Couscous (2007)
Region 2 DVD Video Review
24-10-2008 12:00  |  2349 views   |   Noel Megahey   |   My Other Content   |   Other content for "Couscous"
 
Although his debut film La Faute à Voltaire didn’t go unnoticed, winning a Golden Lion in Venice in 2000 for Best Film by a New Director, it was Abdellatif Kechiche’s loud and gritty examination of the social repression endured by impoverished youths in a Parisian high-rise suburb in L’Esquive (Games of Love and Chance) that established the young French director of Tunisian origin as an fresh and exciting figure in French cinema. Coming at a time when the subject of the banlieues was a hot and widely questioned topic, Kechiche’s direct confrontation of the underlying historical, educational and social attitudes that would lead to the problems of the present day ensured that L’Esquive was widely acclaimed in the press and winner of several major awards at the Césars in 2005 including Best Film, beating out popular big studio features like Les Choristes and A Very Long Engagement. More closely related to his own background centred on a French-Arab family of Maghreb origin in a large port in the south of France, and originally intended to be his first film, by the time La Graine et le Mulet (retitled in the UK reasonably meaningfully as Couscous) was released in late 2007, acclaim was unanimous for Kechiche’s independent, proletarian viewpoint not commonly seen in French cinema.


Presumably then, the French public and critics, addicted to a diet of US blockbusters and TV mega-series, have never seen or had a French equivalent of Eastenders, because Kechiche’s work, with its banal domesticity, tedious arguments and heavy-handed plotting is barely more incisively realistic about modern social issues than the average TV soap opera. The endless, banal bickering of kids in the Parisian suburbs of L’Esquive is reprised in Couscous in the form of stultifying "realistic" family disputes over business, domestic and relationship affairs with unwatchable extended scenes of crying, yelling, bitching and bickering, all strung out over the thinnest of plots. The story is centred on Slimane (Habib Boufares), a 62 year-old shipyard worker who finds he no longer has a viable position in the company’s new working patterns. Taking his severance pay, he intends to set up his own restaurant on a boat, specialising in fish couscous. Without proper funding or a business case, getting the necessary funding and approval from the authorities seems unlikely, but Slimane hopes that he can put aside differences between his family with his ex-wife Souad (Bouraouïa Marzouk) and his new partner and step-daughter, and with their assistance make a success of the business. Stretched out to over two and a half hours however, there are a lot of dreary family affairs to get through. As Slimane’s step-daughter Rym (Hafsia Herzi) puts it referring to his ex-wife Souad, all she does is "wag her tongue and cooks" – the rest of the family mainly just wag their tongues.

To be fair there’s a little more to Couscous than that and there is clearly a more considered approach to the subject and its underlying meaning, the film touching on racism and intolerance as it is lived and enacted (bitter, bitchy and cliquey) rather than presenting it as an "issue". In the same way however that the director contrives to have a group of ghetto kids in L’Esquive rehearsing Marivaux’s Games of Love and Chance for a school play, using this to show how social attitudes are formed and highlight the contrasts in society through the variations in the language spoken, so too the underlying concept in Couscous is rather too academic, obtrusive and heavy-handed to carry any real conviction. The film’s French title La Graine et le Mulet (literally The Grain and the Mule, as well as being the ingredients of fish couscous if you take mulet to mean mullet), comes from a story originally meant to be related in the film but eventually left-out, where a farmer starts reducing the feed he gives to his mule by a single grain a day and sees no noticeable lessening of its activity until eventually one day the mule suddenly drops dead. What remains of this allegory in the film is the notion of food and family, alimentary nourishment and sustenance, both of which enshrine the notion of love and are necessary for Slimane to get through the difficulties, obstacles, prejudices and hardships that he is unable to confront on his own. Even here though, there can be a "bad seed" that can upset the balance.


Conceptually, this is fine, if rather heavy-handed and over-emphasised in the endless scenes of family members gathered around a large dinner table shovelling couscous into their mouths in zoomed close-ups, hammering the point home further through the expositional dialogue and such overt symbolism as Slimane having a bird in a cage that won’t sing (seriously). But the director is misguided in his trust that these heart-warming scenes of togetherness or even the confrontational scenes of family dispute and disagreement will be as fascinating or meaningful for the viewer as they are to him, particularly when they are strung out to great length and delivered by largely non-professional actors. Couscous certainly captures moments of real life as it is lived by ordinary people, as in the proof of love that comes from Rym and the other members of Slimane’s extended family in the final scenes, but here just as elsewhere it’s undercut with the banality and inconsequentiality of the domestic soap-opera dramatics.

DVD


Couscous is released in the UK by Artificial Eye. The film is presented on a dual-layer disc, in PAL format, and is encoded for Region 2.

Video
Couscous transfers well to DVD with tones that if they don’t look perfect are at least representative of what you’d expect the film to look like when filmed on Digital High Definition cameras. Sharpness is therefore not perfect and skin tones look a little smeary and discoloured in places – showing up quite evidently since the majority of the film is focussed in extreme close-up on faces - but by and large the film looks well, with no evident edge-enhancement or macro-blocking issues.


Audio
Two soundtrack options are included – Dolby Digital 2.0 and Dolby Digital 5.1 – and both are just fine, dialogue and music score coming across clearly and strongly. Certain crowd scenes evidently benefit from the wider surround mix, but either will be more than adequate.

Subtitles
English subtitles are provided in a clear white font and are optional.

Extras
In addition to the film’s Trailer (2:06), presented anamorphically and looking reasonably good in edited-down form, the main extra feature is the usual excellent Artificial Eye interview with the director. Kechiche always comes across as serious and intense in his interviews and even more so in person. The Interview with Abdellatif Kechiche (23:51) here covers his initial impetus for making films and his inspiration for Couscous, which was evidently his own family and his father. He talks about his working methods, striking a balance between rigorous rehearsals, rigid scripting and allowing the actors room to be flexible. In this respect he also talks about casting of Habib Boufares and also about getting the right location for the film. This all provides a good and comprehensive overview of where the director is coming from. The only other features on the disc are other Artificial Eye Trailers.


Overall
The French film academy and all the national critics were unanimous in their effusive admiration of Couscous and in their consideration of Abdellatif Kechiche as the future of French independent cinema. With French cinema, like most world cinema, ever more under constraints to be commercial and appeal to the masses, that might well be the case, Kechiche indeed giving a voice to the real life on the streets and provinces of France that are rarely represented in its cinema. Personally however I find comparisons to Jean Renoir and Maurice Pialat far from credible and feel that not only do his films lack any real artistry above the level of soap opera, but the endless bickering and banal conversations just give me a headache. If you’re sufficiently inclined to explore this yourself however and make your own mind up, Artificial Eye’s DVD presentation is excellent, with their customary high quality transfer and a relevant, informative interview with the director.
Please help support The Digital Fix by purchasing this title or any others through our affiliate links...

HMV
£5.49
Amazon UK
£11.24
Play.com
£12.99
DVD Source
£14.99
#1 Posted: 24-10-2008 17:55
tonyleung
Member
Posts: 854

Yours is the first less than excellent review I've read of this, interesting.

Quote this post
#2 Posted: 24-10-2008 18:50
Robert Thomas
Gun crazy
Posts: 132

I always have doubts when a reviewer spends more time explaining why other people have really praised or despised a movie than talking about the value of the actual movie. This is the case of your review and, in my opinion, you've missed the mark, big time, almost beating your "No Country For Old Men" previous record.



Kechiche didn't get his awards due to the Parisian suburbs burning around the time "L'Esquive" was released. And the movie isn't about "social repression". Actually, the weakest scenes are the ones involving the obligatory racist cop, as, in "Couscous", the scenes with the boss explaining business issues or city hall employees doing as little as they can to help Slimane border on caricature. "L'Esquive" is more simply a movie about how dissimulation and seduction mechanisms turn out to be as valid and complex in the supposedly unrefined current Parisian suburbs as they were in the 17th Century Parisian high society depicted by Marivaux.



You obviously found "Couscous" boring and uninvolving, missing most of its qualities. The confrontation scenes aren't too long. They're meant to be uncomfortable. The daughter-in-law who confronts Slimane has actually very valid points to express and her reaction is totally rightful. But the scene starts to wander and the character goes off the rails, shutting every door with other members of the family, even the sympathetic ones. It's actually much less complacent than most of the movies directed by former Cahiers du cinéma critics we've been given in France, consisting in one (more or less cynical) tribute to the New Wave after the other. Kechiche prefers to aim for the breaking point and show its after effects.



Concerning the story that was supposed to give the movie its title, the movie makes sense even without it, as the mullet couscous is the pretext for the business and the family reunion Slimane has planned. The movie is ultimately about how the generous but naive plan fails by an hair due to the very same family and how a new unity can be achieved with new combinations, as the daughter of Slimane's partner shows.



Couscous is in no way a masterpiece, nor Kechiche the future of French cinéma. The awards given to Hafsia Herzi border on the overpraise. But the movie is an achievement in its naturalistic yet focused views.

Quote this post
#3 Posted: 24-10-2008 20:19
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

Originally Posted by Robert Thomas:

I always have doubts when a reviewer spends more time explaining why other people have really praised or despised a movie than talking about the value of the actual movie. This is the case of your review and, in my opinion, you've missed the mark, big time, almost beating your "No Country For Old Men" previous record.


What a bizarre, asinine comment. You are of course welcome to say why you thought the film was good, but I have no idea why you feel the need to preface it with that.

I actually spent no time whatsoever assessing other critical views of the film. My only preparation for the review was to read an interview with the director in the 11-17 December 2007 issue of Les Inrockuptibles (an issue where Kechiche was made guest editor no less) and my review is my own opinion in reaction to watching the film and measuring up how well it achieved what the director set out to put across. You on the other hand spend rather a lot of time countering my opinion with nothing but your own.

What you describe as values I see as flaws. So what? Why should I see the film the same way as you? That doesn't mean I miss the mark. I know exactly what the director wished to achieve because I've read and listened to his views. I still found the film deeply uninvolving, banal and irritating, as well as structurally and formally poor at putting across those intended views.

My reason for highlighting the high praise given elsewhere to the film incidentally was to allow people the opportunity of viewing my comments in context, nothing more. In other words, I don't think it's great but there are plenty of other people and award juries who rate the film very highly. You don't seem to want to accord the same privilege to anyone whose view doesn't coincide with you own. If they don't agree with you, it "misses the mark". That has to be the least convincing rationale for supporting your view above others, and I'd certainly have doubts about any opinion that is put across on that basis.

Quote this post
#4 Posted: 24-10-2008 21:49
Robert Thomas
Gun crazy
Posts: 132

Donkey answering.


The basic choice, when you try to review a film, is between talking about the movie and talking about the hype and reactions surrounding a movie. Esthetics vs sociology, the film as a work of art vs a social phenomenon. Neither of these approaches is fundamentally bad. The hard thing is to differentiate them and I think your review is flawed because you use the reception of the movie as a cheap point to dismiss its supposed merits.


You show more or less that you know that the film was praised but mostly to imply that you did your critic homework about it. There might be a few good things in it, people and juries thought so, you know that. Then, you tear the film apart. The basic thing would have been to try to understand these people and their views with a little more care in order to refute that more efficiently, not just notice the praise. The same thing plagued your review of "No Country For Old Men". I can agree to disagree with somebody who thought little of the movie but I cringe when somebody adopts a pseudo all-encompassing view to make his subjective take on a subject looking like an objective synthesis. It gives the reader who enjoyed the movie the impression he's regarded as a sheep or a moron and that the Mighty Reviewer has accepted to share the Truth with him.


By the way, Les Inrockuptibles is the epitome of superficial intellectual criticism in France. Their tone about cinéma is mostly "You have to think that because we think it's the right time for that" with little arguing besides that (a big difference with Les Cahiers du cinéma). This is the kind of condescending navel-gazing tone that plagues too often French critics and I hope it doesn't develop besides our borders. You could have found more interesting interviews of Kechiche in other papers.

Quote this post
#5 Posted: 24-10-2008 22:43
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 485

I think your review is flawed because you use the reception of the movie as a cheap point to dismiss its supposed merits.

You can "think" what you like but you are wrong.  I reviewed the film purely on my own personal response to it, and I've explained why I mentioned the film's reception.  But feel free to "think" what you like.

The basic thing would have been to try to understand these people and
their views with a little more care in order to refute that more
efficiently, not just notice the praise.


I feel no such obligation whatsoever.  I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about a film and judge it on its own merits.  And I think I more than adequately covered that in the review.  You've certainly not added anything that I didn't cover myself.  The only difference is in our respective judgement of its validity.

...but I cringe when somebody adopts a pseudo all-encompassing view to
make his subjective take on a subject looking like an objective
synthesis


Again, that's just your opinion.  I made no effort to present a "objective synthesis".  It's purely subjective.  You may get used to it because that's how we work on DVD Times.

It gives the reader who enjoyed the movie the impression he's regarded
as a sheep or a moron and that the Mighty Reviewer has accepted to
share the Truth with him.


If you feel like a moron or that your view is threatened because someone doesn't conform to your or a commonly held viewpoint, the problem is with you.

By the way, Les Inrockuptibles is the epitome of superficial intellectual criticism in France

I couldn't give a toss what you think about Les Inrockuptibles - it has no relevance here.  I didn't base my review on their analysis of the film but rather on an extensive interview with the director himself, on a magazine where he was actually the guest editor.

Quote this post


Comment on this content - sign up for a Digital Fix login, or sign in now
Username:
Password:
Remember:
Register now!