Acima das Nuvens

Former film critic Olivier Assayas is probably one of those few people who inspire me on a creative level. Not that strange if you consider one of Assayas' own influences: anarchist and situationist Guy Debord. French intellectuals in the 1960s were, in my opinion, too often needlessly complex theoretically and parlor socialists or would-be revolutionaries politically. In contrast, Debord's refreshing anarchist views were typical for the radicality of the 1968-generation and were more about individual freedom, artistic aspirations and fighting against a new form of determinism: consumption. In that respect, Assayas' Après mai was one of the best films I've seen in years. In Clouds of Sils Maria he puts on his meta-shoes and tells the story about an older actress who'll perform in the same play she did when she was young: Juliette Binoche plays Maria Enders who plays Helena. In the meanwhile Valentine (a brilliant Kristen Stewart, who would've expected?!), the personal assistant of Maria, resembles a version of Maria when she was young. Joanne Ellis (Chloë Grace Moretz), an up-and-coming actress with the reputation of a troublemaker, is Maria's co-star in the theater play. But when the play (about a young girl (Sigrid) who seduces an older woman (Helena)) starts to reflect reality (especially because Maria used to play Sigrid herself), the film begins to get an extra - metaphorical - layer. In the end we are confronted with thoughts about time, change, fame, getting older and conflict between generations. Clouds of Sils Maria is a beautiful film with some very good acting, especially by Stewart. It also raises interesting questions about contemporary stardom and transience. Nevertheless, this movie is (feels?) less personal than Assayas' previous one and therefor misses a bit of the uppercut I was hoping for.

Rehearsing for a revival of the play that made her famous proves unexpectedly challenging for an esteemed actress in this French drama starring Juliette Binoche. While she knows all the dialogue, the difficulty is being asked to the play the older of the two protagonists (a la Michael Caine assuming the Laurence Olivier role in the remake of 'Sleuth'). Further tensions arise as the older protagonist is manipulated by the younger one in the play with Binoche wondering how close she may be to the older character. Fascinating as all this might sound, the film is nevertheless hard to get through at times with the plot not really taking off until 40 minutes in when Binoche views online clips of her bratty co-star to-be and tries to rehearse knowing what her co-star is like. At its best, the film blurs reality as Binoche and her personal assistant practise with it often ambiguous whether the pair are really fighting or simply rehearsing. There are also some memorable bits as the pair discuss whether science fiction dramas can have merit and the notion that "thinking about a text is different to living it", but these sparks unfortunately fizzle out before the film is over. As others have observed, the movie has a curious meta quality with Binoche playing an actress character very similar to herself, but the protracted first forty and final fifteen minutes oddly leads the film succeeding best in its middle section.

Ambiguity is the key world of this film. You are the major actor in the sense that your interpretation makes the film. Each scene is so ambiguous that you can always interpret it in various manners so in the end _you_ are the director. When Maria and Val work on the text, rehearse the play, the feelings are so mingled that you are the one who decide if they are those of Helena- Sigrid or rather Maria-Val. Reality is entangled. I loved the Alps hiking shots and overall the mysterious Maloja snake. I would have rated it a 9 to the Writer-Director Olivier Assayas but reduced it to a 8 because I was disappointed in Juliette Binoche's performance. She is usually better than in this film, it is as if she didn't feel like acting this character, a bit like what happens in the film itself. At several occasions her laugh is artificial and fake. She is obviously ill at ease in this character, which proves what I wrote before about entangled reality between the film itself and the play prepared in the film. I'm not sure I am very clear but those who have seen and felt/perceived the movie as I, will understand.

Fantastic work from both Juliette Binoche and Kristen Stewart. The latter showed some more naturality in Still Alice and here she has a lot more screen time and is pretty great throughout. It's not an incredibly showy performance, though, not like Binoche's, but I could get behind it for awards love. Chloe Moretz's empty, superficial acting style actually works perfectly for her character here. I doubt it was really much work for her, but it works and she's not a distraction like she usually is. Juliette Binoche is amazing, as always. I could've seen her actually gaining traction for this film (had it been released near the end of the year). The film as a whole is... really weird. It's very entertaining throughout, never once dull, but it feels sort of aimless the more it goes on and while I get what points it was trying to make, it just felt a little too scattered to truly be great.

If you are a big fan of Magritte and Escher, of the writer Sebald, of Pirandello and Philip Glass and maybe the film "Koyaanisqatsi", I predict that you will love this film. If, on the other hand, you can't see the point of any of these and believe only in Aristotle's six elements of drama, there are many other excellent films you will like much better. It's a matter of taste.

In this film, writer/director Assayas deliberately blurs the distinctions between a number of levels. You start with people in the business of theatre and film: Marie Enders (Binoche), an experienced and celebrated actress, and Valentine (Stewart), her young, busy, competent personal assistant, and the people in Marie's past, living and dead.

Then there is the level of the characters in the play "The Maloja Snake" of twenty years ago, when Marie played the young and cruel Sigrid who loved and crushed her middle-aged employer, Helena. There is the level of the characters of the same play today, in which director Klaus Diesterweg (Lars Eidinger) hopes to recruit Marie to play Helena, possibly with a different take on the characters' motives and psychology, and in which Jo-Ann Ellis (Moritz) is eventually cast as Sigrid.

And there is also the level of the real human world, including events in the life of the real Kristen Stewart, which have striking parallels in the life of the fictional Ellis; the same seems to be true of Binoche and Enders, and I have read that "The Maloja Snake" is a parallel world version of Fassbinder's "The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant".

Spanning all these levels are the the real Switzerland and its real mountains and clouds, including the real Maloja Snake, a cloud phenomenon which was the subject of a black-and-white short film in the 1920's which is excerpted in Assayas' film and which can be seen on YouTube. The Internet spans all these levels too, and all the characters in the film are busy with texting and Skyping and Googling and checking out and fixing their IMDb info.

And then the work of playing characters, of determining and managing emotions, of arguing about what really motivates real or fictional or play-within-a-play fictional characters, either within the industry of the creative arts or not, also bridges the levels. We are constantly aware of the analogies and reflections among Valentine - Maria, Sigrid - Helena, Jo-Ann - Maria, and so on. Readings of lines take place, in which you sometimes wonder what level you are on, and we see a lot of the details of the creative discussions which must go into the production of plays or for that matter, not incidentally, movies such as "Clouds of Sils Maria". If you get lazy and suspend your disbelief and allow yourself to mentally presume that "Clouds" is a comprehensible narrative of the real world, Assayas will bring you up short without any ceremony.

So, does that kind of thing strike you as artistically intriguing or intellectually exciting? If it does, see the movie. It will give you a lot to think about and appreciate and puzzle about and discuss afterward. (The Swiss tourist board will thank you also.) If it seems a bit dry and abstract, well, you are fairly warned.