Black Venus

Discuss releases from Arrow and the films on them.

Moderator: yoloswegmaster

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Films of 2012

#1 Post by Brian C » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:14 pm

Black Venus (Abdellatif Kechiche)

Kechiche's followup to The Secret of the Grain explores the story of Sarah Baartman, the "Hottentot Venus" of 19th-century London and Paris sideshow infamy. As far as I can tell, it's still without proper US distribution and may never find it, since it's a lengthy (164 minutes) and bracingly confrontational film. Still, it's often fascinating, especially during the first half, and I think it's a big step up from Kechiche's previous film.

The film spares none of the horrific details of Baartman's circumstances, although it's more complex than a simple condemnation of her masters and audiences. I don't think it ever comes close to endorsing or justifying her exploitation, but I think it makes it fairly clear that a person of her race and social standing would have had few if any good options in either South Africa or Europe at the time. Her master in London tells her that she would have been destined to live her live as a servant in Cape Town, but at least has a chance to earn money for her own personal advancement by participating in the shows. Modern audiences are sure to see how implausible it is that she'll accrue the benefits he promises, but I think it's also possible to see how she would have believed it, or at least would have wanted to given her disheartening alternatives even if she was to return home.

Kechiche turns that empathy on its ear, though, during a trial brought by British abolitionist do-gooders in attempt to free her, in which a supposedly sympathetic court audience turns its hostility toward Sarah as soon as her testimony deviates from what she wants to hear. Again, I think what the movie does here is fairly unique, telling the story from a modern perspective but not forgetting that social norms and moral perspectives were much different then, and her would-be saviors are not given the heroic treatment by the film that we might expect. Another example of this is the film's different treatment of Sarah's audiences; I think it goes much easier on the working-class people of London, who can't help but being overwhelmed by the exoticism of the specacle, than it does on the wealthy, libertine Parisian audiences, who become immediately bored with Sarah when they notice that she's not enjoying herself like they are. There's also a wickedly satiricial interlude when Sarah is examined by a team of scientists.

Looming over the film's examination of exploitation, of course, is Yahima Torres, the actress who plays Sarah. The film reconstructs Sarah's performances in agonizing detail, and Torres is subjected to much of the same humiliation that Sarah was, although I assume that Torres's environment was surely inherently more controlled and supportive than Sarah's. One might say that Torres is playing the role voluntarily, although the film doesn't really dispute that Sarah voluntarily consented to leave her home in South Africa, either. Of course Sarah most likely had no idea what lay in store for her in Europe, but Torres is a first-time film actress, and it's easy to imagine that Torres was unprepared for the impact of playing such a demanding role. She may say now that it was a rewarding experience, but if the film's commercial success is at stake, would she feel pressure to put a positive spin on it, like Sarah does in the film? To what degree are we, as the film's audience, culpable in the exploitation of Torres, regardless of how voluntary her participation is? I don't really know the answers to these questions, but while I think there's a danger of making false equivalences between the two women's circumstances, it's hard for me not to draw parallels between them. If nothing else, it frankly makes the semi-controversial issue here in the US of black actresses playing maids in The Help look a little petty and ridiculous.

Unfortunately, I think the film loses its distinct character during the last act, as Sarah's fortunes take a turn for the worse - no matter how bad things are they can always get worse, I guess - and the film becomes a document of her decline into prostitution and ill health. This feels like much more familiar territory. I momentarily thought the movie was flirting with the idea that outright prostitution was a relief for Sarah from the carnival circuit, which might have been a provocative critique of the situation, but I'm not really sure that's the case. It's a disappointingly conventional denouement for a movie that otherwise takes a challenging approach to a very difficult subject.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: The Films of 2012

#2 Post by zedz » Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:53 pm

Brian C wrote:Black Venus (Abdellatif Kechiche)
Great assessment of a very striking film, Brian. I think it made my top 10 of last year (or if not was lurking just outside). As you say, it's an extremely confrontational film, and I can't imagine who they thought might be the audience for it, but in the plus column it does indeed grab hold of some very meaty issues with its teeth and refuses to let go or try to make them artificially palatable. I still feel like Kechiche has a certain clunkiness as a film stylist, but he bulldozes through that in this film with the sheer nerve of his approach to the subject matter.

The denouement is indeed more conventionally despairing, but that seems to be in line with the historical record. I'm much more troubled by the film's modern-day coda, which is awkward enough as
SpoilerShow
mildly upbeat onscreen text, but is frankly disastrously bathetic as repurposed news footage. In the face of the brutal facts of the case, this purely symbolic 'homecoming' seems like very small potatoes, and to me it seems almost offensive to try and twist it into a last-minute feel-good-ism.
The 'exploitation' issue is something that Kechiche seems to be working with very deliberately and conscientiously, and I think the moral question is answered by the fact that Torres delivers such a superb performance, and by the fact that our sympathy for her is never in doubt - which is indeed why watching the film is such an uncomfortable experience: it's very rare that we as an audience are so close to a character that goes through all of this, on screen. Torres isn't being objectified, she's being subjectified.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Films of 2012

#3 Post by Brian C » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:40 pm

zedz wrote:I'm much more troubled by the film's modern-day coda, which is awkward enough as
SpoilerShow
mildly upbeat onscreen text, but is frankly disastrously bathetic as repurposed news footage. In the face of the brutal facts of the case, this purely symbolic 'homecoming' seems like very small potatoes, and to me it seems almost offensive to try and twist it into a last-minute feel-good-ism.
Yikes, you're right, and to be honest I had already completely forgotten about that or I would have mentioned it! Guess I had blocked it out. I think some text may have been OK, with sort of a "FYI this happened" tone, but I have to agree that Kechiche handled it very poorly.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Black Venus

#4 Post by colinr0380 » Sat May 12, 2018 8:57 am

Image
Arrow Video wrote:Between Couscous, winner of three César Awards, and the Cannes triumph of Blue Is the Warmest Colour, Abdellatif Kechiche made Black Venus, a stark portrait of the life of Saartjie Baartman, also known as the ‘Hottentot Venus’.

Baartman was taken from South African home as a 21-year-old and shipped to Georgian London, where she would be caged and exhibited as a freak show. Presented semi-nude, her physique – especially her large buttocks – was the source of much curiosity. But as her ‘fame’ spread, so too did her exploitation…

Centred on a remarkable performance by Cuban actor Yahima Torres as Baartman, Black Venus provides a bleak but barbed exploration of sex, science, race, colonialism and social attitudes.

Release date: 21/05/2018

Production Year: 2010 | Region Code: B | UK Rating: 15 | Running Time: 162 mins | Number of Discs: 1 | Language: French / English | Subtitles: English | Audio: 5.1 / 2.0 | Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1 | Colour: Colour
SPECIAL EDITION CONTENTS:

High Definition Blu-ray (1080p) presentation
Optional 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio and 2.0 DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks
Optional English subtitles
Brand-new appreciation of Black Venus and the cinema of Abdellatif Kechiche by critic Neil Young
Theatrical trailer
Reversible sleeve featuring and original newly commissioned artwork by Peter Strain
FIRST PRESSING ONLY: Illustrated collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by Will Higbee, author of Post-Beur Cinema: North African Émigré and Maghrebi-French Filmmaking in France Since 2000
Trailer

User avatar
greggster59
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:37 pm

Re: Black Venus

#5 Post by greggster59 » Sat May 12, 2018 9:47 am

The trailer suggests there are quite a few parallel's between Black Venus and Lynch's Elephant Man with regards to the treatment of it's subject by society.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Black Venus

#6 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:47 am

Brian C wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:14 pm
Black Venus (Abdellatif Kechiche)

I think what the movie does here is fairly unique, telling the story from a modern perspective but not forgetting that social norms and moral perspectives were much different then, and her would-be saviors are not given the heroic treatment by the film that we might expect. Another example of this is the film's different treatment of Sarah's audiences; I think it goes much easier on the working-class people of London, who can't help but being overwhelmed by the exoticism of the specacle, than it does on the wealthy, libertine Parisian audiences, who become immediately bored with Sarah when they notice that she's not enjoying herself like they are. There's also a wickedly satiricial interlude when Sarah is examined by a team of scientists.

Looming over the film's examination of exploitation, of course, is Yahima Torres, the actress who plays Sarah. The film reconstructs Sarah's performances in agonizing detail, and Torres is subjected to much of the same humiliation that Sarah was, although I assume that Torres's environment was surely inherently more controlled and supportive than Sarah's. One might say that Torres is playing the role voluntarily, although the film doesn't really dispute that Sarah voluntarily consented to leave her home in South Africa, either. Of course Sarah most likely had no idea what lay in store for her in Europe, but Torres is a first-time film actress, and it's easy to imagine that Torres was unprepared for the impact of playing such a demanding role. She may say now that it was a rewarding experience, but if the film's commercial success is at stake, would she feel pressure to put a positive spin on it, like Sarah does in the film? To what degree are we, as the film's audience, culpable in the exploitation of Torres, regardless of how voluntary her participation is? I don't really know the answers to these questions, but while I think there's a danger of making false equivalences between the two women's circumstances, it's hard for me not to draw parallels between them. If nothing else, it frankly makes the semi-controversial issue here in the US of black actresses playing maids in The Help look a little petty and ridiculous.
This excerpt, and Brian’s whole writeup, sum up my thoughts on this better than I could, though as I finally caught up with this I couldn’t help but view it in hindsight, within the context of Kechiche’s other work and current reputation. The moral question Brian poses regarding the actress’ agency in participation here perhaps mirroring the characters’ evokes the controversy around Blue is the Warmest Color’s challenges, the actresses’ complaints and subsequent semi-admittance to the effectiveness of the methods in question. zedz claims that this is not objectification but subjectification, though I’m wondering if it can be both? I haven’t seen all of his work but Kechiche’s Mektoub, My love: Canto Uno begins with clear objectification of the human body and continues with such aggressively close angular penetrations of private affairs. But is this a violation or an admiration that becomes intimate? Is the issue consent, and if so how can that be measured, especially with the audience’s involvement? Blue is the Warmest Color is one of my favorite films of the decade, and not for the sex scenes. I think it’s one of the most honest portrayals of a relationship, emotional grey area, and is incredibly intimate in the process of achieving this authenticity. It’s wholly subjective in its humanist alliance with the characters and yet finds a pathway that still objectifies its actresses not just through sex scenes but in a gaze (not a male one; but a general desire to look, to soak up with the senses allotted from the camera). This film suggested to me that part of this process of subjectification, in film and in social interactions in life, is objectification.

Is that part of what Black Venus is about, and perhaps every film he’s made to some degree: the ways in which we grapple with our own contradictions and yet remain authentic? Can a person with less status, essentially a slave, have agency; and if not able to have some semblance of power within the confines of her control? Who is stunting that possibility - the ‘exploiter’ or the progressive accusers of the exploitation? Are they disempowering her even further by speaking for her experience?

If we as an audience deem Sarah and/or Torres be exploited are we also entering the same moral conundrum where we project our own perspectives onto hers and this context’s, to the director’s space without knowledge of what happened (can this apply to all the rumors in our cancel culture?) and if this is the case, do our attempts at empathy actually take on an anti-humanist philosophy? I’m not saying we shouldn’t consider these questions, we need to consider them; these films, our society, and our own value systems and paths to growth demand it- but it appears that hard stances from a limited vantage point are dangerous, and I appreciate Brian’s relativist analysis on this. Perhaps being objectified is part of life, and that it’s a psychological barrier necessary on an unconscious level to achieve subjective intimacy. Maybe Kechiche is a man torn between his need and desire to gaze at the physical, to desire the sexual through exploitation, to experience power.. and his desire to access raw emotion and ultimately some sense of real connection. This is a film that is even better in context, and regardless of Kechiche’s self-awareness to his own psychology, he can’t help but illustrate his recognition of human behavior and provoke the complex space our expressions of ‘appreciation’ and methods of ‘engagement’ occupy with densely populated ambiguities. This “real” connection might not be fully in step with the ‘purity’ we want it to be, and maybe that’s okay. And if it’s not, does that say more about those who reject it or those who embrace it? Kechiche appears to be struggling with this, which to me is a sign of acceptance, for absolute blending with this stance would discount the natural challenges any person will have in separating from social norms, expectations, and personal ideas in this process. A struggle is good, I think.

With Mektoub showing an increased comfort in the space of sensual invasiveness and the sequel apparently upping the ante, I have to wonder if Kechiche has overcome his critical thinking/feeling inside and come away embracing this side of him. I don’t know if that’s good, to be comfortable about this kind of thing, and my gut tells me that the stage of questioning is lifelong and necessary to always be examining, to avoid complacency so we don’t become blind to our behavior and problematically solipsistic. Anyways, I like his films before those better, and maybe that’s not because he was more frantic in his relationship with these ideas, but my hypothesis is that it was.

Anyways, this is a great wild film, full of discomfort and chaos for the filmmaker, actress, and viewer, and forces one to think about the truth behind our morality while retaining a depth of empathy as a safe humanist focal point to make this exploration even possible in the first place.

Post Reply