Grande école

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.

There's a touch of Rohmer in "Grande Ecole". Characters, set in unglamorous, surburban spaces, are just a little too intent and penetrating to be real. Their emotions are simple, yet surprisingly delicate. They experience no jealousy or revenge, but desire, self-doubt and tenderness. Like Rohmer's, Salis' movies feel too nostalgic and sweet to be topical, and that aestheticism is put to the use of tolerance and humanism. Sex scenes for example are remarkable. Homo- and heterosexual love become comparable because Salis makes caressing and enticing the cornerstone of every sexual encounter. The movie however becomes overtly theatrical towards the end, and does not tune in with the closure that Rohmer would have gone for. Salis resolves conflicts, by now difficult to disentangle, only by confusing the viewer to a point of no return and settling for the beauty of seeing all characters reunited finally, if not in the movie, at least on the screen: him and her, and him and her, and him.

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.

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.

Paul (Gregori Baquet) is attending a prestigious university in France. He has a girlfriend named Agnes (Alice Taglioni) who is puzzled why he won't live with her. Paul becomes sexually attracted to handsome roommate Louis-Arnault (Jocelyn Quivrin) but won't admit it, while handsome Arab Mecir (Salim Kerchrouche) makes it clear that he loves Paul. What is Paul to do?

Has its moments. When it sticks to Paul, Mecir and Louis-Arnault and the sexual aspect it's absolutely fascinating. But they continuously keep throwing in long boring speeches about business and politics that bring things to a screeching halt. Also (with the sole exception of Mecir) most of the characters are very unlikable and cruel. Paul's girlfriend especially comes across badly and Paul himself is whiny. It ends in a very muddled way with an unsatisfying ending.

The acting is all pretty good. Baquet is a bit too whiny but Quivrin and especially Kerchrouch are very good. The one sex scene is done very tastefully and there is quite a bit of casual female and male nudity (this would get an NC-17 if it had been rated). All in all not too good but some bright moments and acting make it worth a look. I give it a 7.