Reseñas de usuarios

Claude and Philippe are two young boys that meet in school. Philippe has a group of friends and even a girl that seems to follow him everywhere, but even so he feels progressively interested in Claude, a kid younger than the rest.

As they start spending time together, the line between friendship and infatuation becomes blurry. Confused about themselves and their burgeoning sexuality, a tension remains between them. One afternoon, the two boys are on Philippe's bed, and Claude confesses to him that the train movement usually provokes him an erection, not unlike the one he is about to experience in his buddy's bed. They talk about boys stuff, about wet dreams and, above all, self-pleasuring. Claude asks Philippe to jerk off in front of him; and Philippe explains to his friend that in order to masturbate one must first think of someone or something.

This assertion makes perfect sense if one thinks about Michele Foucault's observations in his Histoire de la Sexualité, wherein the author affirms that masturbation cannot take place without fantasy, without an image that can exacerbate sexual desire. For Foucault, the first sexual stage in animals is coitus; for humans, however, this first stage is masturbation.

Lacan, on the other hand, would affirm that masturbation is the joy of the idiot, and although there can be many interpretations about this phrase, there is no doubt that in this short film, Philippe assumes the role of the idiot, id est, the role of the subject that can no longer escape from the phantasm, the idealized image of the other boy, precluding him from accepting reality as it is.

Later on, in a sleepover, Philippe starts touching Claude's shoulder and torso; Claude pretends to be asleep but makes it easy for his friend to gain access to his crotch; as Philippe strokes Claude's naked body, a moment of intimacy and clumsiness becomes poignant for the teenagers. Because of the age difference, Claude admires his friend, he feels like there is much he can learn from him, but at the same time he tries to defend his masculine position in the symbolic order Although Claude seems to be what Freud would denominate as a pubescent "perverse polymorph", Philippe wrongly interprets the signs he thinks his friend is giving off. As a result, when they go camping and Claude kisses a girl, Philippe understands what's going and starts crying. The two boys share a tent, and once Claude gets in, Philippe almost loses his mind, he tries to touch the schoolboy and demands for his nudity; he ends up begging to see him nude, but the young boy refuses to indulge in yet another masturbatory setting.

Philippe leaves the tent, desperate, and from that moment on, everything falls to pieces. Whatever's left of their friendship is now shattered, and Claude eludes his older friend. Philippe gets depressed, he stops eating, and he starts calling Claude's home and following his friend from a distance. But nothing works. He has lost him. Claude lingers on, imprisoned as an idealized figure inside Philippe's psyche, and it is Philippe's inability to cope with the real what ultimately ruins everything. The ending, fierce and despondent, proves once again that we might have access to the body of the other, but we never have access to the other's mind; the emotional void, the emptiness in Philippe's heart will forever remain there.

It's a great little movie, this is. It reminds me of a similar encounter of mine, as a grown up, with a seductive girl.

Claude, rather a typical h i s t r i o n i c youngster with apparent bisexual interests watches the slightly older Philippe with sighing admiration. Philippe responds to Claude's pass at him by overtly falling in love with the boy.

There's a lot of shy mutual caressing, yet they do not kiss, and when Claude brings up the sex issue, the context is less homo-erotic than out of ordinary adolescent curiosity: "Do you masturbate? Have you measured your dick?" However, they end up in bed anyway. Splendid French sensuality!

Alas, Claude sees a girl when out camping with Philippe and loses interest in his friend, all of a sudden and all in a very immature fashion.

The inscrutable final scene where Philippe pays his former friend for sex, as well as an early scene that indicates that Claude had an adult admirer/partner previous to Philippe, really don't fit with the juvenescent romantic overture, and lends a contradictory ambiguity as to the maturity of Claude's character and his motives. Either he's a modest and inexperienced teenager struggling with his awakening sexual feelings or he's a precocious histrionic, adept in hustling, but he cannot be both at the same time. I choose to label him a histrionic due to his attention seeking by means of a seductive approach.

The portrayal of Philippe makes much more sense though: he appears strong, self-confident and masculine to begin with, but gradually he loses all these qualities, as he yields to the unexpected seduction, and gets infatuated.

It's almost as if it was the point that the relationship made the two of them switch roles.

The b/w footage is quite suggestive, and the arguably low budget hampered to a great effect fancy additions and digressions.

Jacques Duron has written and filmed this brief ode to unrequited love between school boys (but no less worthy) living in a small central French town, Gannat, an ancient settlement tho' the film eschews establishment of a broader context than the narrow paths the boys regularly traverse, shuttling between school via rail, without any hint as to what location-- indeed of the school environment only what one must take as a school playground is shown-- and Philippe's home and a non-decrepit area of the town, nevertheless, showing evidence of its relative antiquity compared to structures from the epoch of the film, establishing thereby a contrast of youthful vitality existing in what must be considered drab surroundings doubtless exacerbated by the B&W film and autumnal season, but serving to emphasize the freshness of youth and the eternally recurring theme of sexual awaking and discovery, which Philippe, the older of the boys, and Claude the younger who initially sees Philippe as a roll model, proud to have his attention, eager to explore his stirrings with a more experience companion, while the older, perhaps confused by the strength of his passion and mindful of his supposed responsibilities only tentatively responds to the bold invitation for exploration, choosing to wait for slumber to worship at the altar of Kamadeva, supine before him, receiving encouragement , which proved ephemeral alas as Claude quickly progresses, matures, to a worship of Aphrodite leaving Philippe to his first experience of the despair of a jilted suitor, suffering all the pangs of rejection ,loss of his Ka one might conjecture, while finally willing to accept what Claude will grant him, at a price, in a surprising conclusion.

...or just melancholia. maybe, not as result of story itself. but for piano music, slices from personal experiences, for the fight against himself of the lead character, for the youth of Claude and his desire who does him so vulnerable. a film who remains one of basic traits of an age. or life. it has no importance because, despite each effort, it is an isolated situation, so special than you can define it in right way. so, a film with fall flavor. and, maybe, nothing more.