When I first saw the trailer for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (in French, Le scaphandre et le papillon), I figured it would be more of an art film than a narrative, wildly depressing, and was mostly excited to see it because I knew Julian Schnabel had won the Best Director prize at Cannes. But the film goes beyond the innovative, almost impressionistic - but still completely accessible - cinematography. Mathieu Amalric (who portrays Bauby) has turned in a performance of what my husband deemed “a triumph of acting”. After all, throughout most of the film, he acts with just one eye, the rest of him slumped and immobile. But this restriction doesn't impair his acting. The audience reacted in gasps and sniffles, especially when Bauby’s own housebound 92-year-old father (Max von Sydow) calls to wish him a happy birthday. Amalric’s eye’s expression (can there be such a thing?) broke my heart. Schnabel has somehow managed to combine an experimental premise with a engaging story that doesn't linger too long in any one spot, but is still full of emotion. It’s almost impossible to know what goes on in the head of a paralyzed stroke victim, left mute and nearly expressionless; through Schnabel’s film, we catch an authentic glimpse that, for lack of a better word, truly inspires. |

EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS







Comments
I read about The Diving Bell and the Butterfly in a piece on Max Von Sidow that ran in the LA Times last week (recapping his impressive body of work). I made a mental note about the film, but as sometimes happens, my note got misfiled somewhere in the cobwebs of my cluttered brain. Thanks for bringing this back to my attention. Now if I can only find where it's playing here in Orange County (it's playing at The Landmark in LA).
Do see it if you can. Brief warning: there are a few flashes of nudity, but nothing prolonged or dwelt upon.
I read the short memoir this film is based upon a few years ago. It was a lyrical and intense little meditation on communication and the triumph and pain involved in being a human being. I have to admit that when I heard it would be made into a film I was pretty skeptical. How could they possibly capture the point of view that made the book so fascinating and sad? But after reading your review I am encouraged and will definitely try to see it when it finally makes its way to my little backwater. Until then, thanks for whetting my appetite!
Terry, I'm glad to hear that the book was good. I'm going to hunt it down now.
I think the key to its success is that this is *not* a Hollywood film by any stretch of the imagination. It's accessible, but it's not going to be widely seen (mostly because it's in French and Hollywood has issues with subtitles in general). So, it's a little more daring with its storytelling structure.
But "lyrical" is a good word for it.
Sounds like an interesting movie.