Innocence

If you've ever read the work of German symbolist writer Frank Wedekind then you may already have an idea about how difficult a text first feature writer-director Lucile Hadzihalilovic chose to adapt and execute. But execute she does for a good portion of the film until the rather obvious over-the-top conclusion that fails to answer many of the questions raised earlier.

That said, there is much to enjoy this film mainly due to its excellent cinemascope photography and the whole idea of an idyllic place where prepubescent girls are trained to be ballet dancers in order to enter the world as proper teenage women.

Since this is a symbolist writing, one can also entertain thoughts of purgatory (the characters are brought into being via a coffin), isolated same-sex societies (with one old man that is never explained), or some of the themes M. Night Shymalan explored in "The Village" with fear being used to keep a small population under control.

In any case, this film will provoke much discussion afterwards so bring your most knowledgeable cinema pals and dig in. Young girls in white outfits giggling and playing for two hours may not be everyone's simplification of the world at large, but in some ways it does sum up the dangers of segregated societies.

Not bad for a first film with extremely difficult material. A remarkable debut nonetheless.

Innocence is an extraordinary film that explores its theme with such determined rigor one cannot help but be compelled and shocked by every moment. Innocence explores the period in girls' lives before they lose their Innocence and start adulthood. The mysterious school to which we are introduced through Tarkovskyesque images of flowing water becomes a dark and at times haunting manifestation of both the young girls' enforced Innocence as well as the setting for the film's mystery narrative in which we find ourselves desperate to see through the schools wooded grounds to some kind of epiphany.

Part of the success of Innocence is that it is able to confuse the viewer and forces the audience to confront their own ideas of Innocence and how we as adults should view images of Innocence. Images of the young girls at play should be easier to watch but this is an adult film with a predominately adult audience and the darkness of the films own geography plays with ones ideas of Innocence and the loss of it.

Extraordinary images, extraordinary performances, a great film.

I walked out of this film being the only one of a group of 5 with any clasp of what it was about. That in itself may say something about my own innocence. Many reviews of this film seem to shout 'Paedophiles!' at the reader, to me this is an interesting reaction to a film, with near fairy tale qualities, which explores themes of innocence,childhood and how our own curiosity can destroy these. Every theme in this seemingly idyllic (and beautifully captured) girls school will represent a reason for one viewers loss of innocence, and when the film drags in places I do wonder if this intentionally mirrors a child's own impatience to 'grow up'. Perhaps it is the viewers lack of innocence that adds to the films underlying eeriness..........or perhaps its that rumbling noise?

The final title, "for Gaspar" (Noe, director of IRREVERSIBLE), hints at the pedigree of the makers of this quite fascinating study of young girls on the cusp of adolescence.

Benoit Debie, the cinematographer of IRREVERSIBLE, shot the film.

Six year old Iris (Zoe Auclair) arrives at her new country school in a coffin. She becomes infatuated with twelve-year-old Bianca (Berangare Haubruge) who disappears each evening and returns in the morning. The girls spend most of their days studying ballet and preparing for an important exam.

The school is like a keep. The girls are encouraged to find happiness in obedience. Parents never visit. The world beyond its tall hedges exists like something within a dream.

Director Lucile Hadzihalilovic imbues every aspect of the film with a dreamy, meditative veneer. Shots of the pre-teen nymphs dancing, cartwheeling and splashing about in shallow water recall the grainy erotic imagery of David Hamilton's early feature films -- in particular, LAURA and BILITIS. The ballet sequences and striking compositions of solitary female figures in towering external landscapes owe a small debt to Dario Argento's SUSPIRIA and, to a lesser extent, his PHENOMENA. But this is not a deliberate softcore meditation on childhood sexuality. It is a metaphorical examination of how innocence is ruptured by its own curiosity.

The camera angles stress the importance and prominence of legs to a fetishistic degree. This focus is an organic extension of the girls' ballet training; a darker purpose for legs is indicated later in a chilling line of dialogue. Debie's cinematography emphasizes light and shade and is never pretty for its own sake.

The forest filled with lamps has a deliciously surreal, fairytale quality. The sequences where the girls dance for a faceless audience reminded me of one of MULHOLLAND DRIVE's most haunting sequences. The film's sound design also echoes the internal voids of the Lynchian world.

The film is not big on explanations and is a touch too slow at times, but it presents a thoroughly realized universe that is a stark metaphor for life's discoveries and disappointments. The performances possess perfect pitch and the tone remains both haunting and consistent.

What exactly is the film about? The girls may be in a purgatory of sorts, a resting place between life and death. Perhaps not. Perhaps they are in a holding pattern between childhood (innocence) and adulthood (a state requiring some loss of innocence), and when they manage to escape (succumbing to their pre-adolescent curiosity), they have forfeited their place in childhood forever. But only perhaps.

Reading a lot of the interesting comments people have made about this film, it's obvious most didn't understand it.I admit this includes me. I enjoy an original idea for a movie, one that makes you think, but if it is too obscure surely that defeats the object? A lot of the comments mention paedophiles, an overused word that's fashionable at the moment.I'm a bloke but ye Gods, these were tiny little girls and not sexual. Someone mentioned the bathing and said they were uncomfortable with it. Nobody was nude! If a scene such as this makes a person less than happy, I suggest it says a lot about that person's mind. David Hamilton's 'Bilitis' has a scene where a group of schoolgirls strip off and go gamboling in the sea, that is certainly done, (in my view) to titillate. Innocence isn't at all like that. Europeans such as the French and Germans have, it seems to me, a lot healthier attitude to sex than either the Brits' or the US who tend to look for an ulterior motive in anything. Having said that- There is an interview with director Lucile Hadzihalilovic on the DVD, in it she mentions words to describe the movie, such as paradise, prison, nature, appealing and interesting.She says the film is essentially sensual and a claustrophobic universe. Also says that there is no violence and nothing offensive in it. It interested me to hear her say that women would identify with it easier than men, as their own view of young girls will be evoked. For some that may be problematic, for others, not at all. Read in that what you will chaps. There are few sights more pleasurable than a happy female, (of any age.) I remember an old saying, - 'Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse.'