Film Fest Podcast: Tell No One
This week brings the first episode of the Film Festival Podcast. I’m joined by the indomitable Chris Olsen as we discuss the 2006 French thriller Tell No One. Be sure to discuss the film in the comments section below, but if you haven’t watched the film yet, be aware that both the podcast and the comments section contain spoilers.
Also, if you want to give feedback on the podcast, you can do so in the comments below, or send an email to filmfestpanic@gmail.com, and we just might read your email on the show.
You can subscribe to the podcast by entering this feed into your podcast catcher of choice:
feed://www.robotpanic.com/rpfilmfest.xml
This podcast should be appearing on iTunes in the next few days.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
RP Film Festival Podcast: Tell No One
Related Posts
Tags: Chris Olsen, Film Fest Podcast, film festival, Tell No One
June 13th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Mitch,
Thanks for all your effort in the Summer Film Festival. I think it’s awesome that we can get more in depth on the films that you have thrown out for us this year. Bravo my friend.
For me, the real litness test that I have for any film I would recommend is “Would I want to watch it again?” For movies that I consider great my litness test is “Would I want to share it with my friends?” Sadly for me, I can’t say that I would want to watch this film again. I will explain.
The film has an amazing premise and I wouldn’t doubt that it would make a great Hollywood remake. The characters are pretty well flushed out and I really enjoyed the end confrontation with the main character and his father-in-law.
My big problem lies in the pacing of the film. The entire time I felt like this film was a good half hour too long. Things take time to get started and once they do, we are led to wait some more. It’s a tease-thriller in a sense where I want more, but have to wait through a lot of stuff to get there. I never felt like I was on the edge of my seat, something that I do hope for in a thriller.
Listening to your podcast, I can see why you appreciate this film, it has deep meaning and a mis-em-scene to it with the choice in art direction, music, lack there of, ect. In order for me as a movie-goer to get to that point, I really need to be enjoying myself first.
I respect your views and I don’t think the film was a waste of my time, it just wasn’t my kind of movie. Keep up the great work and we look forward to the next installment.
June 14th, 2010 at 8:44 am
I find it interesting that you had that reaction, because what was so remarkable about the film to me on my first viewing is just how invested it had me from early on. By a good ten minutes in, I was absolutely hooked and it never let up.
Also, I disagree that the forthcoming American remake will be better, for many of the reasons I mentioned in the podcast itself. What makes the film work is its trust in the audience. It’s very subtle, and throughout the film Alexander remains perfectly human, and the filmmaking reflects that. The American remake is going to make it an all-out action flick, which doesn’t at all fit the themes and characters of the film.
June 14th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Pacing in general is something that Hollywood and Europe have vastly differing views on – to put put it in a sweeping generalization. I don’t want to oversimplify it into a “business v. art” dichotomy, but the goal of Hollywood cinema is (generally speaking, again) to lead the viewer, scene-by-scene, line-by-line, onto the next scene or line, utilizing the most efficient cuts and (in serious cases of studio-syndrome) excising any sense of individuality from the film (e.g. any post 1990 romantic comedy). It’s the “No Viewer Left Behind Act,” in a phrase; the film does the thinking for you so you can simply enjoy. Also, before I get too far, let me just say: this is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a wildly successful formula to be followed that results in fast-paced, easy-to-watch, fun Hollywood films.
Then there’s Europe. Again, this is, like, an unforgivable generalization, but for the purposes of creating a clear-cut dichotomy, let’s roll with it. “European,” in our case, can stand in for “American Art House” as well – indie films that only show at small theaters, that sort of deal. These kinds of films are more interested in leading the viewer thematically than actively. While the plot may seem to drag, the filmmakers (ideally) compensate for this by loading the thing up with style, theme, message, etc. You could say that these films “trust” the viewer more – let the viewer follow the film, rather than leading her/him, as happens in Hollywood cinema.
So while Tell No One could be remade into a good Hollywood film, lovers of the European original will find fatal flaws in its infidelity to Canet’s original vision (this particular film is laden with style), and lovers of the Hollywood remake will find the original dull and boring, too convoluted, etc. It’s a matter of preference – I’m really into these theme-heavy films in which nothing important seems to happen (just wait for Breathless), but are beautiful nonetheless, and engaging and interesting on many levels.
And one last apology for making it seem like all Hollywood films are one way and all European films the other – we all know that’s untrue, but “Hollywood” and “Hollywood-style” have become stand-ins for “expensive studio production.” There are plenty of European-made films that follow the same blueprint laid out in Hollywood.
I really loved Tell No One, I’ll probably see the American remake at some point and say something really snobbish like, “Well, they just missed the point,” or, “They were just trying to fill seats in theaters.” A matter of personal preference.
June 14th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a big Hollywood vs the world guy as I enjoy both approaches for vastly different reasons. I agree that in MOST cases Hollywood will take a great idea and dumb it down for their audience. A great example is “The Vansihing” which is one of my favorite thriller movies of all time, and one that left me staring at a wall for a half hour contemplating what I just experienced. Hollywood took that and completely ruined that experience in favor of a dumbed down hack and slash. YUK! I fear the worst for “Let the Right One In” as I believe it will be made into a post modern “Twilight” tweeny flick instead of the deep forboding love story that the original was.
In this case I might actually enjoy a remake for my own personal preferences on pacing in a thriller. I think Mitch’s comment on this is really more of a love story than a thriller is pretty much right on and if I were to watch it as such I might have enjoyed the experience more. I also agree on the whole “Buy-in” element that is curucial in films like these. You need that right away in order to allow yourself to go along for the ride. For whatever reason, that didn’t happen for me, and as such I wanted more plot elements sooner than the exposition and thematic elements that took it’s place.
See this is why a film like this is GREAT for the Summer Film Fest, beacsue you can have deep discussions and varying opinions on what is being presented vs. the was it worth my money or not that the American Summer films bring us. That’s the great thing about the art of film, you are supposed to have discussions and different opinions, it ultimately makies the experience better for everyone. Thanks again, I look forward to the next installment.
June 14th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Like Mitch, this film had me invested from the very opening scene; riveted until the end. I watched this a year ago with my wife and she is generally not a fan of watching subtitled movies. But this one kept her interested.
I can see why this is getting a Hollywood remake because it seems like a perfect fit. Hopefully they keep the spirit of the original. It reminds me of the situation with Let the Right One In. With that one, I’m hoping they don’t try to turn it into Twilight or some bullshit like that. With this, I can see them veering toward a Bourne-style movie, which would be a shame (though I like those movies).
Anyway, I’m rambling again. Nice pick, Mitch. This is a great film.
June 14th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I think I had the benefit of seeing this one with my wife in one of the “art house” theaters we have in town. Whenever I see a movie in one of these theaters, I think I go in expecting things to be a different. So, I didn’t really mind the pacing of this movie the first time I saw it.
However, when we got it on DVD months ago and gave it another viewing, I really noticed it. It is slower. It languishes, for lack of a better term. But I think that plays in it’s favor. What saves it is the outstanding performance of François Cluzet. For some reason, his portrayal of Alexander really helped me connect with him. It was just so sincere and reserved but full of the kinds of emotion and determination that character needed. The moments where the movie languishes on him just add to the drama and intensity in a very subtle way. It really worked for me.
That scene in the computer cafe where the U2 song kicks in really works for just this reason. The true test of the Hollywood version will be just how badly they fuck this scene up.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:16 am
This movie really didn’t grab me. I think I fell asleep around the 1 hour mark and wasn’t really interested in finishing it. I read a synopsis. That was good enough for me.
June 14th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
It will be extremely interesting to compare the two films once the Hollywood version comes out. The understated nature of the characters and the way the tension builds arewhat really made this movie for me… It gave me a very David Mamet vibe.
Two things that have nothing to do with anything…
Francois Cluzet is the French Dustin Hoffman, and I couldn’t watch the final scene without thinking of Deadly Premonition.
June 14th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
The double twist at the end with the father-in-law was great. It didn’t hit you over the head like a Bourne movie would have, and I appreciated that. I also really liked the confrontation with the gang member who Alex thinks slept with his wife. There’s a little nugget in there that makes sense psychologically when the truth is revealed about what happened to the gang member in the expose.
June 15th, 2010 at 9:21 am
I’m one of the people in which this movie grabbed right at the beginning and didn’t let go. I agree with carrotpanic – after the big reveals at the end my mouth was just hanging open and all I could say was “holy shit”.
I love movies like this, with the subtle sense of foreboding and emotional instensity throughout. To me it’s the kind of movie that keeps you pretty much confused about the main story until the very end, when all is explained. You get tidbits here and there, along with a whole bunch of questions (“who the fuck is that?”, “is she still alive or is she dead?”), most of which are not answered until the end.
I actually just started playing Alan Wake, and it kind of follows the same sort of formula – a ton of confusion at the beginning that is slowly figured out as you along, until the end when the really massive questions are answered. Or, at least, I hope that’s how Alan Wake will go. I’m only halfway through episode 2 at this point.
June 15th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I thought it was great.
Something that really struck a chord with me was that almost all of the Alexandre’s motivation for doing the things he does, in the film, is because he loves this woman. To me, that was brought to a head in the scene when he confronts her father and, more precisely, in one single line.
“Have you any idea how much I miss your daughter?”
The whole film we’re watching this guy run from the cops, hide out with a gang member, start a fight with another gang member, risk his life just to see this woman, again. And we’re questioning what he is doing and why. When we don’t know what’s true and what’s a lie, who we should believe and who we shouldn’t, Alexandre is barreling forward following what he knows, in his heart, to be the truth. Motivated by who he knows this woman is. And he’s right.
The movie ends on a truly powerful note, too. When Alexandre makes it to the clearing where he and Margot carved their initials into a tree, years ago. As he’s walking up to the tree, he’s looking at it, then suddenly bursts into tears. I was assuming that he was just overcome with the emotion of seeing the carving and missing Margot, until the reveal, when it shows that she had come to that spot and put a new mark in the tree each of the 8 years they had been apart. My hair stands up on my arms just typing that. It was and incredible reveal. This whole time, you see what he is going through and how much he misses his wife, and in one simple shot it tells the audience that she endured the same. Good stuff.
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:26 am
Skeletonframes put it better than I could have. I had nearly the exact same experience with the film. Great pick!