Monday 11 March 2013

INTOUCHABLES (Untouchable/The Intouchables) [2011]


DRIVING MONSIEUR POZZO DI BORGO



2011, France
Eric Toledano, Olivier Nakache
9 // 10




Have the English lost their sense of humour altogether? How much do you need to know about ear-licking? Is Maserati Quattroporte a suitable replacement for a wheelchair? There's only one way to find out! 

I've no idea why it took me so long, but as you can see it's been some time before I managed to finally catch up with the biggest French cinematic sensation in recent years. It first took Europe by the storm (well, the parts of Europe that matter - we'll come back to it), took America (and Canada) by the storm, was a centimetre away from getting an Oscar nomination and then kept on circulating until more then a year later I finally managed to lay my hands on a DVD. How silly of me to have waited so long...
For those who don't know it, the film is about a poor Senegalese man from the suburbs getting a job as a personal help to a quadriplegic millionaire. And when you present it this way it doesn't really sound like something to write home about. I mean, any half-wit of a Hollywood-bred producer could come up with such concept and thanks to advances in technology draft the script on the tablet without even leaving the toilet. True but... it's not about 'what', it's all about 'how'. And then also about one more thing, which I shall not reveal as I would hate to spoil the pleasure for you. 

So what is so special about this film? At some point, the wheelchair-bound Philippe (François Cluzet) says that he does not look for pity. And that's exactly what this is about. It is so refreshing to see a film based around a disabled character, that is not trying to beg on its knees for sympathy, a film that is not cynically using cheap tricks to emotionally ass rape you, like, oh, I don't know, The Sea Inside does? Also, what shouldn't be ignored, it is a film that cheerfully sticks its middle finger out to the political correctness in such a charming way that only a complete idiot could feel offended by it. Which, incidentally, brings us to the English. The Untouchable arrived here somewhat delayed. I guess originally it wasn't even considered for the distribution but after the overwhelming international success someone decided that maybe there's a penny or two to be made out of it. But then it all kind of fizzled out or something... Untouchable earned more money in countries like Austria (8.4 million people), Israel (7.9 million) or even Denmark (5.5 million) then in 60 million strong, France's next door neighbour, Britain. It also seems that the British press gave it by far the coldest reception with even as prominent titles as The Independent calling it a third-rate buddy movie that hardly understands its condescension. You can read the whole of this joke of a review here if you must but it's hardly worth clicking. All you need to know and try to remember is that Anthony Quinn of The Independent is just yet another of those 'critics' who have nothing to say, so they try to make a name for themselves by trying to be controversial at random. This review also proves that Anthony Quinn of The Independent did not watch the film to the end, nor has he read the press-pack. But what of others? Did England really find Untouchable not funny at all? Let's not forget that apart from Amelie, French films don't seem to do here as well as in proper Europe, for example. But then again, Amelie is a whimsical fantasy story, while comedy masterpieces like Untouchable, Le Diner de Cons (The Dinner Game, 1998), Le Placard (The Closet, 2001), or Bienvenue Chez Le Ch'tis (Welcome to the Sticks, 2008) despite their overwhelming international success and recognition, in the UK remain pretty much a well-kept secret for the DVD enthusiasts. And this is happening in a country that prides itself in its legendary sense of humour. Which brings us to another paradox. See, France has an opinion of a highly bureaucratic country that also has pushed the political correctness in the public life to unhealthy extremes. And yet, there's still enough common sense there and artistic freedom to carry on giving the world such films as mentioned above, mercilessly targeting and ridiculing social taboos or racial and sexual stereotypes in one purpose only: to expose human stupidity lurking underneath. These are important artistic values, which you'd be hard pressed to find across the Channel. Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill or Love Actually may well be intelligent, witty and charming, even naughty here and there, but you can watch them in safe knowledge that at no point will you be challenged on a moral ground. As enjoyable as they are, they will never make you ask yourself a single question, which is something those French comedies can do with such beautiful balance, that should they be a meal, it'd be both delicious and healthy. So while the French are a bit PC-obsessed in public life and much more liberal in art, the English seemed to have build themselves fantastic PR as an open-minded forefront of tolerance and a world capital of sense of humour and yet, deep inside, when the push comes to a shove, they cringe and crawl back into their shells every time they are exposed to anything they find challenging to their deeply prudent, protestant way of life. And if you think that I'm exaggerating, just look at the age rating. While in France Untouchable received U (Tous publics - all audiences), the UK rating is 15. Why? Well, guess what, there's some swearing there. Not a single nipple in sight, not a drop of blood. There's just some swearing (perfectly fitting the context) and a couple of joints being shared. Which is too much for the Puritans. 

Have I digressed? A bit, it seems. But then again, what did you expect? A summary? I'm not good at those, so you might as well just watch the film yourself. What I'm trying to say though, is that you'd have to be missing a brain or a heart (optionally both) not to enjoy it. And if, unlike Anthony Quinn of The Independent, an alleged film critic, you watch it to the end, you will now why this film is not only funny and clever, but it is also bloody important.

2 comments:

  1. Fortunately, I am not the only one who hates this movie. I admit, it's funny. It's very well made and very well acted. In many ways this is a very good film. But it's also bloody racist burgeois crap. The only thing this film says, is that if you're black, you're dumb as fuck. But - oh, praise the Lord - you can be better and smarter. If only white rich man will help you.
    Not to mention that real-life Driss is an Arab. Oops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right... After bloody Blogger ate my comment, I'll try again.

      I think I was trying to say that try as I might, I can't see any of those things you talk about. First, Driss is not dumb to start with, he's not dumb at any point. He doesn't get any smarter after meeting Philippe and to some extent he actually outsmarts him. Second, you'd really need to explain to me a bit more, what's racist here. That Driss comes from the suburbs and the white guy's a millionaire? Well, it kind of, happened that way in the real life, didn't it? I mean, I don't hear you condemning La Haine for being racist, since it's sprawling with immigrants living in the suburbs of Paris...
      Another thing, unless I already forgot the film completely, at no point Philippe is taking advantage of Driss, nor does he abuse his social position. If anything, it's the other way round sometimes (Hitler's moustache anyone?).

      So, I don't know... You may have meant more than you said, but as it stands, your comment only makes me think of the good, old Marxist-Leninist school of film critique: everything is about the class struggle. Give it a break. It's a good film and you think too much :P

      Delete