Annette Thought-Dump: Part 4
Nov. 4th, 2021 07:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
between_time_and_42So I’m finally ready to finish up my thoughts on Annette, which started after my second viewing of the film, and now that I’ve seen it four times, I just really want to finish up this series of posts ASAP. (And I can always go back and edit this post if I think of something to add.)
When we left off, I was just starting to touch on the symbolism in the movie, but I got sidetracked by a rant about what happened the last time I tried to talk about the film’s symbolism. That was probably very immature of me so I apologize, and I’ll try not to ever mention that incident publicly again since it’s pretty damn petty to hold onto something that insignificant for so long. Besides, my thoughts on the symbolism are a bit more in-depth, and possibly more on-point, than they were… I do want to say, though, it’s a shame that I’ve let this bother me for so long, because even now that I’ve gained a new perspective on the film and have come to appreciate it and desire to actively seek out content relating to it and engage with other folks about it… Even after all that, I can still get random bouts of anxiety just from reading a person’s thoughts on the film, and I really hate that I’ve allowed the criticism I received to live rent-free in my head to such an extent. Honestly, the only people whose thoughts on it I’m interested in hearing are my father (we seriously need to have a long Discussion about the film the next time I see him… it’s been two damn months) and the creators (Carax & the Maels). Other than that… I dunno, man. I wish I didn’t feel like I had to curate the content I experience in such a way, at least not over some random little art film that I never expected to change me so deeply. But I honestly feel like I might have to blacklist the tag on tumblr and tread carefully around any articles/posts relating to it, because I can read basic facts about it but once it starts getting into opinionated territory I just start feeling, as Sparks would put it, “the existential threat,” and I would rather not have this wave of terror pressing down on me, especially when the stressor is so, SO not worth it.
Sooooo where to start? How about the film’s most obvious image- Annette as a puppet. I honestly don’t know if I have much to comment on here because it’s pretty overt. From the moment Annette is born, she’s not viewed as a person, but as a puppet, an object made to resemble a person without a real mind of its own, whose movements are controlled by a real person operating it. I think the fact that Annette is a puppet for most of the film is what throws most viewers (me included) off about it, because it’s not until the second half of the movie, when the Conductor and Henry start exploiting Annette for their own gain, when it becomes truly obvious that Annette is their puppet, put out onstage and made to sing for the amusement of an audience. Still, Annette isn’t just Henry and Conductor’s puppet- she’s Ann’s puppet too. Ghost!Ann has no qualms about using her young daughter as a way to get back at her husband for his misdeeds. Even the name Ann gives her upon her birth, “Annette,” is a diminutive of the name Ann, showing how Ann considers her an extension of herself, something that she has control over. (Also, side note (ish), the way Henry dresses Annette up like Ann was dressed for the opera she was starring in when Henry first met her is so disturbing. Even then, she's being molded into an image of her predecessor.) Annette is an object, a symbol, to both of her parents. Even when Henry becomes a single father, his egotistical concern is has nothing to do with Annette and her well-being, but rather that people would think he isn’t a good father. Any suffering Annette may go through reflects poorly on HIM, which is his motivation. But what does it mean that Annette is a puppet even before her exploitation truly begins? In the context of the narrative, I feel it might have to do with the way Ann & Henry fulfill traditional societal roles- “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage-“ sort of reflecting how they each play these roles as performers (Ann the saintly ingenue, who in real life is a realistically flawed, imperfect person, and Henry as the testosterone-fueled loudmouth brute who in real life has his good qualities, because people are three-dimensional but audiences don’t see them as such), and Annette is just a status symbol of the idyllic married life, but she too is a person and both parents deny her personhood because she represents their relationship, living proof that they “love each other so much,” not that they actually love her for who she is. (WHAT she is, definitely. That’s why Annette tells Henry at the end that he can’t love her, “not really,” because he never loved her as a person, only for what she represented.) (Man I apologize for that run-on sentence…) I also see Annette being a puppet as a social statement about children in general, and how some couples will have a child to “fix their marriage” and then obviously that NEVER works and the child ends up being the one who’s hurt the most. Or in general, it could be about couples who have kids before they’re ready. I know some young couples with kids who I suspect would have been better off being babysitters, or being an aunt/uncle, than actually having kids of their own. Loving kids doesn’t always mean you’re ready to have them yourself. But that’s another story.
Moving on… The other most obvious symbol in the movie (and what I thought was so obvious that there’s no way it stood for what I thought it stood for, because the filmmakers wouldn’t be THAT predictable) is Henry’s facial birthmark, and how it only becomes obvious as his bad deeds grow more numerous. I really don’t think I have to explain this one much further. The mark represents the darkness inside Henry and it’s only at the end of the film, when his crimes have been exposed and he’s sitting in jail, that it becomes impossible to ignore, permanently marring his face. He’s able to hide it throughout the movie by deceiving people (disarming them, like he says of his stage act)- surely the poor grieving husband whose wife died in an accident at sea did nothing wrong? Surely the man sharing his daughter’s wonderful talents with the world couldn’t be evil? Then the public turns on him permanently after he’s found out- Henry’s “dear public” who used to provide him with the attention he so badly craves- and there’s no need to hide anymore. Everyone knows what he did. I think it’s most noticeable in the police station, when Henry is being interrogated, he starts subtly trying to cover up the mark on his face as he’s answering questions, as he knows what he’s done and he knows if the public can see the mark, he’ll be thrown in jail. In my original post about the movie, I also interpreted the mark as the Mark of Cain, which is a Biblical story about Cain being cursed after murdering his brother. But I really only thought of that as faux symbolism, as there’s always going to be that one person who interprets things religiously regardless of whether it makes sense for the narrative- and I don’t think there’s any intentional religious symbolism in the film, especially now that I think I understand the only symbol I didn’t get before. But we’re about to get to that… right now.
The only symbol in Annette that I felt I truly didn’t understand the first time I saw the movie was how Ann is constantly shown eating apples. At first, I thought it had to be a reference to the Biblical Eve… and immediately after I thought that, I realized that interpretation made such little sense that I figured the apple must have been intentional faux symbolism, like how I had originally viewed Henry’s birthmark, like a bone to throw to the folks who will interpret anything religiously. Eventually, once I came to accept that the obvious meaning behind Henry’s birthmark was probably what was intended by the filmmakers, I had to accept that Ann’s apple was also intended to have some deeper meaning- but what was it? What does it say about Ann’s character that she’s always eating an apple? It wasn’t until I saw a piece of fanart, of all things, that it became more obvious to me. Ann’s apple is a parallel to Henry’s banana. Henry eats bananas because he intentionally identifies himself with apes, how they entertain without true intelligence/sentience (and let me reiterate, this is EXACTLY the role that Henry thrusts Annette into… he sees her in the exact same way, a trained animal with no real thoughts and feelings for itself). And Ann eating apples is her doing the same, pigeonholing herself into the healthy, pure being who “saves” her audience (think “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”). It’s all performative. These people are chafing at the bonds they’ve placed on themselves, and “something’s about to break, but it isn’t clear… is it something we should fear?” (God I love that bridge in “The Calm Before the Storm,” I so hope that bit shows up on the full soundtrack once it’s released in November.)
I’ve already been over the ape/gorilla imagery, I think, so no need to mention it further. Except one more thing- the bananas are also traditionally a phallic symbol, tying in further with how Henry boxes himself into this traditionally-masculine role. Yes, I had to go there. Sorry.
So…. now that all that’s been said, I don’t think I have anything more to add about the symbolism in the movie. So I wanted to wrap this post up with the answer to the question… “What did you think about the movie, Blue?”
I think that if it had been a Sparks album and concert tour, I still would have liked it as much as I do now, most likely even more so. It’s hard to say, because two of the things I like the most about it were additions made by Leos Carax, but at the same time, the first time I saw the movie the visuals got so much in the way of my enjoyment of it that I wished it had been released solely as an album, so that my mind could create the visuals and I didn’t have to rely on anyone’s interpretation of it, and that’s 100% Carax as well. I will say, Annette without “Sympathy For the Abyss” means nothing to me. It’s not Annette to me. But if the original version had indeed had that song as well as “Girl From the Middle of Nowhere” on it… I would have loved it, and I wouldn’t even need the movie to exist. I still stand by what I've said in the past (I think I said this in my initial review, too): although I'm so glad this film exists, as it is a truly impressive work of art, I think the narrative works better in the context of a concept album. No need to get any real backstory on Ann and Henry. No need to pad the opening of the film with, say, the entire blow-by-blow of Henry's stage act (I think that scene more than anything is why the first half of the movie lost me so quickly the first time I saw it). Even just listening to the Cannes edition of the soundtrack, I feel like the story comes through really well. And this all brings me to my next point...
Here’s what I still don’t like about Annette- the runtime. Two and a half hours is too long, I’m sorry. And the sad thing is… there’s literally nothing they could have done to pare it down, because everything is important the narrative. Well, the second half is fine. Everything after Henry and Annette wash up on shore after the shipwreck is fine. No need to mess with that. (Except for one thing- the scene where Henry discovers Annette’s gift, I just HATE the flat, pointing-out-the-obvious way he sings “Amazing, unbelievable, it’s really happening…” Either change the lyrics or change the delivery at that part is what I say.) But the first half… I keep thinking, they could have easily cut down Henry’s initial performance, and maybe some of Ann’s too. But both of those scenes are simultaneously so important for their characters, so… We get such little information about them as it is. Those scenes are necessary to explain who they are. Also, even though I just complained about how long the movie is… I feel like there could have been a little more after Annette is born, when the two parents are adjusting to their new lives. The vague, symbolism-laden flashes of scenery don’t work entirely for me- I would prefer things to be a LITTLE more explicit. (It took me a couple viewings before I realized why the scene with Henry in his motorcycle had Ann’s various “deaths” superimposed over it. Yeah, I’m slow. And at least I did figure that out eventually. But… I dunno, it could have been a tiny bit more obvious.)
Okay. I guess I’m just going to come out and say it, and I don’t care if anyone thinks I’m stupid for feeling this way. I WOULD have preferred the first half of the film had it been told in a more conventional way. I’m sorry. I know that’s not helping my case of proving my intelligence. But I guess I don’t feel like I need to prove anything to anyone anymore. I promise I don’t hate the movie- and I am DEFINITELY not saying that this is the way the story SHOULD have been told. That’s presumptuous and disrespectful. The movie exists the way it does because the creators intended it to be released in that way. There was no compromise- this was their artistic vision brought to life. And I respect that with my whole heart, so I would NEVER say “it should have been” so and so. But would I have liked it better if certain things were changed? Yes. Does that mean I don’t like it now? Not in the least. I’m glad I saw this movie four times and gave it a second chance. I’m still so very glad it exists. I will never adore and worship the movie the way some do, but I’m just so grateful for its existence and I don’t mean any disrespect or harm when I admit that certain things didn’t work for me.
Also, I just wanted to say. One way that Annette has impacted me is that I now have a stronger desire than I ever did before to protect children and preserve their innocence, and to allow them the space to grow and be their own people, and to make sure others respect their boundaries. That's really what I got from the film more than anything. That, and the burning desire to see what the Maels cook up for their next movie musical. I bet it's going to be epic and I hope I enjoy it as much as I've come to enjoy Annette (hopefully more so, actually, since I have such mixed feelings about Annette). I do have to say, I've heard it described as "a sequel to Annette," and I hope that just means it's going to have the same sensibilities/themes of Annette, because I really don't think there's anywhere you can go with the story. Henry told us to "stop watching me" at the end of the film, and we did. I don't want to watch Annette grow up, she's been exploited enough, she deserves her peace, wherever she may find it. (yes, that's how I think about the film... it's impossible not to think of it in such meta terms).
Anyway. Wow. I’m glad I finished this series of posts, and now I hope I never have to think or talk about the movie again (except with a handful of people). I never expected it to become such a touchy subject with me, but here we are. I’ll look at and share content about it, that’s for sure. But if anyone’s reading this who might want to engage with me in a discussion about it, please know that I might turn down that request, and please don’t feel like it’s your fault (me @ me: “what’s your problem, your fucking problem? you got a problem, a big old problem!”). I just have to be in the right frame of mind, speaking to the right people. For those who find more enjoyment in the film than I do- I’m so happy for you and I’m glad this movie is (hopefully) everything you wanted.
When we left off, I was just starting to touch on the symbolism in the movie, but I got sidetracked by a rant about what happened the last time I tried to talk about the film’s symbolism. That was probably very immature of me so I apologize, and I’ll try not to ever mention that incident publicly again since it’s pretty damn petty to hold onto something that insignificant for so long. Besides, my thoughts on the symbolism are a bit more in-depth, and possibly more on-point, than they were… I do want to say, though, it’s a shame that I’ve let this bother me for so long, because even now that I’ve gained a new perspective on the film and have come to appreciate it and desire to actively seek out content relating to it and engage with other folks about it… Even after all that, I can still get random bouts of anxiety just from reading a person’s thoughts on the film, and I really hate that I’ve allowed the criticism I received to live rent-free in my head to such an extent. Honestly, the only people whose thoughts on it I’m interested in hearing are my father (we seriously need to have a long Discussion about the film the next time I see him… it’s been two damn months) and the creators (Carax & the Maels). Other than that… I dunno, man. I wish I didn’t feel like I had to curate the content I experience in such a way, at least not over some random little art film that I never expected to change me so deeply. But I honestly feel like I might have to blacklist the tag on tumblr and tread carefully around any articles/posts relating to it, because I can read basic facts about it but once it starts getting into opinionated territory I just start feeling, as Sparks would put it, “the existential threat,” and I would rather not have this wave of terror pressing down on me, especially when the stressor is so, SO not worth it.
Sooooo where to start? How about the film’s most obvious image- Annette as a puppet. I honestly don’t know if I have much to comment on here because it’s pretty overt. From the moment Annette is born, she’s not viewed as a person, but as a puppet, an object made to resemble a person without a real mind of its own, whose movements are controlled by a real person operating it. I think the fact that Annette is a puppet for most of the film is what throws most viewers (me included) off about it, because it’s not until the second half of the movie, when the Conductor and Henry start exploiting Annette for their own gain, when it becomes truly obvious that Annette is their puppet, put out onstage and made to sing for the amusement of an audience. Still, Annette isn’t just Henry and Conductor’s puppet- she’s Ann’s puppet too. Ghost!Ann has no qualms about using her young daughter as a way to get back at her husband for his misdeeds. Even the name Ann gives her upon her birth, “Annette,” is a diminutive of the name Ann, showing how Ann considers her an extension of herself, something that she has control over. (Also, side note (ish), the way Henry dresses Annette up like Ann was dressed for the opera she was starring in when Henry first met her is so disturbing. Even then, she's being molded into an image of her predecessor.) Annette is an object, a symbol, to both of her parents. Even when Henry becomes a single father, his egotistical concern is has nothing to do with Annette and her well-being, but rather that people would think he isn’t a good father. Any suffering Annette may go through reflects poorly on HIM, which is his motivation. But what does it mean that Annette is a puppet even before her exploitation truly begins? In the context of the narrative, I feel it might have to do with the way Ann & Henry fulfill traditional societal roles- “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage-“ sort of reflecting how they each play these roles as performers (Ann the saintly ingenue, who in real life is a realistically flawed, imperfect person, and Henry as the testosterone-fueled loudmouth brute who in real life has his good qualities, because people are three-dimensional but audiences don’t see them as such), and Annette is just a status symbol of the idyllic married life, but she too is a person and both parents deny her personhood because she represents their relationship, living proof that they “love each other so much,” not that they actually love her for who she is. (WHAT she is, definitely. That’s why Annette tells Henry at the end that he can’t love her, “not really,” because he never loved her as a person, only for what she represented.) (Man I apologize for that run-on sentence…) I also see Annette being a puppet as a social statement about children in general, and how some couples will have a child to “fix their marriage” and then obviously that NEVER works and the child ends up being the one who’s hurt the most. Or in general, it could be about couples who have kids before they’re ready. I know some young couples with kids who I suspect would have been better off being babysitters, or being an aunt/uncle, than actually having kids of their own. Loving kids doesn’t always mean you’re ready to have them yourself. But that’s another story.
Moving on… The other most obvious symbol in the movie (and what I thought was so obvious that there’s no way it stood for what I thought it stood for, because the filmmakers wouldn’t be THAT predictable) is Henry’s facial birthmark, and how it only becomes obvious as his bad deeds grow more numerous. I really don’t think I have to explain this one much further. The mark represents the darkness inside Henry and it’s only at the end of the film, when his crimes have been exposed and he’s sitting in jail, that it becomes impossible to ignore, permanently marring his face. He’s able to hide it throughout the movie by deceiving people (disarming them, like he says of his stage act)- surely the poor grieving husband whose wife died in an accident at sea did nothing wrong? Surely the man sharing his daughter’s wonderful talents with the world couldn’t be evil? Then the public turns on him permanently after he’s found out- Henry’s “dear public” who used to provide him with the attention he so badly craves- and there’s no need to hide anymore. Everyone knows what he did. I think it’s most noticeable in the police station, when Henry is being interrogated, he starts subtly trying to cover up the mark on his face as he’s answering questions, as he knows what he’s done and he knows if the public can see the mark, he’ll be thrown in jail. In my original post about the movie, I also interpreted the mark as the Mark of Cain, which is a Biblical story about Cain being cursed after murdering his brother. But I really only thought of that as faux symbolism, as there’s always going to be that one person who interprets things religiously regardless of whether it makes sense for the narrative- and I don’t think there’s any intentional religious symbolism in the film, especially now that I think I understand the only symbol I didn’t get before. But we’re about to get to that… right now.
The only symbol in Annette that I felt I truly didn’t understand the first time I saw the movie was how Ann is constantly shown eating apples. At first, I thought it had to be a reference to the Biblical Eve… and immediately after I thought that, I realized that interpretation made such little sense that I figured the apple must have been intentional faux symbolism, like how I had originally viewed Henry’s birthmark, like a bone to throw to the folks who will interpret anything religiously. Eventually, once I came to accept that the obvious meaning behind Henry’s birthmark was probably what was intended by the filmmakers, I had to accept that Ann’s apple was also intended to have some deeper meaning- but what was it? What does it say about Ann’s character that she’s always eating an apple? It wasn’t until I saw a piece of fanart, of all things, that it became more obvious to me. Ann’s apple is a parallel to Henry’s banana. Henry eats bananas because he intentionally identifies himself with apes, how they entertain without true intelligence/sentience (and let me reiterate, this is EXACTLY the role that Henry thrusts Annette into… he sees her in the exact same way, a trained animal with no real thoughts and feelings for itself). And Ann eating apples is her doing the same, pigeonholing herself into the healthy, pure being who “saves” her audience (think “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”). It’s all performative. These people are chafing at the bonds they’ve placed on themselves, and “something’s about to break, but it isn’t clear… is it something we should fear?” (God I love that bridge in “The Calm Before the Storm,” I so hope that bit shows up on the full soundtrack once it’s released in November.)
I’ve already been over the ape/gorilla imagery, I think, so no need to mention it further. Except one more thing- the bananas are also traditionally a phallic symbol, tying in further with how Henry boxes himself into this traditionally-masculine role. Yes, I had to go there. Sorry.
So…. now that all that’s been said, I don’t think I have anything more to add about the symbolism in the movie. So I wanted to wrap this post up with the answer to the question… “What did you think about the movie, Blue?”
I think that if it had been a Sparks album and concert tour, I still would have liked it as much as I do now, most likely even more so. It’s hard to say, because two of the things I like the most about it were additions made by Leos Carax, but at the same time, the first time I saw the movie the visuals got so much in the way of my enjoyment of it that I wished it had been released solely as an album, so that my mind could create the visuals and I didn’t have to rely on anyone’s interpretation of it, and that’s 100% Carax as well. I will say, Annette without “Sympathy For the Abyss” means nothing to me. It’s not Annette to me. But if the original version had indeed had that song as well as “Girl From the Middle of Nowhere” on it… I would have loved it, and I wouldn’t even need the movie to exist. I still stand by what I've said in the past (I think I said this in my initial review, too): although I'm so glad this film exists, as it is a truly impressive work of art, I think the narrative works better in the context of a concept album. No need to get any real backstory on Ann and Henry. No need to pad the opening of the film with, say, the entire blow-by-blow of Henry's stage act (I think that scene more than anything is why the first half of the movie lost me so quickly the first time I saw it). Even just listening to the Cannes edition of the soundtrack, I feel like the story comes through really well. And this all brings me to my next point...
Here’s what I still don’t like about Annette- the runtime. Two and a half hours is too long, I’m sorry. And the sad thing is… there’s literally nothing they could have done to pare it down, because everything is important the narrative. Well, the second half is fine. Everything after Henry and Annette wash up on shore after the shipwreck is fine. No need to mess with that. (Except for one thing- the scene where Henry discovers Annette’s gift, I just HATE the flat, pointing-out-the-obvious way he sings “Amazing, unbelievable, it’s really happening…” Either change the lyrics or change the delivery at that part is what I say.) But the first half… I keep thinking, they could have easily cut down Henry’s initial performance, and maybe some of Ann’s too. But both of those scenes are simultaneously so important for their characters, so… We get such little information about them as it is. Those scenes are necessary to explain who they are. Also, even though I just complained about how long the movie is… I feel like there could have been a little more after Annette is born, when the two parents are adjusting to their new lives. The vague, symbolism-laden flashes of scenery don’t work entirely for me- I would prefer things to be a LITTLE more explicit. (It took me a couple viewings before I realized why the scene with Henry in his motorcycle had Ann’s various “deaths” superimposed over it. Yeah, I’m slow. And at least I did figure that out eventually. But… I dunno, it could have been a tiny bit more obvious.)
Okay. I guess I’m just going to come out and say it, and I don’t care if anyone thinks I’m stupid for feeling this way. I WOULD have preferred the first half of the film had it been told in a more conventional way. I’m sorry. I know that’s not helping my case of proving my intelligence. But I guess I don’t feel like I need to prove anything to anyone anymore. I promise I don’t hate the movie- and I am DEFINITELY not saying that this is the way the story SHOULD have been told. That’s presumptuous and disrespectful. The movie exists the way it does because the creators intended it to be released in that way. There was no compromise- this was their artistic vision brought to life. And I respect that with my whole heart, so I would NEVER say “it should have been” so and so. But would I have liked it better if certain things were changed? Yes. Does that mean I don’t like it now? Not in the least. I’m glad I saw this movie four times and gave it a second chance. I’m still so very glad it exists. I will never adore and worship the movie the way some do, but I’m just so grateful for its existence and I don’t mean any disrespect or harm when I admit that certain things didn’t work for me.
Also, I just wanted to say. One way that Annette has impacted me is that I now have a stronger desire than I ever did before to protect children and preserve their innocence, and to allow them the space to grow and be their own people, and to make sure others respect their boundaries. That's really what I got from the film more than anything. That, and the burning desire to see what the Maels cook up for their next movie musical. I bet it's going to be epic and I hope I enjoy it as much as I've come to enjoy Annette (hopefully more so, actually, since I have such mixed feelings about Annette). I do have to say, I've heard it described as "a sequel to Annette," and I hope that just means it's going to have the same sensibilities/themes of Annette, because I really don't think there's anywhere you can go with the story. Henry told us to "stop watching me" at the end of the film, and we did. I don't want to watch Annette grow up, she's been exploited enough, she deserves her peace, wherever she may find it. (yes, that's how I think about the film... it's impossible not to think of it in such meta terms).
Anyway. Wow. I’m glad I finished this series of posts, and now I hope I never have to think or talk about the movie again (except with a handful of people). I never expected it to become such a touchy subject with me, but here we are. I’ll look at and share content about it, that’s for sure. But if anyone’s reading this who might want to engage with me in a discussion about it, please know that I might turn down that request, and please don’t feel like it’s your fault (me @ me: “what’s your problem, your fucking problem? you got a problem, a big old problem!”). I just have to be in the right frame of mind, speaking to the right people. For those who find more enjoyment in the film than I do- I’m so happy for you and I’m glad this movie is (hopefully) everything you wanted.
