Qui êtes-vous, Polly Maggoo?

Absurdist comedy is a tricky thing to get right. This movie manages well in the opening scenes, which involve a bizarre fashion show and model Polly being propositioned by a string of losers on the street, and at its best it is reminiscent of the early films of Richard Lester. The director, however, has no interest in, or is incompetent at, story telling, and the film becomes a hodgepodge of miscellaneous nonsense. Sometimes it is still interesting, and it is always visually striking, but at times the movie becomes so random, with characters speaking in long sequences of non-sequitors, that it was painful. At best, this is an interesting curio, but as a movie it's a failure.

Klein might have been a photographer extraordinaire, but his movies are through distorted lens. To clarify, the distortion isn't always for worse. Picasso too could be called drawing distortions, and Klein's movies too are - the works of abstract art. In these abstract arts, it is difficult to really identify what is real, and what is the fantasy. It is left on the viewer to interpret it, through his/her own judgment. The premises of the movie is, The reality TV program, OK TV does a "Who Are You" series on various famous personalities, the real person behind the public appearance. In this segment, they have chosen their subject as the super-model, Polly Magoo. Though it is on surface on Fashion and Glamour industry, but it could be any other industry, which has a high degree of public exposure - movie actress, politician,.... The key person of the series, Grégoire (Jean Rochefort) tries to unravel the mystery of Polly (real life Super-model, Dorothy McGowan). He practically lives with her, shadowing her every moment, trying to understand the person, carrying out various psychological tests etc. Meanwhile there is a Prince of a foreign country, who had been obsessed with Polly, through her photographs, and as a result the Queen dispatches first spies to trace Polly, and the Prince follows, to make a Princess of her. In the sides, though in major roles in plot are two other characters, Miss Maxwell (Grayson Hall), as the Fashion Magazine editor (Publicist, if we think of it, in general, not limiting to the Fashion), and Isidore Ducasse (Jacques Seiler), the couturier (the manager/ adviser/ groomer/ secretary/ speech writer,...). The thick paint on her face, hides Polly's freckles and the fashion house had made an asset of some of her physical shortcomings (e.g. her rabbit like incisors or lack of bust). In this, the real person is lost. Till, the Grégoire tests brings out some of it (though she points out, he himself is living at no less masquerade than her). In the end, the Cinderall had to chose who was her real prince charming, Prince Igor (Sami Frey) or Grégoire (Jean Rochefort), and the end has me a bit confused about her choice, it could be either. Or was it that brain (to be a Princess) won. It seems to be so, considering the teenager as the passive observer in the crowd.

This not only seems a satire on Klein's boss, Diana Vreeland (as some reviewer had mentioned), but it seems to be very highly autobiographical. The two protagonists, Dorothy McGowan and Klein are still alive, so probably they could tell. This was the very last public appearance of any kind of screen, still or moving, by Dorothy, and she retired at the age of only 26 or so. She was born in Brooklyn (like Polly). If I take it as her biography, it looks to be surprisingly similar, was Klein : Grégoire or Isidore (the presenter) ? Was per chance Klein too enamoured with her, not only through Camera, or it was only professional obsession (Isidore). It could be like many Composers have with singers, when they write opera specifically for a particular one, or directors with actors (of either gender), without anything remotely amorous in their relationship). Was Prince Igor Didier Dorot, who took her away ? A movie need to be watched again, especially towards the end, though there are hidden meanings everywhere (including the dinner scene, where the people make fun with her name).

At its heart, this is a blistering satire on the ideas of fashion and celebrity within the world of 1960's Paris, but more importantly, can be seen as a treatise on the extended themes of identity, personality and love. More obviously than that, however, the film can and should be seen as an exercise in pure cinematic style and an extension of the world created through art, music and fashion, in which the traditions and ideals of the pre-war generation were completely eroded, giving way to a world alive with ideas and radical free-thinking. The film reflects this notion throughout, becoming an extension of its own world as the filmmakers revel in moments of visual imagination, farce and philosophy, and all backed by a dizzying sense of post-modern abstraction that seems directly lifted from the iconic, early 60's work of director Jean Luc Godard.

Given the plot, themes and cinematic iconography, obvious parallels could be drawn with Godard's first masterpiece Une femme est une femme (1961), with the film flaunting ideas of post-modernism and self-reflexivity, whilst offering a playful narrative that looks at issues regarding gender, identity, equality and love. Throughout the film, director William Klein brazenly mixes elements of cartoon satire - with the absurd photo shoots and pretentious critics who invent words for the silliest of fashions - with more jarring bursts of cinéma-vérité inspired docudrama, with the film within a film and the always interesting notion of a self-aware narrative that is continually commenting on itself! With this, we can see yet another strong sense of Godardian abstraction, with the further influence of films like Vivre sa Vie (1962), Le Mepris (1963) and Pierrot le fou (1965) becoming apparent in the melange of post-modern ideas, both visual and textual. However, despite some of these more radical ideas, the plotting of the film and the overall reliance on character and intent are incredibly simple; creating a film that is bold, imaginative and intellectually stimulating, but also a great deal of fun.

The concept of the film revolvers around three central characters; the titular American fashion model currently taking Paris by storm; the faraway Prince Charming desperate to engineer a meeting with the model; and a middle-aged TV producer who sets out to lampoon Polly on his show, "Who Are You?", but eventually ends up falling madly in love. Both of the male characters view Polly as a dull cipher devoid of character, and indeed, these are the very same qualities that make them fall in love; that masculine idea of the perfect woman - stylish and beautiful, but devoid of personality and opinion. As the film continues, we discover more about Polly as a person and begin to see the formation of a definite personality that ultimately dwarfs the men in her life, showing them up to be shallow, outdated bores out of step with the more radical social changes currently taking place. In this respect, you could possible view the film as an early feminist manifesto, as Polly, faced with the choice between the wealthy Prince and the learned intellectual, instead decides to live life for herself.

The previous reviewer who dismissed the film seems to have missed the point somewhat. Although this clearly is a work of satire on the very broadest of levels, the focus goes much further than the fashion industry - and the (then) vibrant mid 60's scene - to incorporate broader notions of social status, gender issues and the widening generation gap. It isn't meant to be taken entirely seriously, with the unconventional music sequences, outlandish costumes, imaginative approach to editing, design and composition, and a mid-film segment of Gilliamesque animation, all intended to delight as opposed to disarm! If anything, I would say that the film is something of a precursor (in tone) to Jean-Pierre Jeunet's frothy character study Amelie (2001), but again, filtered through the lens of Godard circa 1961. For me, the joy of the film, with its light references to society and art, politics and sociology, really captures a mood and an atmosphere and, above all else, a visual experience, that is really second to none.

This is the only films of Klein's that I have seen so far, although I'm now desperate to see his subsequent films, Mister Freedom (1969) and The Model Couple (1978). The images presented here are stunning in their pop-art abstraction, reminding me of elements of Toshio Matsumoto's later film Funeral Parade of Roses (1969) and even Godard's political satire La Chinoise (1967), with the bold use of texture, design and the iconic compositions. This is to be expected from a celebrated photographer turned filmmaker immersed in the vibrant world of 60's Paris, however, there's much more to the film that simply gloss and imagination. The performances are all incredibly well-judged, from the enigmatic and unconventionally beautiful Dorothy McGowan as Polly, to the fine support from Jean Rochefort, Sami Frey, Grayson Hall and Philippe Noiret, who all manage to balance the elements of satire and abstraction, without becoming two-dimensional caricatures.

Some will obviously take issues with certain elements of the style, particularly anyone who isn't fond of early Godard or the broader aspects of the French New Wave; though, if you approach the film with an open mind and the right frame of reference the rewards are limitless. I saw the film last month at the BFI Southbank with a packed audience and the entire crowd were laughing and appreciating the jokes and enjoying that unique and imaginative sense of style, which climaxes with a wonderfully Roland Topor designed credit sequence and a catchy French pop title song. Who Are You, Polly Maggoo? (1966) is simply, without question, a great piece of film-making; a fast, funny and entirely flippant forgotten masterpiece that still stands as an exceptional work of comic-satire, pop art and pure cinematic expression.

This film began very well and I had high hopes until I realized it was an Absurdist film--one that deliberately doesn't make sense and is designed to make normal people feel left out and confused. It's really a shame, as the opening sequence at the fashion show was fun and had a great point to make about the absurdity of fashion (particularly in the silly late 1960s). The ladies are all wearing clothes made from what appears to be tin or aluminum and they look like total idiots--all the while, the elite declare the clothes to be brilliant and works of art. Unfortunately, after this great sequence, it seems like the rest of the film is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the "sophisticated" and snobbish art film lovers, as the film is filled with seemingly bizarre and pointless scenes. While the film was not made by a Frenchman, it was in French and the film fits well within the French New Wave movement--which viewers will probably either love or hate. As for me, this film was tedious and I did not enjoy it in the least. Perhaps I am just too Bourgeoise in my sensibilities (or perhaps I just want a movie that makes sense).

Director William Klein was clearly having a lot of fun here. Who Are You Polly Maggoo? Is one crazy ride, like a clown-car blown sideways through the Parisian fashion district. The plot is a flimsy thing onto which wacky, manic set pieces are hung...Polly is modeling, Polly is being interviewed, Polly is being courted, people say nonsensical things with great aplomb. But like Godard's films of the era, the real action is the unpredictable flow of ideas, words, unrealistic scenarios, striking images. Unlike Godard, Polly Maggoo is genuinely funny. It's a delightful example of the pre-May '68 anarchic pop-art exuberance: everything is weird and wild, and nothing matters very much. Maybe Klein's satirical surrealism most closely resembles Robert Downey Sr's "Putney Swope", another goofy, confounding comedic confection that folks find either nonsensical or hysterical. Meanwhile on the pop charts, Gainsbourg and Bardot advocated for "Shebam! Pow! Blop! Whizzz!" -- and Klein was right back at them with a hearty "beep-beep!" Taken on its own terms, a loveable little film.