Color: Happiness and Red Desert

Unique 2022-10-28 19:28:19

This is Varda's first color film. She was clearly speaking in color. People are full. Including faded reds and blues, blues and reds for clothes, yellows and blues for houses on the street, big reds for signage, big yellow trucks – contrasting with natural low saturation. The contrast is always seen. The most obvious is the camera panning to panning people dancing under the big tree. The tree is in the middle. The conflict is extremely obvious. The second most obvious is that people always come to the woods. Start in the woods. Wife is in the woods. End in the woods.

Color is a metaphor for human society. Has rules, including monogamy, and a few others that are unspoken but already hinted at. Nature is the lion, the primal (human, of course) desire, instinct. Wife throws away colors (blue and yellow) and goes back to nature during sex in the woods. This is the moment that matters. But she died immediately. Color returns. The return of human society. My understanding of this intent is that instincts burst briefly, social rules are the norm, and at the same time imply personal insignificance.

This movie is problematic in my opinion. But before I make it clear, let me introduce the Red Desert. This is Antonioni's '64 film, also his first film in color, and he's also talking in color. The most obvious hint is the line at the end of the heroine (according to my memory): "I am tired of all this, human beings, colors..." Before this, Antonioni also established various colors, such as the bright red of the dock house, The color of the lady's coat. The only difference is that his use is far more realistic, softer, even too soft, which makes me feel that the director's attitude is not clearly expressed enough. One of Varda's shortcomings is also here.

Eisenstein discussed color in his montage theory. He proves through multiple examples that color itself has emotional attributes (red represents enthusiasm), but the meaning of a color in a film should be given by the director on top of its own attributes - if you want to use red to represent revolution, then you must This meaning is established with a few shots, as there is a French aristocratic counter-revolutionary group whose logo is also bright red. Both Antonioni and Varda had this problem. Their work is impure by the properties of color itself. In the process of watching Antonioni and Varda, all I think about are the essential properties of each color, the appearance of red represents enthusiasm, the appearance of blue represents calm; and I think this kind of thinking is extremely natural-in the director did not give Before meaning, people could only feel the essential properties of color.

Both at one point in the film give the color a clear meaning. For me in happiness, the dancing of the big tree is a very clear moment, because the various colors exchange, flow, and reach a balance. Only the big tree remains unchanged. At this time, it is obviously a dualistic world: people (all full saturation) saturation colors) and natural (low-saturated grass colors). And Antonioni, as I have already said, is far more ambiguous in the handling of color, and that moment to me is the line at the end of the protagonist.

Antonioni's problem: too ambiguous. Therefore, it is drawn by the essential properties of color, which leads to confusion, and only the ending breaks out.

Varda's problem: too prominent. Although this kind of prominence allows the meaning to be understood faster (it takes a lot of brainpower and slightly reduces the emotional experience), but the moment the wife compromises, the meaning is disrupted. Or in the minds of the audience, it was disrupted. A new order may be created, which needs to be re-introduced. Then the afterlife scene begins. I kept generalizing until the end, and then I was sure that the meaning had not changed at all, and that the colors still represented human society. So there are not many perceptual experiences left, all thinking about the meaning of colors.

Antonioni and Varda have more than their shortcomings. Happy woods sex is not enough for me. Because the color is already surreal, there is no need to stick to realism (I didn't think of Antonioni when I got the idea) - Antonioni's sex is so surreal, the color of the room changes between mirrors, completely pink The colored room, and later the red ship, can also be seen as absolutely surreal (the heroine's reaction to the color). I know Varda is looking for a different style, but this style is on the weak side for me.

Bottom line: I don't think either of these guys are good with color. Colors should be playable, but playing like this is not the ultimate. A horizontal comparison of Kobayashi Masaki's bizarre talk in 1964 is also his first color film. He only plays with pure emotions and does not have any thinking elements. Very shocking. I'm not saying that color can't be used as a thinking element, but how to use it to achieve a balance between thinking and sensibility, and finally thinking about the effect of dying to promote a great emotional experience, these two films can't give a satisfactory answer.

Last but not least: the montages of sex are beautiful. I don't know if it was inspired by the Soviet montage, but it has surpassed the Soviet montage. The main thing is the rhythm. The gaseous viewpoints are all very fast, interspersed in a solid subject (the first time entering the mistress's house), that is, the subject exists, but the eyes have escaped the subject, seeing many things, penetrated by perfect rhythm, as if seeing everything. This is what love feels like.

View more about Le Bonheur reviews

Extended Reading

Le Bonheur quotes

  • Émilie Savignard: Now I'm here. I'm myself, I mean.

    François Chevalier: I like that about you. And it's the same for me. I can't say I'm different since I met you. On the contrary, I'm even more myself.

  • François Chevalier: You know, I met my wife when I was in the service. It was love at first sight. We married when I got out. Had I met you first, I'd live with you.