Umbrellas

The NewWave Meets the Tradition of Quality:Jacques Demy's The Umbrellas of CherbourgRodney Hill

Abstract: Jacques Demy's importance in the French New Wave inmicathj becomesclearest by way of his least obvAoiishj New Wave work of the 1960s, The Uinbrel-las of Cherbourg, which represents a cnrions interseciion between tlie Neiv Waveaesthetic am! that of the "Tradition of Quality," agaimt which the movementclaimed to rebel.

At first glance, Jactjues Demy's be.st known work. Les Parapluies de Cherbourg{The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, 1964), bears little resemblance to his earlier, clearlyNew Wave features, Lola (1961) and La Baie des anges {Bay of Angels, 1963). Tothe casual observer, the all-snng, operatic film miglit even appear us an anoinalonsblip in French film histoiy, not obvionsly belonging t(ï any particular tradition ormovement. However, in terms of production values and other key characteristics,it would seem to hark back to the "Tradition of Quality," which had dominatedFrench screens in the 1950s and against which the French New Wave purportedto rebel. At the same time, despite surface appearances. The Umbrella.^ of Cher-bourg does conform to certain aesthetic and formal norms of the New Wave. Abalanced look at what the "Tradition of Quality-" actually represents (beyond thewell-known caricature offered in Cahiers du cinéma)., together udth a considera-tion of" eight general (jualitiesofthe New Wave offered by Michel Marie, will yielda more nuanced positioning of this celebrated film vis-à-vis both traditions, illumi-nating Jacqnes Demy s importance as a figure of intersection between the two.'

The New Wave. Defining New Wave precisely is a ratlier slippery enterprise.Part of the problem, as Marie points out, is that "the New Wave directors initiallyand repeatedly denied that tiiey formed a nnifie^d movement."- Still, their associ-ation with Cahiers enabled François Truffant, Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette,et al. to publicize each others nlms and to promote the idea of a movement whenit suited them. In a 1964 interview, Godard stressed the centralit)- of the Cahiers

Rodney Hill is an assistant professor of English and film at Georgia Gwinnett College. Heis coauthor (witli Gene D. Phillips} of The Eneijrlopedia of Stanleij Kuhriek (2002), coedi-tor of Francis Ford Coppola: Interviews (2004). and a coiitrihiitor to Tlic Stanley KiihrickArchives (2005). His work lias appeared in Film Qnaiierhj. The Quarterly Review of FilmÙ Vidt'o, Literature/Film Quarterly, Post Script, and elsewhere.

© 2(m by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819. Austin, TX 7S713-7819

Cinema Journal 48, No. 1, Fall 2008 2 7

gronpas the nnclens of the New Wave, while LJSO acknowledging the importance ofthe so-c;illed "Left Bank" group, inclnding Demy, Agnès Varda, and Alain Resnais. '

In fact, there was a good deal of commingling between these two "groups,"suggesting more commonalitv- than clifïcrcuce. For example. Demy aud Varda (whowere married in 1962) knew the Cahiers critics/directors veiy well; Demy had metRivette and Godard at the 1956 Festivale du Tours, aud later lie aud Varda fre-(juented the Cahiers offices in Paris. So, even though Demy never wrote for theinfliieutial journal (despite being offered the chance), he often engaged the groupin discussions of the cinema aud went to the movies with them."' Demy even madecameo appearances iu Truffants masteqiiece. The 400 Blows (1959), auil Rivette sParis nous appartient [Vans Belongs to Us. 1960); and both Truffaut and Godardproved instrumental in helping Demy ohtain financing for his fihns (Godard forLola. Truffaut for The Umbrellas of Cherbourg). More important, though, thanDemy's acquaintance and favor with the Cahiers group is the fact that his workshares many of tlie characteristics that unify the (often (juite disparate) films ofthese directors into a discernible "movement."

In his recent book. The New Wave: An Artistic School, Michel Marie positseight broad characteristics of die NewWave. For Marie, a NewWave film is madeby an auteur-ihrtâctor (who ideally is also the screenwriter). New Wave films oftenuse uouprofessioual actors or newcomers, and they evince au improvisational ap-proach to the script and acting. They privilege location-shooting over studio sets,make use of small crews, and utilize rudimentary hghtiug and direct souud, as op-posed to post-production dubbiug of dialogue (we might broaden this, allowing forother innovative uses of sound and music iu Demy's films). Finally, New Wavefilms are concerned with contemporar\' cultural issues, everyday life, and ordinär)'characters.' Of course, few films meet all eight of these characteristics, most ofwhich are neither necessary nor sufficient for a film to be included in the NewWave. As Marie puts it, "Films that take these strategies to their logical conclu-sions are very rare, but they provide the uuderpinnings for the creative cinematicprocess vvTonght by the New Wave.'''

One of the core, defining aspects of the New Wave is that its directors self-consciously positioned themselv es as the primary creators, authors, auteurs (whichideally meaut writer-directors) of their films. In part, tliis politique des auteursstemmed from what uiauy now consider a "manifesto ' for the New Wave move-ment: a 194S article by filmmaker Alexandre Astrac, "The Birth of a New Avaut-Garde: La Gaméra-St)lo," in the journal L'Ecran français. Astruc envisioned acinema that would express ideas as directly and intimately as the written word,likening the movie camera to a writer's pen. Similarly, Agnès Varda coined theterm dnécriture ("cine-writing") to describe the highly pers(tual, expressive atti-tude toward filmmaking that she took up in the mid-1950s.' Significantly, Demywas oue of the very few New Wave directors to continue writing his ov\ii scriptsthroughout most of his career; Varda is another.

2 8 Cinenui Journal 48, No. I, Fall 2008

Many New Wave films contain clearly autobiographical elements (as is tbecase vvitb Demy's Lola and Tniffaut's Antoine Doinel cycle, for example), and moregenerally, they represent personal, artistic, even philosopbiciil creations. Such in-dividual expre.ssion nuiy proffer a worldvievv or even, as is tbe case witb Demv,create a uniqne personal universe. The filin.s frequently also pay bomage {be it di-rect or subtle) to other cinematic masters who influenced tbat particular auteur{in Demys c;u>e, Opliiils. Bresson, Coctean, Welles, and Gene Kelly), other NewWave films, or even tbe aiiteur's own, earlier films.'^ Thus we miglit add a ninthNew Wave characteristic to Marie's eight: a bigh degree of reflexivity or empbasison intertextuaiity.

David Bordwell and Kristin Tbompson suggest that, iii terms of style, "themost obviously révolu tionarv' quality of the New Wa\e films was their casual look."''Thanks largely to the widespread availability oí portable film cameras after WorldWar II, New Wave directors broke out of the studios, often choosing to shoot onlocation, using direct sound and existing, natural light. This shift resulted in a vi-sual style that seemed extraordinarily fresh and immediate, if sometimes amateur-ish. This new, "casual" look seemed perfectly suited to stories about everyday life,involving more "authentic" characters than those found in the literarv' adaptationsof the "Tradition of Quality." However, if some New Wave directors seemed tu dis-trust virtuosity. Demy embraced it. Indeed, Demys films defy many of the criti-cisms leveled at some early New Wave films: "absence of professionalism, thenotorious incompetence of the young directors, and the supposedly rushed, slap-dash nature of their works."'"

It is important here not to confiise low budgets or "casual style" with a laek ofseriousness. Although many NewWave films seem Iighthi>arted ou the surface, thebest ones set theni.selves about very serious business. jean-Andre Fieschi points outthat, "while they often showed a sensitivity to the real and even to the mundanethat is, iJl in all, quite new, the young French directors nevertheless constnicted intheir best Rims—as if to prove their right to be considered aidctirs^whut couldbe called personal mvthologies." ' ' Many New Wave fihns pnt forth worldviews thatquestioned dominant culture rather than reinforcing it. This (jnestiouing is fre-quently achieved by way of a quasi-Brechtian reflexivity. in which cinematic tech-niijue calls attention to itself, engaging the viewer in a process of distanciation ordetamiliarization.

The "Tradition of Quality" Reconsidered. The New Waves antenrist stanceis, iu part, a reaction agaiust the so called Tradition of Quality, the dominanttrend in French cineuia of the 1950s. In the Cahiers view (most evident in thescathing criticism offered by François Tniffaut), this "tradition" cousi.sted largelyof overblown, morally bankrupt, lifeless films, tvpified by stilted, inadequate liter-ary adaptations written (bnt significantly not directed) by a liandful of prominentscreenwriters, whom Tniffaut characterized as hacks. In all fairness, Richard

Cinema journal 48, No. I Fall 2008 2 9

Neupert and otliers have suggested that sucb u harsh assessment of the "Traditionoí Quality"' overlooks a very real quality cinema to be found in that period, now.somewhat neglected, of French film bist()r>\

"Tradition of Quality"' originally was used by tlie Centre National de la Ciné-matographie (CNC),an arm oí the French Ministryof Culture dedicated to main-taining a coherent national cinema strategy; to describe the kind of fibtimaking thatthe French government wanted to promote iu the postwar era. According to AlanWilliams, "'Quahty' meant, first of all, that the films could not be inferior to thebest American products, either technically . . . or materially."'^ Ironically, in hind-sight, the films of Max Opbüls (adored by Demy, Tniffaut, and other New Wavefilmmakers) seem to epitomize tbe best of the "Tradition of Qnalit)"; and perhapsfurther studies will rediscover tbe 195()s films of such accomplisbed craftsmen asClaude Autant-Lara and René Clément. Still, at the time, tbe core of the NewWave positioned itself s(¡uarely against the "Tradition of Quality," chiefly criticiz-ing its screenwriters, (However, ÍLS we will see. Demy departs significantly fromthis attitude.)

To a large extent, Americans have inherited our perceptions of tbe "Traditionof Quality" from the writings of the Cahiers directors and their successors at thatjounial." Of major import in this regard is François Truffants 19.54 article, "A Cer-tain Tendency of tbe French Ciuema, ' in which be rails against the "Tradition tjfQuality" and two of its scenarists in particular, Jean Anrenche and Pierre Bost. Thissingle essay has garnered a repntation as "one of the important historical land-marks in the growth of antenr criticism."" As such, it has had. perhaps, a dispro-pnriionate level of influence over scholarly opinion of the "Tradition of Quality"in the intervening half-centurv since it first appeared in the pages oí Cahiers ducinéma. The essay owes its longevity' not only to Tnifiaut s enduring reputation asa filmmaker and champion of the politique des auteurs, but also to his influenceat Caliicrs heyond his actual tenure there. According to Tn]lfant biographersAntoine de Baecque aud Serge Tonbiana, "Over time, this essay wonid determinethe new tmentation of Cahiers du cinéma, because it rallied a great number of filmdevotees who completely ignored and sconied the French tradition of quality,heaping praise on Hollywood auteurs instead."'"'

The articles continuing influence in American scholarship may also be attrib-uted to its iiiclnsiou in Bill Nichols's uhifjuitous Movies and Methods, a film stnd-ies standard. Introducing Tmffaut's essay in that collection, Nichols testifies that"most of the films to which [Tmflant] refers (the Tradition of Quality) are virtuallyunmentioned in recent film histories and seldom exhibited in Fnglisb-speakingcountries.""^ Thus, it seems that, by 1976 at least (when Movies and Methodsfirst appeared), the American conception of the "Tradition of Quality" reliedvirtually entirely on Tniffauts assessment. Arguably, that "certain tendency" re-mains largely unknov^Ti to American audiences and scholars today. Of the nineteenfilms written by Aurenche and Bost between the Liberation and the rise of theNew Wave (1945-1959), only three are available on home video in the United

3 0 Cinema Journal 4H, No. 1, Fall 2008

States: La Symphonie pastorale (1946),/eiu' interdits {Forindden GcnnnH, 1952),and Gervaise (1956).'"

There are a few problems with Truffants essay—or. rather, with placing toomnch stock in it with regard to the "Tradition of Qnalit^-." Nineteen films madeover the course of fourteen years can hardly be considered representative of a na-tional cinema. Still, the angry "young Turk" engages in wholesale condemnation:

Tiiere are .scarcely more than seven or eiglit scemirists working regularly for the Frenchcinema. Each one of these scenarists has hut one stor>' to tell, and, since each only as-pires to the success of the "two greats" [i.e., Aurenche and Bostj, it is not exaggerat-ing to say that the hundred-odd French films made each year tell the same story.̂ ^

This sweeping generalization rests on Uttle support, other than a few scattered ex-amples and the passion with which the claim is made.

Truffaut does acknowledge a few talented artists working apart from this "ten-dency," as he calls it:

I know a handful of men in France whu would he INCAPABLE of conceiving [suchfilms], several cinéastes who.se world-view is at least as valuahle as that of .Aurencheand Bost, . . . I mean Jean Renoir, Hohert Bresson, Jean Cocteau, Jacques Becker, AheiCanee, Max Opliüls, Jacques Tati, Roger Leenhardt; these are, nevertheless, Frenchcinéastes and it happens—curious coincidence—-that they are auteurs who oftenwrite their diiilojiiic and some ol" them themselves invent the stories they direct. '̂

It is interesting to note that, in the same postwar, pre-New Wave period(1945-1959) dnring which Aurenche and Bost penned nineteen films, the an-tenrs whom Truffaut valorizes made a combined totiil of forty-two films in France.This might prompt one to wonder: whence the crisis?

Tmffauts negative assessment of the "Tradition of Quality" is hardly typicaloí the critical opinion ol the day. While some may tend to think of Cahiers ducinéma as the authoritative source on all things New Wave, this misconceptionpoints up how effective the Cahiers critics were in promoting their own films andwritings. According to Peter Gnüiam, 'Tt has often been assumed, and nnder-.standably so because of the Nouvelle Vague, that Cahiers represents the only im-portant school of [French film] criticism. Tliere are. of course, several other goodfilm magazines in France. . . . But the onl\' one which conld be said to form aschool, and a school diametrically opposed to that of Cahiers, is Positif."^^ In the195()s and 1960s, Ptwi/i/shared with Cahiers an anteurist bent (while privileging awholly other set of auteurs, including John Huston and Stanley Kubrick) but pre-dictably did not take up the agenda of promoting the polemics and careers of theCalders gronp of directors, nor of "tearing down" the "Tradition of Qnalit)."

Even at Cahiers, tliere was disagreement over Truffants venomous essay.Upon seeing the initial draft in 1952, André Bazin recognized it as a political hotpotato and suggested major revisions,-' Perhaps it was during the yearlong rewritethat Truffant added the following, ratiier halfhearted disclaimer: "The object ofthese notes is limited to an examination of a certain form of cinema, from the pointof view of the scenarios and scenarists

Cinejiw journal 48, No. 1, Fall 2008 3 1

In the issue that fmuUy ran the revised article, editor-in-chief Jacijues Doniol-Valcroze (also a filmmaker) equivocated somewhat regarding Truffaut s tont- andv;ilne-judgments, while still taking responsibility for publishing the piece:

Clearly, we realize the polemical st\'le of some aï the a.ssessinpnts could niise objection.s,hut we hope that beyond the tone—which involves only the author—aiul regardlessof certain specific value judgments—-these are iilways individually questiouahle ;uid weare far from unanimously agreeing with them—the reader will nevertheless recognizea cnlital orientation, or hetter yet, a point of theoretical convergence that is ours.^

According to de Baeccjue and Toiibiana, the article found further disfavor atCahiers:

Pierre K:Lst, who was close to René Clement and Jean Gréniillon [two of the directorswlioui Triifiaut attacked], was its fiercest opponent; he denounced the article's impre-catory tone autl its moral judgments, which lie called "critical dogniatisni," or "the col-oniziitiou 0Ï Cahiers hy the priest party."""̂

Even Tniffaut himself admitted privately, in March 1956, that he was "hardly sat-isfied" with the article, disowning to some extent its "aggressiveness" and "sarcas-tic attitude," just two years after its publication.^'

Truffaut s vilification of tlie "Tradition of Quality" seems clearly calculated tomake way for a "new cinema" in France. After all, what is the point of a new cin-ema if there is no problem with the old? Kight or wrong, perhaps it was a matterof expedience for members of the Cahiers group to attack mainstream Frenchfilms of the 1950s, positioning themselves as mavericks who would resuscitatethe "moribund" French cinema, a "cinéma de papa" largely oi their own criticalconstniction.

This is not to suggest that only Truffaut and company had complained abouttlie direction in which French cinema was moving in the postwar era. Nenpeit citesa "broadly accepted notion" that an overhaul was needed.-'' But unlike Truffaut,who arguably tlirows out tlie baby with the bathwater, other critics placed theblame on the strncture of the industrv; not simply on a select (and, we might note,disjointed) number of aging directors.

As Alan Williams points out, a movement to reform the French film industryhad been afoot as early as tlie 193i)s. Later, the Vichy period of German occupa-tion gave rise to a few key institutions that would eventually contribute to the con-ditions for the emergence not only of the New Wave, but first of the "Tradition ofQuality"—viz., the national film school, IDHFC, and the GOIG (the OrganizationCommittee for the Gincnia Industiy)."" After the war, the Centre National de laCinématographie (CNC) took form, basically as an outgrowth of COIC, and, ac-cording to Williams, it "continued to control French cinema very much us C.O.I.C.had, through essentially the same regnlatoiy mechanisms."-^ Snsan Hayward at-tiibutes some importance to the name change from COIC to CNG; the operativeterm in the former had been l'industrie, wliile in the latter it was national. This re-naming marked not onl\- a break from the past (GOIC. an institution of the Occu-pation, was no more) but also a new commitment to a distinctly French, national

3 2 Cinema Journal 4H^ No. L Fall 2008

cinema, aud the CNG was at the forefront of the effort to promote a "ciuenia ofquality."^

A significant motivating factor was the fact that a flood of previouslv bannedHollywood films appeared iu postwar France and brought a serious economicthreat to tlie French film industry. In the Bymes-Blum agreement of 1946, theUnited States provided France with a loan in return for fewer restrietions on im-ports, allowing lor more American films iu French theaters. In the first half ol1947, 388 such films were exhibited in France."' According to Williams,

Because nf the Anif Hcan menace, it was assumed thai successful French films neededhigh budgets for popular stars, attractive costmne.s, elaborate sets, and so on. . . . Theldnd of cinema which emerged largely as a result of these strategies is often called theTradition uf QiialitV''—tliougli it was a "tradition" at best only a few years old. "Quality"meant, first of all, that the films could not be inferior to the best American products,either technically . . . or materially. . . . Quality cinema attempted to meet the Ameri-can threat in two ways: by beating it at its own game (making expensive movies withmass market appeal) and by emphasizing its home-court advantage, its Frenclmess.. . .But Frenclincss alune could not guarantee mas.s market appeal. For that, the Tradi-tion of Quality relied on production vaines, and abtnc all on .vi(/r;v."

This brief, pointed characterizatiou goes a lot further than Truffaut's essayin explaining precisely what the 'Tradition of Qnalitv" represented. From a strate-gic standpoint, the best way for the postwar French national cinema to competewith Hollywood was to emphasize big budgets, production values, "Freuchness"(often achieved through literarv' adajitations), and stars. In terms of these mostsalient characteristics^—production values, "Frcnchuess," and stars—we clearlysee echoes of the "Tradition of Quality" iu The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. At thesame time, the film follows many of the aesthetic principles of tiie New Wave asset forth above.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. From the start of his career, Jacques Demy hadwanted to make films like Tlte Umbrellas of Cherbourg, a well-produced musicalfilm (indeed an opera, with all-snng dialogue) in dazzling color. Originally, he in-tended his first teature, Lola, to be a color musical, but due to limited financing,he was forced to reconceptualize it in black and white and to drop the musicalnumbers, elaborate costumes, and decors he had envisioned.'-

As with the earlier film, budget proved to be a major stumbling block for TheUmbrellas of Cherbourg, too. After the release of Lola, Deiny and composerMichel Legrand pitched Umbrellas to several producers, who liked the .story butthought the unisical genre too great a ri.sk and snggested scaling back, à la Lola.However, both Demy and Legrand felt passionately that the film had to be madeas they envisioned it, as a popular opera with a jazz-inflected score aud high pro-duction values. They also knew that they would have to find a particularly coura-geous producer to get the film made.̂ '̂

As Neupert points out, the scope of What we mean by "New Wave" should bee.xpanded to include not only directors, but also stars, designers, aud "the talented

Cinema Journal 48, No. I, Fall 200H 3 3

pool of bold producers" wiUing to take the risks ol making such innovative films."In a 1963 interview. Demy identified several producers as being "on our side" (i.e.,the side of the New Wave): Georges de Beauregard, Panl-Edmond Decharme,Pierre Braunberger—"often passionate about the cinema, adventurers of the eiu-ema, who take as many risks as we do." '" A real maverick of 196()s French cinema,Mag Bodard (who dnringthat deeade produced films by Jean-Luc Godard, AgnèsVarda, Robert Bressou, Alain Resuais, and others) proved to be just such a pro-ducer, exactly the kind needed for Umbrellas. Varda describes Bodard as having "aferocions energy, put to the service of her projects, an obstinacy to bring them toUfe, and an enormous capacity for work." '̂̂ Bodard had a particularly strong rap-port with the directors of the New Wave, as she told Beruard Payen: "They sensedthat I was on their side with regard to their artistic vision, that 1 would be some-one who could help them. And they were right."^'

Before turning to producing, Bodard had worked in the press for many years,chiefly with Pierre LazarefT, the owner of the newspaper France Soir.^ So she wasalready well connected when, at the age of fort\-two, she produced her first film.Shortly after that, François Truflaut told her of Demy's trouble iu obtainingfinancing for The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. Having recently seen and admiredLola, Bodard met v\ith Demy and agreed to produce the film. She told Jean-PierreBerth o mé,

I was fascinated hy the stor\' ol Umbrellas and by the idea oi doing somethingvery new. . . . 1 make cinema as one would hiiild a collection; fur me, the pleasurewas in doing things that I loved, witli people who were well suited to wliat they weredoing . . . and when Jiicqnes and Michel told me what tliey wanted to do, I was very,very' eager to make the film.*"

Bodard spent a year and a half putting together various deals, raising 3()0,0()(}francs (roughly $75,b()()) from the GNC, and 3()0,(K)0 francs from Germany, towhich she added another 300,000 franes tliat she had borrowed herself.""' Secur-ing distributiou wiLS also a problem at first, but Bodard was alîle, thanks to her tiesto Lazareff, to engineer au an-angement with Fox—a deal smacking of New Waveinnovation, balanced with a keen understanding oí the machinations of the indus-try. At the time, Lazareff was producing an entertain ment-news show for Frenchtelevision; and Bodard persuaded him to nm a pieee on Darr\l F. Zanncks theu-current release. The Longest Day ( 1962), in exchange for Zauuck s agreeing to dis-tribute Umbrellas and to pony np an advance of 290.000 francs.''̂

Demy's rather unnsual. all-singing film did not lit clearly into any prior tradi-tions of French filmmaking. Susan Hayward suggests that

Demy's musical comedies . . . represent an attempt to incoqioiate the American musi-cal and comic traditions into French cinema with the intention of opening up theFrench tradition to enable a new kind of comic film to emerge. The bitter-sweetnessof Demys films—especially the totally snng Les Parapluies de Cherbourg (1964) —undoes the happy romantic ending ussociated with American musicals (except WestSide Stonj, of course), . . . Demys musicals pu.sh the genie to the limits of unreality. ̂ ^

3 4 Cinema journal 48, No. L, Fall 2008

Rick Altman makes a distinction between "musicals" imd 'musical films,"which have little in common other than "a great deal of diegetic music, some pro-duced by principe characters."*' Mo.st Furopean "musicals" fall into the latter cat-egory, as opposed to the "musical" genre, which icatures "not only the presence ofmusic, but also a shared configuration of pk)t patterns, character types, and socialstiTK'tures associated with that mnsic."^' Martin Sutton adds that nuisicals alter-nate between normal dialogue scenes and more or loss fantastic nuisical numbers,suggesthig that "a film like Jacques Demys Umbrellas of Cherbourg, is not a mnsi-c:al because there is no spoken dialogue."'^'

There were, of course, earlier examples of song in French film. According toHayward, tbe filmed song became almost de rißieiir in many feature films of the1930s, and this trend is exemplified in the work of René Clair"̂ ^ However, neitherthese "nuisical fantasies" nor the prewar cycle of operettas in French film (to saynothing of dramas that feature nmsical performances, such as Henri-GeorgesClonzots Çiiai des orfèvres [ 1947J) find much resonance in Demys musical world.

As the iirst ever ull-snng, live-action, feature iilm, not easily classified bygenre. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg was considered qnite a risk;^' hut the interna-tional success it enjoyed upon its release^—helped considerably by tbe Palnie d'orat Caimes and five Oscar nominations—cemented Mag Bodarcl's repntation asa formidahle, visionary prodncer. It also solidified her professional relaticjnshipwith Demy. According to Agnès Varda, "With enthnsiasm, tmst and friendship—I wonld even say complicit\'—with jactjnes, she continned to produce his projects:The \oun^ Girls of Rod ufo rt [19(i7j and then Donkeij Skiit [1970] . . . brilUant,rare films at the 'break' of the New Wave.""̂ ^

In terms of stor). The Umbrellas ofCherbour^i fits the classic New Wave par-adigm in portraying ordinary characters caught up in situations of eveiyday lifeand addressing contemporary cnltnral issues. Set in the eponymous port town inNormandy, the film spans six years and is divided into three distinct acts or parts.

Part 1 : Departure. November 1957. A twenty-year-old garage mechanic namedCuy Foticher (Nino Castelnnovo) is in love with Genevitve Enierv (CatherineDeneuve), aged seventeen, who helps run her mother's umbrella shop. Mme.Emery (Anne Vernon) does not approve of the match, since Guy has not yet ful-filled his military service and seems to have limited prospects. He lives with bis ail-ing Annt Elise (Mireille Perrey), who is nnder the care of the beautiful, youngMadeleine (Ellen Farner). Madeleine is obviously attracted to Cuy, but be doesnot seem to notice her interest as anytbing beyond friendship.

Pressed by debt, Mme. Emeiy mnst .sell some of her jewels, and thus shemakes the acquaintance of a wealthy diamond dealer, Roland Cassard (Marc Michel,reprising his rok' from Lola). His interest in Geneviève is inunediately apparent.

Drafted into the army, Guy nnist leave suddenly for the war in Algeria. Be-fore he goes, he and Geneviève spend the night together, and she promises to waitfor him to retnrn.


Part 2: Absence. Januar)' 195S. Geneviève, now pregnant l)nt not showing,rarely receives news from Gny in Algeria. After iiaving dinner with Geneviève andher mother. Roland asks Mme. Emeiy if he may marn" Geiieviè\e. He says thatshe reminds him of an old love of his from Nantes, named Lola. Afraid to revealGeneviève's pregnancy, Mme. Emery asks Roland to wait for an answer.

April 1958. Still with uo word from Guy, Geneviève marries Roland, who hasagreed to love the expected child as his own. Madeleine watches from a distanceas the newlvweds ride off in Rolands bhick Mercedes.

Part 3: Return. March 1959. Gny returns from the war, woiuided in the leg, andfinds the umbrella shop deserted. Aunt Elise tells him that Geneviève is marriedand living in Paris. Gny takes his old job at the garage, but in his depressed and ir-ritable state, he qnits soon thereafter. He spends the night with a prostitute namedJenny, who says that he may call her "Geneviève." Aunt Elise dies suddenly, andGuy asks Madeleine to stay with him. With Guys inheritance, they get marriedand open a garage.

DecfinbtT 1963. At his sei"vice station, Guy waits for Madeleine and theirson, François, to return Irom Ghristmas shopping. Geue\iève, elegantly dressedand driving the black Mercedes, pulls in for some gasoline, not reahzing who ownsthe station. Her daughter, Frani^-oise, is with her. Gny and Cïeneviève exchange alew words in the office, but they have little to say to each other. She asks if hewould like to .see Françoise, but he declines. Gene\iève drives away, and whenMadeleine and François return, Guy embraces Uiem enthusiastically,

One would be hard-pressed tí) find any more "ordinaiy" characters than tin-figures iu this melaueliolic opera of the bourgeoisie—a giU'age mechanic, a shopgirl and her widowed mother, an ailing annt, a hired caregiver—and Demy's tonetoward them and their problems is never one of condescension, but rather (me offondness. In fact, a few such elements resonate with autobiographical significance:when Demy was growing up, his father owned a garage in Nantes, providing atleast a kernel of inspiration for Guy, the grease monkey who likes to go to theopera, and the nnmarried motlier is a figure who shows up time and again inDemys films—clearly inspired by Varda, who already had her daughter, Rosalie,when she and Demy married,

Demys affection for his bourgeois and petit-bourgeois characters is summedup in a lovely pun at the film s close. After Geneviève drives off, as Guy frolics hap-pily with his wife and child, we see them iu extreme long shot stauchug before thegarage, its name visible iu prominent red letters on a white background: "Esso Ser-vice L'Escale Gherbonrgeoise" (with "Gherbourgeoise" having been framed sepa-rately and thus emphasized in an earlier shot). Always a lover of word games.Demy must have relished this pun, which not only simply identifies the place as a"Gherbourgiim" garage but ;dso offers a sympathetic nod to the "cher bourgeoisie"(or "dear middle class") aronnd which so mnch of the film revolves and to which

3 6 Cinema journal 48, No. I, Fall 2008

most of the characters aspire. (In the first "act," at the height of tlieir love foreach other, Geneviève and Guy dream of a future in which they will run either anumbrella shop or a garage, have children, and remain in love forever.) This isin marked contrast to at least one tendency Truffaut identified in the "Traditionof Quality," as he complained that too many of those films were blatantly anti-bourgeois. Here, Guy emerges as the film's real hero, having struggled and foundsome meixsure of happiness with a loving family and a business of his own. Thepetit-bourgeois existence that he and Madeleine have made for themselves seemslike paradise when compared to Geneviève s situation: although she leads a life ofupper-middle-class luxury; she shares it with a man whom she will never love.

As for contemporary cnltnral concerns, the Algerian War is a major "stnietur-irig absence" (quite literally) In The Lhnbrclla.s of Cherbourg. Although we neversee Gny in combat (and indeed the only image of him in Algeria is a picture post-card that he sends to Geneviève), clearly his being called away to fight disrupts hislife and the li\'es of others in profound ways. It also constitutes a major plot point,as the middle section of tlie film unfolds in response to Guys "absence." Further-more, Guy's problems of readjnstment upon returning from the Algerian War, ex-acerbated fiy the lack of understanding from his biiss, from merchants, and evenfrom Madeleine, seem particularly poignant and relevant.

In terms of stars. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is perhap.s more akin to theNew Wave than the "Tradition of Quality." Catherine Deneuve had appeared in atew films, notably for Roger Vadim, but she was hardly a star at the time Demy casther In fact. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is widely regarded as one of the films thatmade her a star According to Ginette Vincendeau, Deneuve "established herselfas a major international star in the 1960s with three classics: Les Paraphnes deCherbourg (1964), Repulsion (196.5), and Belle de jour (1967)."^'' Deneuve herselfacknowledges the importance of Umbrellas in shaping her professional life: "Thisfilm fundamentally determined my career. Without it, despite the various experi-ences [on other films] that came before it, I'm not sure that I would have em-braced this career."^"' Deneuve's leading man, Nino Castelnuovo, was also arelative newcomer to the cinema, his only major credit at the time being LuchinoViscontis Roteo and His Brothers.

Despite their lack of star status. Demy gave his lead actors the "star treat-ment" in terms of glamour lighting, makeup, coiffures, and costumes—especiallyDeneuve. A particularly striking example {among many) occurs us Geneviève shopsfor a wedding gown with her mother. As Mme. Emery wanders through the bou-ti(|ne, stiddenly the camera dollies and pans past her to reveal Geneviève behinda white veil, staring alluringly into the camera, an ethereal vision if ever there wasone (Figure 1).'̂ ' Vincendeau credits The Umbrellas of Cherbourg vWth helping topopularize Deneuve's "stunning looks." and her "image as a 'cool' bloiule."^'- Shecontinues, "Although internation all)" Deneuve is associated with Polanski andBunuel, at home she has paid tribute to Demy's pivotal role in her career. Withinthe still repressive sexual mores of early-1960s France, Deneuve triumphed ÍLS a

Cineim Journal 48, No. 1. Fall 2008 3 7

Figure 1. A glamour shoL of Catherine Deneuve, in The Umbrella.s of Cherbourg.(All images courtesy of Koch l^rber Films.)

sweet, sexy-but-iuuocent and yet glamorous blonde, a persona solidified iu twoother Demy films, the musical Les Denwiselles de Rochefoii (1967) aud the cos-tume fair)' tale Featt d'âne (1970)."^'

While most of the principal actors were relatively unknown (Ellen Famer asMadeleine was a newcomer, aud Marc Micliel as Roland Cassard was known onlyfrom Lola). Demy had wanted a star for the role of Mme. Emer^; He first ap-proached Miclieliue Presle (who had appeared in "La Luxure") and then DanielleDarrieux, both well-established figures in French cinema since the early 1940s,but neither was available. In any event, Anne Vernon playeti the part in a ratherDarrieux-esque turn. Neither a novice nor a star, Vemon had appeared in sup-porting roles throughout the 1950s, including one in L'Affaire des poisons (HenriDecoin, 1955) which starred Darrieux, and leatliiig roles in two films by JacquesBecker, whose work Demy admired. Mireille Perrey (Aunt Elise), while hardly astiU", represents a similar iiod to the "Traditiou of Quality," having appeared mostnotably in Ophüls s Madanu: de . . . ( 19.53) and a film by Claude Autant-Lara ctdledLa Jument verte ( 1959), scripted by Aurenche and Bost.

The point at which the aesthetics of the New Wave and the "Traditiou ofQuality" meet head to head iu Tbe Umbrellas of Cherbourg is in the mise-en-scène,viz., the sharp juxtaposition of real locations with elaborate, fantastical productiondesign, a significant departure from Marie's characteristics above. (This parallels thecontrast between what Emma Wilson calls "a resolutely realist tale of unwantedpregnancy" and the highly unreal element of the all-sung dialogue.)** Suqirisingly,

3 8 Cinema Jounml 48, No. I, Fall 2008

the entire film was shot on location in Cherlxung. in real shops and apartments, onreal streets, in real bars, cafés, etc. At times, this hallmark of New Wave produc-tion lends the film a certain gritty re;ilisni, particularly evident in the scenes at thetrain station as Guy leaves for the war and returns from it. However, for most of thefilm, the real locations stand in pointed, arguably Breehtiau contrast to the wildcoitjr schemes devised by Demy and his production designer, Bernard Evein (aug-mented by Jacqueline Morean s costnme designs). Berthomé describes the effects:

Jnst as music shifts the dialogue, color shifts the locate, transcends it, gives birth toa world at once real and dreamlike: a town made of stones seemingly painted hy amagician—familiar enough that we recognize it, hiit so transformed that we venturethere with wontlrons jubilation, as if crossing the threshold ol the fantastic."

Evein adds: "Shooting on location was at first a question of resources. Aud then, itseems bizarre, but Jacques liked the realism. Tlie decors of our films are verytransposed, but they are also reaUstic. This is not the décor of ninsicals."''^

The artifice of the film s color scheme constantly calls attention to itself andat times becomes a kind of game. Demy and Evein had made nnusnal use of colorIn one previous film, the short "Le Bel indifferent" (1957), which takes place in asingle location dominated by red. According to Evein, "At that time, no one daredexperiment too much with color; one still used a lot of grays, and experienced de-signers told me that half an hour in a totally red set would never work."^' Iu TheUmbrellas of Cherbourg, colors vie for dominance, almost like characters compet-ing for the viewers attention, as a secondary color iu one scene becomes dominantone or two scenes later. Approximately 90 percent of the wallpapers used in thefilm were specially printed in custom colors. Out of a total design budget of120,000 iraucs. 15,000 paid for the wallpaper.'̂ ^ A few consecutive scenes from thethird act illustrate the film's complex interplay of colors quite clearly.

When (;uy encounters the prostitute, Jenuy, the bar where they meet is dec-orated mostly in red. The bright red walls offer a garish counterpart to the all-red(bnt softer) dance hall where Guy takes Geneviève iu the first act. This second redbar, clearly a meeting plaee for sailors and prostitutes, is lightly accented with deepviolet (a biirstool here, a door in the background there). The exterior of the hotelwhere Jenny takes Guy is ptiinted a solid goldenrod, but the room it.self is domi-nated by deep violet wallpaper with a gold pattern. Not only does this immediatelyrecall the violet accents from the previous scene in the bar, bnt the violet-goldcombination also closely matches the wallpaper in Mme. Emery's shop and of-fice, where much of the "negotiation" of Geneviève s miuriage to Rolaud Cassardtakes place, The parallel between that "transaction" and the one carried out in thehotel room is strengthened wheu Jeuny tells Guy that he cau call her "Gene\iève."Further. Demy uoted the sexual qualities of the pinks aud mauves throughoutthe film.^*^

Guy leaves Jennys hotel room through a green door, which precisely uiatehesa greeu wall iu the next shot, as he returns to Elises apaitmeut to find that she hasdied. A few scenes later, as Gny asks Madeleine to stay with him, he is wearing a

Cinenm journal 48, No. I, Fall 2008 3 9

goldcnrod, button-front sweater, wbicb (together with his demeanor) makes himseem somewhat older. Here, the film offers a subtle visual cue that Guys experi-ence at the hotel (with its goldenrod iront) has aged him in a way, and this is rein-forced in the dialogue, as Madeleine expresses dissatisfaction at the ways in whichGuy has changed since returning froui Algeria.

Throughout the film, costumes match decors in startling ways, The first in-stance of this occurs in the garages k)cker room, as we notice that Cuy's pale blueshirt matches the lockers precisely. (Significantly, in Guy's brici, post-Army stint atthe garage, bis clothing no hmger matches the décor, suggesting perhaps that heno longer fits in" there; and, indeed, he can no longer manage to bold down thejob.) Similarly, at one point, Madeleine arrives at Elise's apartment wearing a darkgreen scarf that matches the wallpaper and trim exactly, suggesting just how muchat home she is with Guy and Elise (or perhaps her desire to he a part of Guy'sworld), fbreshadt)wing the fact that she and Gny eventually will make a home to-gether. When Mme. Emery informs Roland that Geneviève has agreed to marry,her \iolct-and-nrange robe closely matcbes tbe wallpaper in her salon and the\iolet wallpaper in the shop's main room (while also anticipating the violet-goldwalls in Jennys hotel room). The iihns most .stunning example of matcliing cos-tumt' and décor occurs ;is Geneviève reads Roland Cassard's letter of proposal.She wears a dark blue dress with a pink flural pattern, ¿ilniost an e.xact niutcb forthe wiillpaper in her bedroom, wbicb we see simultaneously in the hackgronndclose behind her (Figure 2).

Tbcse and other tactics in the film constitute a (juasi-Brethtiun program, inwhich the viewer is distanced from the story, then left to re-engage with it, thenpulled out again, allowed back in, and so on. This in itself is nothing new, espe-cially in the context cif the nmsical genre. Jane Feuer suggests an impulse of "con-servative reflexivity" in many Hollywood musicals, which often quote older filmssimply to suggest continnity with the past and to celebrate the "world of entertain-ment."***' For Fener, the Hollywood musical genre often employs techniques thatmight initially strike the viewer/analyst ¡LS having Brechtian effects of distanciation(direct address, "baring the dc\ices" oí film performance and production, inter-textuality, etc.), but which nltimately function in a recnperative manner, merelycelebrating the movies' wondrons "world of entertainment.'"'*' However, Feuersarguments do not fully account for tbe reflexivity of Demy's nmsic;d films, for acouple of reasons.

For one thing, Feuer seems to assume that in order lor such techniques to bedisruptive, the story content of the film mnst be explicitly critical or revolutionary,so that the only Hollywood nmsic;ils to achieve "critical rcflcxi\ it>" are those whosenarratives openly challenge the establishment. This viewpoint perhaps makes toolittle allowance for irony, for ambiguity, or for critical reflection on the part of tliespectator.

Feuer also refers frequently to the cinema of Jean-Luc Ciodard as counter-point to tiie Hollywood musical, as if to suggest that a film must he as radical as,

4 0 Cinema Journal 48, No. 1, Fall 2008

Figure 2. Go.stumes match décor; Anne Vemon and Deneuve.

say. Une Femme est une femme (1961), to be de.scribed as "Brechtian." Such asimple diciiotomy (Hollywood vs. Godard) neglects the possibihty of a range ofBrechtiau tendencies that a film or group of films might possess. I would arguethat, even thongh Hollvwood was and is a conservative institution, some of its filmsdo achieve quasi-Brcchtian distanciation from time to time. As a perfect example,consider Meet Me in St, ¡Amis [Vincente Minuelli, 1944), with its multiple cases ofinterrupted sougs, its many faulty performances, and its dark undertones of deathand separation. Even the "happy ending" does n<tt fnlly negate the viewer's expe-rience of distanciation througlnnit the rest of the film; arguably, we might even saythat the blatant artifice and frontality of the film's closing scene at the World's Faircontribute to its overall ambignity.

Whether or not we accept Feuers argument that the Hollywood musical islargely incapable i)t Brechtian distanciation, Jacques Demy departs significantlyfrom the con\entions of that genre and acliieves a more dismpti\e effect iu hismnsical Minis. The pervading presence of death, isolation, and dissatisfaction inThe Umbrellas of Cherbourg finds few sources in the Hollvwood musical (onlyMeet Me in St. ÍMUÍS and West Side Stonj [Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise,1961] couie immediately to mind); aud although Umbrellas does finally achieve a"happy ending," its irony is all too evident. Guy seems to be happy, but Genevièveclearly is not. Fnrthermore, Guy's embrace of his family is undercut as the camerapulls back to au extreme long shot, showing fliushing red "danger lights" in theforcgronnil of the final shot. This attitude stands in pointed contrast to Feuerscharacterization of the typical Hijllywood ending: "The classical musical ends at

Cinenm journal 48, No. I, Fall 20()8 4 1

that moment of perfect equilibrinm when the couple is frozen into eternal em-brace, the show frozen into a perpetually triumphant curtain eall."''^

Further emphasizing this difference and the disruptive effects of the film,Peter Hogiie characterizes The Umbrellas oj Cherbourg as "a choreographed vi-sion imagined smack up against the everyday reality of documentary reiilism. It's astylized, picture-hook world in which allusions to the war in Algeria are by nomeans casual. The sung dialogue tilts the musical romance story into defamihar-ization that remains unexpectedly fresh."'^'

Contributing to this defamiliarization, the operatic qualit\' of the film mayshock the \dewer at finst, but Berthomé has noted how quickly one adjusts to thehighly unorthodox element of the sung dialogue, almost as a game in which onevnUingly plays along.*''' Demy begins the "game" in the last place where one wouldexpect to find operatic singing: in tlie garage where Guy works. This choice sets inmotion a commentary' on class distinctions that contimies throughout tlie film, andindeed in much of Demy's otlier work. Here, the viewer finds it strange, perhapseven funny, tliat a mechanic wonld be singing in this way—only to realize almostimmediately how absurdly elitist it is to make assumptions about cultural tuste basedon economic elass. Typically, Demy sweetens the commentary'with humor: whenGuy tells a coworker that he is going to the opera that night to see Carmen, hisfriend replies that he prefers the cinema to opera. The viewer cannot miss the re-flexive joke, since the film itself is in fact a sort of "classed down" opera—not be-cause of its blue-collar subject matter (cf Carmen), but rather because of its beinga cinematic opera and thus available to all but the poorest economic classes.

Despite the unusual, initially startling and distancing qualities of the all-sungdialogue and overwrought tlécor, one does become accustomed to them, tliankslargely to tiie conventions of the musici.d genre. However, Demy empk)ys addi-tional visual and aural devices to keep up tlie film's quasi-Brechtiim strategy. Forinstance, at several points throughout the film, a character is framed head-on, usu-ally in close-up, looking directly into the camera. This breach of one of the "cardi-nal rules" of classical cinema inevitably shocks the viewer momentarily, At times,the technique is accompanied by a brief emotional swelling or outburst, occasion-ally even an aside. Hatlier than simply being taken in, we are addressed directly bythe film and made aware of how its narrative devices are functioning at the partic-ular moment. In siiort, the film \-iolates the "fourth wall."

The fust instance of a character's looking directlv into the camera occurs in thevery first post-credits shot of the film. A customer stands in the entrance/drivewayof the garage where Guy works, looking directly into the camera for just an instantbefore turning to go inside and check the status of his car. Since the man is framedin a long shot and turns so quickly away from the camera, this does not stand outas pointedly as tlxe later, close-up framings, which one cannot fail to notice.

The next instance has Mme. Emer)' quizzing her daughter (and Genevièveresponding, alsit l(K)king directly into the camera) with regard to Guys prospects.

4 2 Cinema Journal 48, No. 1. Fall 2008

Here, Demy pushes the bounds of continuity editing conventions as well, by cutting180 degrees, precisely along the axis of action. Being momentarily pulled out ofthe story at tbis moment allows us tí) ponder the significance of the verbal ex-change: Mme. Emery's concerns revolve lu'ound economics, Genevièves aroundsentiment.

This same combination of direct address to the camera and ISO-degree cut-ting occurs as Rolaud Cassard is dining vvdth Mme. Emery- and Geueviôve. Fordessert, they eat small galettes des rois, or "king cakes," one of which contains ahidden beau.'̂ '' (This bit of actiou adds a fairy-tale qualitv' to the scene, anticipat-ing Demy's later forays into that genre. Donkey Skin aud The Pied Piper [1971].)Geneviève finds the bean in her cake, so she must choose her king. In close-up,she looks directly into the camera (across tbe table at Roland), saying, "I have nochoice; you are my king." In response, Roland looks tlirectly at her (at us), express-ing his happiness aud gratitude. Again, such direct address, combined with the180-degree cuts, jars us out of the diegesis at precisely the moment of the scene'shighest emotional and narrative impact. Roland offers Geneviève a traditiontilgold-foil crown, and again we .see her in close-up, looking directly into the camerain one of Denenves most radiant moments in the film (Figure 3). Roland notesGeneviève s resemblance to a Virgin witb Cbild, and Mme. Emery lets out a brief,high-pitched cry, as she is caught off guard by the unintended reference to preg-nancy, an allusion already established by the hidden bean.

A similar cry accompanies Mme. Emerv's look into the camera in an earlier.scene, when she di.scovers the extent of her financial troubles, exdaimiug, "Ah!We're ruined!" Other surprising, aural outbursts function in like fashion, as in thescene in which Roland first visits the umbrella shop. Geneviève is going out tomeet Guy, against her mother's wishes. As she heads out the door, Mme. Emer)'sscream of "Geneviève!" is accompanied in the score by short bursts from the brasssectiou, aud as we cut to the exterior of the shop, the screechiug brakes and blar-ing horn of Rolands Mercedes add to the momentary cacophony. In a similarlyBrechtian vein, Legrands score often changes tone rather dramatically and abruptlyat various poiuts in the film, repeatedly calling attention to itself.

A lew other specific, quasi-Brechtian elements stand out and merit some men-tion. In one stunning shot, quite jarring in its artifice and fantastic qualities, Guyaud Geueviève glide, rather than stroll, through the street at night—^obviouslybeing pulled along ou some sort of dolly—very much iu love and melancholic atthe prospect of parting. Earlier, as they sit togetlier in a café, with Geneviève beg-ging Guy not to join the army, and him begging her not to cry, a large, wooden-framed mirror dominates the background, complemeuted by the wooden frame ofthe booth they occupy. Much later in the fihn, when a despondent Guy returns tothe same café, we notice that an identical mirror hangs on the opposite wall, anarrangement that hints at (but never delivers) the possibility of an infinite regres-sion of reflected, framed images. Indeed, mirrors and frames figure prominently

Cinema Jonnml 4H, No. I. Fall 2008 4 3

Figure 3. Üff-screcu, Roland reniai'ks that (¡cuf\íc\c reniiuds him of a Vir0nwith Child.

in the mise-en-scène throughout the entire film (and virtually all Demy films), andwhile they do not necessarily pull us out of the fictional world, they do offer sub-tle hints of reflexivity.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg uot ouly calls attention to itself aud its own ar-tifice, but also refers to numerous other works of art. Most obviously, the filmrefers to Demys own Lola, with the reappearance of the Roland Gassard charac-ter. As Roland mentions that Geneviève reminds him of Lola, Demy inserts aspectacular, last-moving dolly shot around the Passage Pommeraye in Nantes, animportant location in Lola.

Demy makes fretjuent reference to other films, especially the work of MaxOphiils. through stylistic gesture and minor plot elements. We might also note thatOphiils's films themselves often eniplov Breehtian tlistancing, reflexivity, and in-tertextuaiity. As Susan M. White points out,

Oplinls [.viel lias often heeii called an ironic director because the ohvious patterns ofcamera movements, repetitions of dialoj^ne. and other details seem to imply a con-sciousness that invites ns to distance onrselvcs Iron) some events, pa.ss judgment onparticular characters, or reflect on an abstract "meaning" that is the resnlt of intertex-tnal references to other films, novels, or plays. . . . Danielle Danienxs reading ofStendhal's De l'amour in IM Ronde is a ridi cüininentary on her state of mind, forthose WIKJ know the work (and Ophnls's lontlness of it). And how would we "under-stand" the dncl scenes in ¡^'tter from an Uukniiicn Wonwn and Madame de . . . if weknt'w nothinji of Liebelei?'^

4 4 Cinenu] jounuil 48, No. Í, Fall 2008

Mme. Emerv's reluctant decision to sell some of her jewels constitutes anohlique reference to Ophüls's Madavw de . . . (1953), in which Danielle Darrienx'scharacter sells a pair of earrings back to her jeweler. In that film, on several occa-sions, Darrieux makes the gesture of checking her hair in a mirror before leaving aroom, a gesture that Demy would have her repeat {and repeat) in his 1982 film, ARoom in Toicn. In Umbrellas. Anne Vernon makes the same gestnre just prior togoing out to the jeweler's shop. There, she and Geneviève meet Boland Cassard,who agrees to buy the necklace. He says that he can sell it easily in Paris or Lon-don (significantly, in Madame de . . . the earrings are re.sold in London). Thesereferences to Ophüls are slight ;md lleeting, but nonetheless unmistakable. WhileOphüls was a favorite of the New Wave directors (and receives special exemptionin Truflant's 1954 tirade), Alan Williams characterizes bis woik as the sununit ofthe "Tradition ol Qnality."'''

Demys clearest stylistic homage to Ophüls lies in his penchant for long takesand Í amera movement. Camille Tabonlay characterizes OphUls as "the master ofthe melodramatic operetta, scented with (juaint perfinne, transcended by lyricismand spectacle. . . . He is an ex-pert of the camera arabesque, a iigure that would be-come Demy's preferred cinematographic gesture."''"' The Um¡)reUas of Cherbourgemploys camera movement in virtually every scene, it has an average shot lengthof twenty-three seconds, and severid of its scenes unfold in just one or two shots.

Such is the case with tbe first miibrelia-shop scene. Mme. Emery enters fromthe left at the hack oí the sales floor, and the camera pans right and tracks forwardto follow her as she greets a customer, a middle-aged man interested in purchas-ing a black umbrella. The camera dollies in and pans right as Mme. Emery walksover to Geneviève, who stands at the window looking out at Guy, and instructs herto assist the gentleman. As Geneviève walks toward him, the camera reverses itspan to follow her to the left (as Guy rides offen iiis bicycle in the background, alsoto the left), and finally the camera doilies out, back nearly to its original position.This sort of subtle dance of the camera permeates the film and is e.specially no-ticeable in the rather confined location of the eponymons umbrella shop. In amu.sical iilm virtually devoid of dance—although Demy did suggest that charac-ter movements should be graceful, even choreographed—we niiglit note that thecombination of long take and camera roundelay compensates for the lack of actualdance numbers.*^"

C'amera movement plays u more prominent narrative role at key dramaticmoments, ¡LS in the scene of Guy's departure. He and Geneviève proclaim theirlove for each other as he hoards the train that wall take him away for two yearsoí army seivice. A reverse tracking shot rnns parallel to the railroad tracks as thetrain pnlls away into the foreground. Geneviève continues to walk toward the cam-era for a few steps, bnt she nevertheless recedes into the background. Gny, aboardthe moving train, nio\es fnrther and inrtber into the foregronnd before finiUlymoving out-of-frame to the left; meanwhile, the camera continues its reverse track,finally coming to rest after the train has pulled out of the station. This brilliant,

Cinenui Journal 48, No. 1, Fall 2008 4 5

skty-four-second maneuver of deep staging aud camera movement accentuatesthe dramatically charged moment, visually emphasizing the abruptness and in-evitabilit)' of the lovers' separation. The shot thus closes tlie "act one" with an emo-tional impact worthy of any opera.

At the end of "act two," Demy once again achieves a dramatie turning pointby way of a long take (thiriy-six seconds) emploving powerful camera movement.After their wedding, Geneviève and Roland emerge from the chnrch in extremelong shot. As the ubiquitous black Mercedes arrives to pick them up, the cameradoUies in slowly, momentarily resting on a medium close-up of Geneviève sittingin the hack seat, pregnant as can be and dressed beautifully in white. As the carpulls away, die catnera pans left and tracks to follow it briefly. Then the dramashifts as Madeleine suddenly comes into frame, watching the proceedings "fromthe sidelines" as it were. She gazes after the car for a moment and then turns backtoward the camera to reveal, iu close-np, a look of restrained, perhaps anxious,hope: with Geneviève now married and "out of the picture," Madeleine may beable to wiu Guy's affectious.

These Ophiilsian tentlencies toward long takes and showy camera move-ments are established in the very first shot of the film, under the opening credits.We iris in on an extreme long shot of the port of Glierbonrg at dusk, then tilt downto an extremely high-angle—indeed, completely vertical—overhead long shot ofa cobbled sidewalk. It starts to rain, and numerous passersby raise their (mostly)pastel umbrellas, which form bobbing, slightly billowing, rather abstract circlesthat move across the screen at panillel, peqjendicniar, and 45 degree angles, hkesomething out of an Oskar Fischinger experiment. At the very least, the overheadframing suggests that this will be unlike most films (let alone mnsicals) that wehave seen before; and lest we might conclude from the soft colors that this is goingto he a frothy, eandy-coated affair, a final group of umbrellas, all blaek, movesacross the screen with the last of the credits, foreshadowing the film's darker ILS-pects. At the end of tliis two-minute, ten-second shot, the camera tilts back up toits original framing of the port of Cherbourg.

Jean-Pierre Berthomé points out that this view of Gherbourg irresistibly callsto mind Jan V'ermeer's 1661 painting. View of Delft, iu terms of both compositionand tonahty.'" It seems fitting that Demys brand of intertextuality branches outfrom film to include paiutiug, siuce he himself dabbled in oils, a hobby to wliichhe devoted more and more time later in life.' Vermeer was one of Demy's favoritepainters, perhaps because his work evinced a more provincial tone than that ofthe other great masters.'- Indeed, in 1986, Demy was planning to make a film inHolland, La Ruelle., inspired by Vermeer's painting of the same name (The LittleStreet, 1658), ' Gamille Tabonlay points out another direct reference to Vermeerin The Unúrrellas of Cherbourg: dressed in white and pale bine, the slightly preg-nant Geneviève reads one of Guy's letters by her Ijedroom window; aud her pos-ture, attitude, and costume, along with the source and qualilv' of light hi the scene,recall Venneer's pensive, tranquil Woman in Blue Reading a Letter (1664) and Girl

4 6 Cinema jonmal 48. No. I Fall 2008

Figure 4. Denenve's pose, together vdth shot composition, evokes Vermeer.

Reading a Letter at an Open Windinc (1657).'' Demy's composition borrows ele-ments from both paintings, <ju(jting neither directly, but evoking both (Figure 4).Interestingly enongh, quite a few of Vermeer's paintings are reflexive, featuringother paintings and tapestries hanging in the background, and/or with windowsand mirrors calling attention to the frame, the spectator, and external space. An-other explicit reference to high art comes when Roland Cassard remarks at chnnerthat Geneviève reminds him of a Virgin with Child he once saw in Antwerp.

Beyond cinema and painting, Dcni) s intertextualitj' extends to theater andopera. As already noted, in the opening (post-credits) scene, Guy announces to hiscoworkers that he is going to the theater that night to see Carmen. On cue, MichelLegrands score shifts into a direct, fonr-bar quotation of Bizet ;is one of Guysfriends sings along, Another coworker expresses his dislike for opera (and later, fordance), saving that he prefers the cinema over botli. All this, of course, is donblvreflexive, not only referring directly to the other art forms oí opera and dance, butalso calling attention to the fact that The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is a film that in-corporates opera and, to a lesser extent, dance.

Conclusion. Carmen hardly seems an arbitrary choice. With its worldng-cUissand military' characters, Bizet's opera resonates well with the story of The Umbrel-las of Cherbourg. Furthermore, its mention in the film taps into the "Tradition ofQuality" and its tendency to emphasize "Frenchness." While paying brief homageto one of France's most celebrated operns. Demy and Legrand have also rein-vented the form, with a French-jiizz-cinematic opera, Demy once Siiid, "If opera


had followed the evolution of music, today we would have j;tzz operas, even inEurope."" Of course, jazz is primarily an American phenomenon, but there is a dis-tinctly French flavor in Legrand's score. (Besides, Paris is widely kuown as oue ofthe world's j;izz centers, due in iarge measure to the migi atioii there of a number ofAmerican jazz greats, who grew tired of segregation and racism at home.) So, likeotlier aspects of the film, the jazz-opera element neatly straddles tbe New Wave'sfascination with American culture and the affinity for "Freuclmcss ' so character-istic of the "Traditiou of Quality. "

Dem\''s unapologetic affinity for French aud European culture (includingpainting, opera, and cinema) is perhaps the qiialit)- that most sets him apart fromhis fellow New Wave luminaries, especially the Cabiers group. While Truffaut,Godard, and others were busy glorifving tbe American cinema of Hitchcock andBogart—and .significantly distancing themselves from the "Tradition of Quidity" —Demy fully embraced aud celebrated earlier traditions of French and Europeancinema aud art, right along with American ones. At the same time, though, he re-cast those tntditions in his own signature style, with his own set of thematic con-cerns, fully in line with Nevv Wave anteurism. As a figure of intersection betweenthese two cinematic approaches often regarded as irreconcilable, Jac(jues Demyreminds us that our understanding ol the New Wave and the "Traditiou ol Qual-it)'" is still incomplete.

Notes

1. Tliis essay's conclusions came about largely hy way of neolorniiilist analysi.s, a.s de-scribed in Kristin Thompsons Breaking the Gla.ss Armor : Netfonnahst Film Analysis(Pnnceton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 1988).

2. Miclicl Marie. The French Netr Wave: An Aiiistie Sehool. trans. Richard Neupert(M;üden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), 26.

3. Jeaii-Liic Godard, interview. Cahiers du einéma 138 (1962), reprinted in Jim Hillier,ed,. Cahiers du Cinéma 1960-iUíiH: New Wave, New Cinem¿i. Reevahiatíng Holly-wood (Cambridge, MA: Haivard University Press, 1986), 60.

4. Jacques Demy, interview. Film Heritage 2, no. .3 (1967): 24; Camille Tahoiilay, LeCinéma enchanté de Jacques Demy (Paris: Cahiers du cinéma. 1996), 19. Unless oth-erwise noted, all translations from Hie French are my own.

5. Marie, The French Neu Waix\ 70-71.6. Ibid., 71.7. Richard Neupert. A Hlstonj of the French Neu: Wave Cinema (Madison: University of

Wisconsin Press. 2(K)2), 5a8. Jean Donchet, Ercnch New Ware, trans. Rohert Bonnono (New York; Oi.stribnifd Ait

Publisliers, 1999), .56-69.9. David Bordwell and Kristin Thomp.son, ¡•'ihn Art: An Introduction. 6tli ed. (Nevv York:

McGraw-Iiill, 2Ü01),42().1Ü. Marie, The French New Wau\ 86.1 1. Jraii-Aiidre Fieschi, "Neo-neo-real ism: Bandits at Orgosolo. Cahiers dn Cinenui 141

(1963), reprinted in Hillier. Cahiers dn Cinéma iOÔO-iiJfî^, 272.12. Alan Williams, Repnhlie of linages: A History (f French Filmnwking (Cambridge. MA:

Han ard Universitv Press, 1992), 278.


13. C;nrionsly, Jatnes Monaco's New Wave (New York: Oxford University Press. 1976) doesnot discuss the "Tradition of Quality"" ana makes only piLSsing reference to any of itspractitioners.

14. Bill Nichols, ed.. Movies and Method.^ (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1976),224.

15. Antoine de Baecíjue and Serge Toiihiana, Tniffaut: A Biography, trans. CatherineTeinerson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1999), 77.

Ifi. Nichols, Movies and Methods, 224.17. Internet Movie Database, "Joint N'cnturcs: Jean Aurenche. Pierre Bo.st." http://iiiidl)

.cani/Joint\'entures (acces.sed October 22. 2006).18. Francois Tniflant, ".\ C^ertiiin Tendency of the French Cinema," Cahiers du cinéma 31

(1954). reprinted in Nichols. Movies and Methods, 232.19. Ibid., 233: en)pl)asi.s in original.20. Peter Graham, ed.. The New Wave (Garden City NY: Douhleday, 196S). S.21. De Baecqne and Tonhiaiia. Tntffaut. 74.22. Truffant. "A Certain Tendency of the French (Cinema,'" 232.23. Quoted in de Baecque and Tonhiana, Tniffaui, 75.24. Ibid., 76.25. Quoted in ihid.. 79.26. Nenpeit, A llistonj of the French New- Wave Cinenia. xxii.27. Williams. Repuhlie of Images. 249. 276.2S. Ibid., 277.29. Snsan Ha^ward. Freueh National Cinema (Ifínáüu: Boutledge, 1993). 44.30. Donfliet,'/'-)rKí7i New Wave, 327.31. Williams. Repuhlie of Images, 278; emphasis in original.32. Jean-Pierre Beitlionié,yíja/(/cs' Demy et les raeines du rêve, 2nd ed. (Nantes: L'Atalante,

1996), 166.33. Ibid.34. Neupert, A Hvitory of the French New Wave Cinema, xxvli.35. Jacqnes Demy, interview. Cinéma 63 74 (1963): 19-20.36. Agnès Varda. "Magiiy,"" Cinémathèque Française program notes, May-June 2004, 9.37. Mag Bodttrd. interview, CJinéniatlièqne Françai.se program notes, May-June 2004. 14.3S. Bcrtliüin(^./í-/í-í//ic.v Denuj. 167.39. Ihid.40. Bodard. interview, 14.41. Bfrth(mw,jae(jucs Demy, f67-68.42. Hawvard, French National Cinema, 276-77.43. Rick Altman, "The Musical," in The Oxford History of World Cinema, ed. Geoffrey

Nowell-Smith (Oxford: Cxford University Press. 1996). 294.44. Ihid.45. Martin .Siitton. "rattcm.s of" Moaning in the Musical." In Genre: The Musieal. cd. Rick

Altman (London: Rontledge. I9S1),' 190.46. Haywiird, Freneh National Cinema, 136.47. Graliani Pétrie. "Jacqnes Demy," Film Ctuniiwnt (Winter 1971-1972): 50.48. Varda. "Maguy." S.49. Ginette Vincendean. Slars aud Stardom iu Freueh Cinema ([_,nTidon: Continmun,

2000), 196.50. Cíitlteriní' De-ncnve. inteniew. Ciuéma HI 271/272 ( 19S1). 66.51. Thanks to Sn/anne Fedak of Kocli lA)rber Films for permission to nse DVD frame-

grabs as illii.stration.s.52. Vincendean, Stars and Stanloui in French Cine¡na, 196.

Cinema journal 48, No. 1, Fall 2008 4 9

53. Ibid.. 198.54. Emma Wilson, French Cinema Sinee 1950: Personal Histories (New York: Rowman &

Littlefietd, 1999), 43.55. Jean-Pierre Berthomé, U^s Parapluies de Clierlxmrji (Paris: Nathan, 1996), 72-73.56. Bernard Evein. "L'Ecole de Nantes," Cahiers dit einéma 438 (1990): 46-47,57. Evein, interview, Cinénw Si 271/272 (1981): 72.58. Ibid..59. Taboulay, Le Cinéma eneíumlé de jaafnes Deintj. 39.60. Jane Enicr, The Holhjtcood Musical (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982),

103-4.61. Robert Stam, Reflexivity in Film and Literature: Fnnn Don Quixote to fenn-Liie Go-

danl (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press. 1985), 90-91.62. Eevier, The Hollywood Musieal, ST.63. Peter Hague, "Playing for Keeps," F//tíí Comment 21. no. 4 (1991): 77.64. Berthomé./wi/iirv Di'HK/. 173.65. King cakes traditionally are served during L';ir!ii\iil and otber festivals, in order to

clioose the king and i|iieen of the event; in some tradititiiis, the bean symbolizes theChrist child.

66. Susan M. White, Tlie Cinenui of Max Ophitls: Magisterial Vision and the Figure ofWoman (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 12.

67. Williams, Repnblie ofhiutf^es, 298.68. Tabuuias', />(• Cinema enchanté de Jací¡ues Denitj, 31.69. Demy, interview. 1963, 19.70. Bertliünié, Peirtiphiie.s, 73.71. Taboulay, Le Cinéma enchanté de Jac(¡ues Demij, 164.72. Berthomé, Jacques Denuj, 378.73. Taboulay, ù.^ Cinéma enehanté de Jacques Demy, 188.74. Ibid.. 8Í.75. Demv, inter\'iew, 1963, 19.


Umbrellas

Documents

Transcript of Umbrellas