MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

La Vie Marion Cotillard

After seeing roughly the first two acts of La Vie en rose/La Mome/Edith Piaf- Ha-Haim B’Varod/Pariisin varpunen /The Passionate Life of Edith Piaf/Zoi san triantafyllo in New York a couple of weeks ago, I was convinced that Marion Cotillard had given a remarkable technical performance, but as far as it being as definitive a performance for 2007 as some were saying out of Berlin… I was unconvinced.
After seeing the whole film here at AFI Dallas last night, I finally understand what they are talking about.
A fairly accomplished video director and insignificant film director, Olivier Dahan structured the film (which he shares writing credit on with first-timer Isabelle Sobelman) in a way that almost challenges the audience to figure out what the hell he is after. He flops restlessly between young Edith and “old” Edith with plenty of middle-aged Edith (which was, sadly for La Mome, her mid 20s) while also maintaining some story order… an explanation which may well be as confusing as the structure of the film. Really, if you thought Pulp Fiction mixed it up, you’re gonna be looking for your protractor in this one.
BUT… the third act pays off like frickin’ gangbusters, in great part because the theme of this woman’s life starts to pay off. Remarquable!!!

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Responses to “La Vie Marion Cotillard”

  1. James Leer says:

    It may be a great technical performance, but watching this movie was like driving a stake into my brain for 2+ hours.

  2. wholovesya says:

    Totally disagree with you Leer. I thought it was fantastic. I agree with Poland, her performance and the third act totally pay off.
    And that (spoiler) scene where she finds out Marcel has died? Incredibly well done.
    If only they hadn’t ignored her experiences during WW II…which is somewhat bizarre…
    (edited by DP to create a more clear spoiler note)

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon