Grande école

"Grand ecole" aspires to be the sort of existential drama that the French New Wave directors produced in the 1950s and 1960. It pours race, class, economic status, history and sexuality into a big martini shaker and pours out a heady concoction.

But just what the film is, in the end, is not clear at all.

Paul is the hunky son of a Marseilles contractor. Raised to be brilliant but also racist (snubbing Arabs) and classist (snubbing blue-collar workers and the poor), Paul is sent to an elite Parisian economics college where he is supposed to learn about management and marketing. But Paul isn't his father's son. He's artistically-minded (which should be your first clue about his inner life) and rejects his father's biases. Soon, Paul has taken up with Agnes, a young woman who is attending the liberal-arts university next door and who is an avid supporter of human rights.

One of Paul's roommates is Louis-Arnault, a hunky business major with a penchant for water polo (he comes from a legendarily wealthy background) and girls. The other is the materialistic, shallow, rich boy, Chouquet.

Paul has a stunning girlfriend, the beautiful Emeline, who also attends the school of economics. While Louis-Arnault's and Emeline's relationship seems stable and loving, Paul's relationship with Agnes seems a bit rockier. Paul loves Agnes, but is a little emotionally and physically withdrawn from her.

It's not long before Paul develops an intense homosexual crush on the handsome, athletic Louis-Arnault -- even going so far as to steal his boxers! Then the handsome Arabian blue-collar worker, Mecir, arrives on campus as part of the construction crew renovating buildings on the school grounds. Paul is equally attracted to Mecir.

Agnes is no dummy: She senses Paul's ambivalence and proposes a test. If Paul seduces Louis-Arnault first, Agnes will leave and never say a word. If Agnes seduces Louis-Arnault first, then Paul must give up his homosexual longings and be exclusively heterosexual and monogamous with her.

The great problem with the film is that it is not entirely clear why Agnes would suggest such a thing. For his part, Paul never agrees to Agnes' plan -- so just what does Agnes think she is doing?

After the first hour, Chouquet drops completely out of the picture -- which is frustrating. Mecir figures more and more prominently in Paul's sex life and emotions. But just as the viewer expects religion to become an issue (Mecir is clearly a practicing Muslim), it doesn't.

Much more satisfying is the film's extensive commentary on the emotional desert that is capitalism, greed and materialism. There is a tremendously important and well-written discussion during the film's climax that is a real wonder. The grand ideas fly fast and furious, and the writing and acting is pure gold there.

For the most part, however, the film's sexual themes -- which are ostensibly it's raison d'etre -- are muddy. The film's commentaries on race, class, materialism and the burden of history are much clearer and more satisfying.

Overall, the quality of the acting is rather good. Salim Kechiouche is superb, and Gregori Baquet has his moments. Also rising above the fray is Alice Taglioni, who is subtle and powerful as the put-upon Agnes.

The direction, cinematography and editing are nothing to write home about.

But "Grand ecole" is worth the effort, even if it is ultimately an exercise in frustration.

It's seems impossible to not compare this type of French cinema with its American counterpart. As is usually the case, the French is just so much more interesting, faults and all. This may be an over ambitious project, but there is a message in there somewhere, (or rather too many messages). It's a bit frenetic at times, but this may be due to the director's lack of experience.

Director Robert Salis' technique is to hurl as much as possible onto the screen in the hope that something will stick. Many elements of the plot are not really thought through producing some confusing moments. It's also tends to be very wordy, which may work for those fortunate enough to understand the language, but makes for lots of subtitle reading.

However in the final analysis enough actually sticks, making this not an unmemorable film. Much has to do with an excellent performance by one Gregori Baquet who besides coasting on his abundant charisma, shows a wide dramatic range, controlled with intelligence.

A certain French eroticism pervades many of the scenes, but oddly enough, Salis' handling of the sex scenes (both hetero and homo) is less convincing. There is something decidedly mechanical about them.

However, one does get absorbed into the lives of this group of young Frenchmen coming to terms with society, their personal futures, their sexuality and life in general.

a love triangle. social references. the fight to be honest with yourself. friendship, family, appearances, dialogues - in French cinema style- about different themes, frontal male nudity and the temptation, a scene in locker room who could be the axis of film, a wise manner to present the sex scenes, a long trip of the lead character for define, in right manner, his feelings. a film who not gives many surprises. only a new perspective for few scenes without dialogue, in which the look and the tension are really great for suggest desires and the essence of a sexual orientation. and the great thing is the status of pieces from near reality for each scene. the decent performances, the relationships as subtle mix between lights and shadows, the science to use the story for a refreshing message. this does Grande ecole a good movie.

Credit the director with getting a cast of unknowns to give very credible performances--an ensemble of attractive young people who have certainly put themselves into these roles. The relationships seem real and all of the main actors acquit themselves well. The story basically follows the lives of five students and a construction worker as they explore truths about each other in a situation ruled by a strong-willed girl who decides to play a game of entrapment when she suspects her boyfriend is sexually interested in his roommate.

But the script is a talky one and goes in all directions trying to steer us into thinking homosexuality is clearly a question of choice or that a simple homoerotic experience for a man can change his whole perspective on life. It's a muddy theory that the author/director are striving to execute on film, but they end up with a story of unrequited passions that goes nowhere in the end.

A scene of sexual fulfillment between two men is artfully presented and tastefully photographed. But there is an artificial air whenever the sexual themes are being explored. The only exception is the shower room scene where the hero tries to hide his interest in the showering athletes.

The picture is actually one long-winded mind game that it plays upon the protagonist (and the audience) and nothing memorable or strong enough happens to give it a high recommendation.

You have to wonder who the target audience is for a film of this type which seems to be sending mixed messages.

The production values aren't the best in this film, but one rarely expects better of a film festival entry. Seeing beyond that is what festival fare is all about, in my opinion.

Tha said, I was easily taken in by Paul and his emotional struggle. At first, I was put off by the ambivalent and quirky behavior of Paul and the others, but I began to recognize that this was a representation of the nuances of real life, as opposed to the packaged fare that Hollywood usually dishes out. What another reviewer found confusing to me was an invitation to get inside the heads of characters who, like real people, weren't exactly sure what they wanted or who they were trying to be.

The relationships were complex and yes, frustrating to figure out at times. But the acting was good--complexity is mush harder to convey than the broad-brush emotion that Hollywood paints larger than life. I loved Mecir--superbly acted--his earnestness nearly brought me to tears. I thought the ultimate outcome of Paul's relationship with him (and with Agnes) mirrored real life as well. And just when I thought Arnault was a shallow caricature, the character surprised me with intelligence (if cynical) and depth.

I agree that the third roommate (name?) disappeared mysteriously in the middle of the film; it had seemed he would play a greater role at the outset. The peripheral characters were neither well developed nor exceptionally acted, but are no reason to dis the film.

The film was marred for me by the extremely self-conscious and forced 3-minute conversation near the end about class struggle, corporate greed, etc. I liked these themes in the film, but this Cliff-Notes style summation was so artificial that I--and the audience I was with--laughed out loud at every pontification, each more hysterical than the last. My immediate comment was "it's like a French parody of the French!" Profound thoughts and deep convictions, spewed with piercing emotion--ultimately lasting as long as a cigarette and washed away with a glass of Bordeaux.

Except for that camp exchange, I very much enjoyed the movie and would see it again.