Skip to content

La belle noiseuse (Jacques Rivette, 1991)

Matisse’s women … were not immediately women; they became women. It is Matisse who taught us to see their contours not in a ‘physical-optical’ way but rather as structural filaments, as the axes of a corporeal system of activity and passivity. Figurative or not, the line is no longer a thing or an imitation of a thing. It is a certain disequilibrium kept up within the indifference of the white paper; it is a certain process of gouging within the in-itself, a certain constitutive emptiness … The line is no longer an apparition of an entity upon a vacant background, as it was in classical geometry. It is, as in modern geometries, the restriction, segregation, or modulation of a pre-given spatiality.

Just as it has created the latent line, painting has made itself a movement without displacement, a movement by vibration or radiation. And well it should, since, as we say, painting is an art of space and since it comes about upon a canvas or sheet of paper and so lacks the wherewithal to devise things that actually move. But the immobile canvas could suggest a change of place in the same way that a shooting star’s track on my retina suggests a transition, a motion not contained in it … Painting searches not for the outside of movement but for its secret ciphers, of which there are still some more subtle than those of which Rodin spoke. All flesh, and even that of the world, radiates beyond itself.

-Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Two instruments register this “movement by vibration” in Rivette’s film: the line, the ellipsis.

The scenes in Frenhofer’s studio are deceptively continuous.

Extended lags without speech, without narrative action, without sound except for the artist’s breathing and the persistent scratching of drawing utensils on paper, have a lulling effect that disguises all the intermittent fractures: elliptical cuts embedded in the real-time sketching, elaborate switch-outs between shots (Piccoli’s body for Bernard Dufour’s hands, the sketches for the live model, one sketch-in-progress for another), changes of the model’s pose that go unstaged within the supposed continuity.

Rivette once remarked on the crucial role of ellipsis in Dreyer’s cinema, its mesmeric tracking shots abruptly discontinued, its articulations “false” by a few frames: micro-disturbances within and between shots that impress a subtle but palpable strangeness, a sense of “enigma.”

Here Rivette adapts this principle as a means of revealing — of making legible through gaps, breaks, skips, and false accords — the vibratory force of this interaction between artist and model (a principle to which a few transient swells of music alert us).

In the worked-up words of Frenhofer:

“The blood, the fire, the ice — everything that’s in your body.

I’ll get it out of you and put it into this frame, this blank.

I want the invisible. No, it’s not me who wants. It’s the line … the stroke.

Nobody knows what a stroke is, and I’m after it.

I’m running, running. Where am I going? To the sky?

Why not? Why shouldn’t a stroke burst the sky?

No more breasts, no more stomach, no more thighs, no more buttocks!

Whirlwinds, galaxies, the ebb and flow, black holes.

The original hubbub, have you heard of it?

That’s what I’ve always wanted from you.

I want nothing. It’s the painting. You and I are just involved.”

What Rivette’s film presents is a search for a line not as representation but as barometer of a confrontation, the restless traces of which are inscribed on the canvas in spare, overwhelming detail. The final result, the “unknown masterpiece,” is so disturbingly incomplete as to be alive, not the flesh of the model, not a lifelike copy but a “radiation.” And this painting must not be shown, to us or to the film’s other characters, must itself be switched-out with an inferior piece that Frenhofer tosses off and gives to the world. Of the “real” painting we only glimpse, just before it is walled-up behind bricks, a red, tantalizing portion, for a second uncovered by the sheet that hides (renders lacunary) everything else.

2 Comments

  1. Amazing: I just watched this yesterday. I don’t have my Merleau-Ponty with me right now, so this is a real treat. Just what I wanted. And, yes, the inheritance of Dreyer’s inscription is so spot on. All those creeping dolly/tracking shots that circumvent and surround and really _capture_ the “scene” or “event” or “line of thought.” I wrote a number of emails last night all about how this movie _is_ phenomenology.

    Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
  2. RW wrote:

    Uncanny timing. Glad this struck a chord.

    You’re right, the moving camera is instrumental here too — I probably should’ve mentioned that. In their own way, the tracking shots are lines as well, “descriptions” in the literal sense.

    I also thought the Matisse reference in the Merleau-Ponty was befitting in that Rivette sometimes cites Matisse in his Cahiers articles to describe a kind of spare “line” that seizes the spirit of something more whole. That’s how he discusses VIAGGIO IN ITALIA, at least (another intensely phenomenological film).

    Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*