The Age of Commercialism

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Director Sébastien Lifshitz trusts in incomplete junctures, ruptured times and constant flashbacks to create a narrative line that encircles the most significant moments in the life of Mathieu, the protagonist. Without following habitual guidelines, the story begins a couple of years after the main events of the film, and through long flashbacks the viewers understand that Mathieu is hurtfully unraveling and that his boyfriend Cédric has already been confined to the past.At the very beginning of the film we learn that Mathieu has attempted to commit suicide, that he has no intention of continuing his relationship with Cédric and that, in spite of it all, once he leaves the hospital he will visit the beach in which the two of them met for the first time.But how exactly was that first encounter? The first flashback scenes are somehow cold and neutral, they follow the protagonist like in a documentary, without providing the audience with cause of concern or any real emotional binding: Summer is reduced to tediousness, to a routine in which the camera is fixated on Mathieu's daily affairs, we understand that besides swimming in the sea, smoking in his bedroom and jerking off in the bathroom there is not much going on in his life. When Mathieu is lying on the sand, the presence of another boy distracts him. After perusing each other at the beach, the two teenagers finally find the courage to meet. For Mathieu, this is his first homosexual experience, for Cédric (interpreted by Stéphane Rideau, a most influential figure in contemporary French gay cinema) it isn't.There is an intense passion between these two youngsters. As they start spending more and more time together, and as things quickly progress into the realms of sex, soon Mathieu's relatives become suspicious. Mathieu's mother is deeply depressed and her son doesn't want to upset her by coming out of the closet. His sister, however, knows exactly what's going on from the beginning.If there is something singular in Lifshitz's treatment of gay characters is how natural it's for them to be faithful to their true nature. Here accepting homosexuality is never a big deal, revelations are never a dramatic scene and they never involve crying or excruciatingly painful dialogs. The real drama comes from the lack of a paternal figure, id est, the lack of fatherly authority. With a depressed mother that lives in a world of her own as a consequence of the pills she takes, and the complete absence of the father, Mathieu is free to do as he pleases. But he's never truly free, for freedom actually means an emancipation from fatherly figures, and such emancipation can never be possible if there are no fathers at all.For Jacques Lacan the 'nom de pere' was the law of the father; even when a single mother is raising her child, she will be able to summon the name of the father and invest herself with an authority that comes from that tautological figure that does not need to explain or justify, that needs only to say 'no because I say so'. Clearly Mathieu has an unresolved conflict with the man he never sees, the man that has also abandoned her mother when she needed him the most. Oh sure, he's working hard to provide for the family, and that seems to excuse him. But when Mathieu tells the truth about himself to everyone, he has no intentions of sharing that intimate admission with his father. If the father is absent, there is no authority, and because of that, Mathieu is confused.Cédric has a father but his relationship with him is distant. He's independent, and since his independence came at a great price, he has been able to surmount the need to obtain his father's approval; in fact, family is something he no longer craves for. When Mathieu and Cédric decide to live together in Nantes, all family ties are severed at once. But the unresolved Oedipal conflict will gravely distress Mathieu.The nonexistence of the father can be designated as a structural emptiness that would preserve the function of desire. For the neurotic, the 'lack' is commonly occupied by the demand, which on one hand protects against the enigma of the Other's desire, while at the same time preserves the 'emptiness' that is necessary for the function of desire –of course at the expense of dissatisfaction; after all every demand (which is always constituted by signifiers) is a false demand, a deceiving one (of course, it is the subject himself the first to be mislead). Cédric demands the unceasing presence of Mathieu but he does not ask kindly for it; Mathieu's original plans were to return to Paris, but faces now a disjunctive, if he obeys the demand he will only get dissatisfied but if he doesn't his relationship fails and the emptiness reappears. This demand cannot be satisfied as it echoes the emergence of the subject through the signifier: the function of the signifier requires the effacement of its own traces. In this case, the motivation to move to Nantes should have come from Mathieu and not from Cedric.After many flashbacks and prolepsis, we come to a moment in time in which everything else has been left behind. Some might say that the this is a glimmer of hope as Mathieu might find another companion in Pierre (yet another fatherless individual). But if there is one final fundamental revelation is how the two young men are preoccupied as they see a child playing alone in the beach until they realize the father is in a car nearby. Whether we want it or not, fathers still play an important role in our lives and in the way in which we define ourselves; accepting them or opposing them, they are still the authority that we follow or defy, and without that authority, existential doubts might render us motionless.

O'k the guys are cute... but what happened? I hate sub titles, but usually they at least let you know what is going on. They are few and far between in this movie, because there is so little dialogue during important scenes. Lots of talking when nothing is going on or they are just sitting around shooting the breeze. Then the movie jumps from the beginning to the ending to the middle. It jumps from winter to summer back to winter then a different summer....! I liked the story and the actors were very good, but the director or editor forgot to tell US what was happening. Too many holes. We had to guess most of the time. This isn't a spoiler cause I am asking a question... at the end, why did they break up... they lost me there some place. They are supposed to write dialogue so that we can follow the story, not get lost. Good movie poorly executed!

I agree that the movie is a little slow at spots having many scenes of mundane everyday life and no dialog. And I wasn't impressed right after I watched it. However, after a few days, I realized that the movie stays with me and it evokes a melancholy mood which lingers in my mind. My appreciation of this movie increases. It certainly merits a higher consideration than those movies that are instantly forgettable.As many have commented, the movie is non-linear and that's a hallmark of European film-making as opposed to the linear narrative form that Hollywood favors. I don't really know whether it's true or not. Many also dislike its confusing structure and lack of clear explanations. To those viewers, I don't think there is much I can say to change their opinions. However, for others who have yet to see the film, DO expect to be challenged and DON'T expect the film to supply all the answers and you might come away enjoying it more than you would otherwise.The movie skips around a bit but really chronicles just 3 time periods. Pay attention to the hair style and you can easily separate out 2 of the 3 periods. It is also not as confusing as suggested; just enjoy and it'll all be clear at the end.Yes, lots of things are left unsaid or not shown, and lots of situations are left unexplored. But isn't that what life is like? A lot of time you're not sure of the motives of your friends/loved ones unless you confront them and even then, you can never be 100% sure if they told you the whole truth. This type of movies forces us to interpret the reasons behind the actions. The movie does, however, leave enough hints for you to make some reasonable assumptions. For example, Mathieu is manic depressive, to the point of suicidal. Why? I don't know, maybe his life is not turning out exactly as he expects it; maybe he misses his family but hasn't forgiven his father for abandoning his sick mother at her hours of need; maybe after all he sacrifices for Cedric, rearranging and indeed, shattering his life to be with him, he realizes that it is all "coming undone". I think the director meant to show us that he has always been a little off, mentality fragile by that scene w/ the dead bird. Maybe he has a very sensitive psyche and all these stresses are taking a toll on him. But we're also shown that he is not some animal torturing psycho by his loving interaction w/ the stray cat. Also, there is one conversation between the doctor and Cedric that sheds light on the reason behind the breakup and maybe the suicide attempt. The doctor asks him if everything is okay, and Cedric thinks so even though he cheated on Mathieu once, but that's nothing, according to Cedric. Is that the only reason, we don't know, there are probably others, all mixed up together. Is it paramount that we know exactly what they are? I don't think so, for this movie. Another telltale sign that they are ultimately not compatible is the historical ruins scene. Mathieu is interested in studying the ruins, Cedric is not. He is the one w/ the raging hormone who focuses only on the physical side without an intellectual side that Mathieu obviously needs.Finally, the ending is really rather hopeful and sweet. I was pleasantly surprised by the turn of events after the bleak tone that edges toward the end.I have two complaints for the DVD. One is the sound. It's very soft. I had to crank up the volume to hear the dialog and then when it switched to a bar or outdoor crowd scene, it became too loud. The other is that the subtitles can't be turn off; they stay on the screen. Most foreign movie DVDs not released by a major studio are shoddy this way unfortunately.

What seemed at first just another introverted French flick offering no more than baleful sentiment became for me, on second viewing, a genuinely insightful and quite satisfying presentation.Spoiler of sorts follows.Poor Cedric; he apparently didn't know what hit him. Poor audience; we were at first caught up in what seemed a really beautiful and romantic story only to be led back and forth into the dark reality of mismatch. These two guys just didn't belong together from their first ambiguous encounter. As much as Mathieu and Cedric were sexually attracted to each other, the absence of a deeper emotional tie made it impossible for Mathieu, an intellectual being, to find fulfillment in sharing life with someone whose sensibilities were more attuned to carnival festivities and romps on the beach.On a purely technical note, I loved the camera action in this film. Subtitles were totally unnecessary, even though my French is "presque rien." I could watch it again without the annoying English translation and enjoy it even more. This was a polished, very professionally made motion picture. Though many scenes seem superfluous, I rate it nine out of ten.