit of film was one that did elicit a racial component but not in the way it has been criticized. For me, this is an example of Driss understanding how the rich, white world works in regards to how some people within that world view a person like himself. Driss may have his faults but he is nobody's fool, nobody's toy, pet or plaything as he completely spins the event to his advantage. And most of all, and exactly like Philippe, Driss is nobody to be pitied.
Dear readers, these critics who have claimed that "The Intouchables" is an insensitive film based upon those aforementioned characteristics is indeed a hyperbolic non-controversy that has shown to me that their criticisms say much more about them than they say about the filmmakers and the film itself. A wonderful test to give those critics who have branded this film as racist would be the following: Imagine "The Intouchables" in exactly the same way, but with Driss as a poor white man from the projects, a criminal past and a love for 1970s funk music and tell me if it would be racist then?And beyond that, why don't these same critics say something, anything when cinematic white characters enter the world of black people and enact change through their specialized brand of insight?
Honestly, where were these self-righteous, self-congratulatory purveyors of cinematic racial injustice when films like that arrive in our movie theaters. There are great films, like Director Joe Wright's "The Soloist" (2009), which like "The Intouchables" took those particular conceits and presented them as a shared journey between the white and black characters as portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx, as well as being highly critical of Downey Jr.s' character's intents and motivations.
But, what about movies, and OSCAR NOMINATED films at that, like "The Blind Side" (2009) and for GOD'S sakes, "The Help" (2011) ?! Both of those films contains stories about African Americans, but those characters were completely sidelined within their own stories in favor of the Caucasian characters who exist to save them as African Americans are obviously not able to save themselves. What is this need and apparent desire to view black people as endlessly noble silent suffers who need saving by the hands of wealthy, well-meaning white people? Why do these films exist that never portray black people as members of the human race but completely as objects for liberal white viewers to feel good about themselves over and alleviate any sense of white guilt some may harbor? What problem is it that these critics have with the sight of a young, attractive, intelligent, sharply articulate, three dimensionally presented black man who drives his own life story that they feel the need to tear the image down under the guise of protecting viewers from cinematic racism?
If a critic did not like "The Intouchables" for its storytelling, filmmaking or just did not respond to it emotionally, then of course, speak your mind and take it apart. If the film were legitimately racist, then I would indeed be there bashing away with them. But, when these critics, these writers create controversy and end up writing for other writers, their actions serve absolutely no one but themselves and continue to denigrate the black audience, black filmmakers, black actors and even black characters who are branded with ugly terminology like "The Magic Negro" because they have had the audacity to enact profound change in the white world.
How come white characters do not hold a similar moniker when they perform the exact same storytelling devise over and over and over and over again and get nominated for awards over their actions to boot? Oh yes, how could I have been so negligent? Of course, those white characters posses a name that envelopes their cinematic good deeds to the endlessly noble, silently suffering black community whom are all just obviously, collectively and desperately waiting for a savior.
Those white characters are called "heroes."
No comments:
Post a Comment