I agree with Panivong Norindr’s view of Indochine as a “dangerous fascination precisely because it brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in southeast Asia.” Not only are the images presented without question but so too is the characterization of its main player, Eliane. At times she seems to move effortlessly between the two worlds of Southeast Asia and France. But her relationship with both worlds is presented in only the most superficial manner. There is no close look at what it takes to make a plantation run, no explanation as to why men afraid for their lives would be more afraid of the plantation owner, so that they enter the factory after the fire. I agree with Roger Ebert that there is something very Gone With the Wind like in the film. There is an overall fascination with the romantic ideal of Indochina, of life on a rubber plantation without a corresponding understanding of the realities required to make such a plantation run.
I also found Eliane’s opium smoking interesting. It is never really explored or discussed but clearly there is a problem if she moves from the occasional smoke at her summerhouse with a lover, to days spent laid out in an opium den The only person Eliane seems to defer to is Madame Tanh and perhaps that is because she knows of her opium addiction. Eliane is taken to Madame Tanh’s house after her latest opium binge and it is there that she finds out that Camille is to marry Madame Tanh’s son. She seems willing to give up Camille to the Tanhs with little fight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
i know there was so much lacking from the film historically.... oh, but wasn't it beautiful?!?! i think one reviewer said it was the Frech "Gone With the Wind, minus Scarlett grubbing for potatoes? (-:
ummm. meant French, not Frech.
I like the movie review, though wish had time to watch it.
I agree with Panivong Norindr’s view of Indochine as a “dangerous fascination precisely because it brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in southeast Asia.”
----------
I had problems with all of the reviews.
I didn't see much that was positive about French colonial rule presented in the movie...
We see exploitation of the native peoples, who are relegated very trivial positions. We see government-supported slavery, in which families are split apart. We see an oppressive police state. We see a certain moral decadence, manifested in sleazy cabarets and opium parlors (opium being a "product" that the British spread throughout the world...)
The only people with true moral fibre are Camille and Jean-Baptiste, and he gets it forced upon him, and later betrays the people who had tried to help him.
Post a Comment