7.4.24

MOVIES AT LA PLAZA—FOG OF FEBRUARY: The man, his work, and his actions

Movie Review by Sergio Martinez

The subject of this documentary recently released in Montreal should stir up some old quarrels and reopen the discussion on a case that many would prefer to keep closed. Most likely, however, this will not be the case: Fog of February (Onze jours en février) is showing in only a few theatres in Montreal.

Claude Jutra (1930-1986) was, until 2016, one of the most revered personalities in the cultural milieu of the province of Quebec. Like many intellectuals of that time, he was also a fervent separatist, to the point of having refused to accept the Order of Canada, which had been conferred on him by the federal government. Considered one of the fathers of modern Quebec cinema, Jutra first became known for his film À tout prendre (1963) and especially Mon oncle Antoine (1971). By the 1980s Jutra began to succumb to Alzheimer's and in 1986 he committed suicide by throwing himself into the St. Lawrence River from the Jacques Cartier Bridge. Thirty years later, however, he would fall into disgrace and become practically a missing person in the province's modern history.

Once a revered Quebec celebrity,
Jutra became a non-person in a record time
This film directed by Jean-Claude Coulbois examines the eleven days in February 2016 between the moment a biography of the filmmaker written by journalist Yves Lever (1942-2020) was released, in which it is mentioned that Jutra would have sexually abused several children, to the moment when, after the controversy triggered, the provincial government, the film institutions in Quebec and even the municipal authorities, literally erased the presence of the filmmaker from the collective memory.

In his film, Coulbois makes a detailed presentation of the facts, beginning by situating Jutra's impact on Quebec cinema for an audience that has probably never heard of Jutra, except in a negative context, and then reconstructing, based on archival material and several interviews with people who knew the case, what this process of prosecution and condemnation, carried out in record time, was like.

Strictly speaking, it must be admitted that overall, the film takes a very critical look at the process by which Jutra went from being a key figure in Quebec culture and identity to a disgusting villain. Jutra was known to be homosexual but there had never been any indication that he engaged in acts of pederasty. Moreover, the revelations in Lever's book were more like hearsay or rumours as the people alluded to remained anonymous.

A monument to Jutra, now removed


It is precisely this speed of action that the film highlights: the then Minister of Culture, Helene David, appears giving instructions to remove the filmmaker's name from the annual Québec Cinéma awards, and the same orders are given to municipalities to change the name of streets or parks that honoured Jutra, the then federal Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mélanie Joly, moves with equal speed.  This is especially highlighted in interviews with lawyer Jean-Claude Hébert, filmmaker Denys Arcand, and producer Rock Demers.

Quebec filmmaker Denys Arcand
was surprised by the speed of the process


This is the central point of the film, which does not attempt to rehabilitate the filmmaker or to reopen a case that has never been heard in court. In this sense, Fog of February (Onze jours en Février) should make us reflect on the scope that an accusation as serious as pederasty can have.

Undoubtedly, the #MeToo movement that arose precisely in the film industry to denounce sexual abuse committed by powerful men in Hollywood has contributed to denouncing and -we hope- discouraging and criminalizing this type of conduct that occurs in many other spheres of public life. However, this is an important warning call that this film makes, in a democracy, there must always be due process. Before condemning and especially before erasing the artistic work of a person, it must be clear that his or her work should not suffer the consequences of the reprehensible actions which its creator may have incurred in his or her private life.

A COMPLEX SITUATION, BUT CAN PEOPLE AND THEIR WORK BE ERASED?

The issue of sexual abuse, especially in the artistic-cultural milieu, but also in politics and the business world, has been in the headlines for some time now. The #MeToo movement contributed in an important way to reveal these abuses, and it is certainly good that it has been so. But beware, this should not mean overlooking the fact that there are other dimensions to consider as well. In Montreal, there was the case of Charles Dutoit, controversial conductor of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra (OSM) who, on the one hand, made a remarkable contribution to the development of that musical ensemble. Dutoit, however, was also accused of sexual abuse and now when the radio plays a song recorded by the OSM when he conducted, his name is omitted.

Woody Allen, a celebrated director whose contribution to the art of filmmaking cannot be denied, was also the target of accusations that were nevertheless dismissed by the courts and the child protection agency. It was then determined in those legal instances that his ex-wife, Mia Farrow, had influenced the children to make those accusations. Despite that, Allen's films have been the target of hostility, and more than once exhibitions of his works have been cancelled.

Spanish tenor Plácido Domingo, meanwhile, has been accused of sexual harassment by some of the female singers with whom he has performed throughout his long career. In 2019 when those allegations came to public light he was forced to resign as artistic director of the Los Angeles Opera. The following year he issued a public apology for making some of his colleagues uncomfortable, however, he reiterated that he had done nothing to cause harm. The tenor no longer performs in the United States, but in Spain, he is still considered one of its iconic artists.

The problem is that while sexual abuse duly proven or recognized before judicial institutions should undoubtedly affect the personal reputation of the artist who engages in such conduct, on the other hand, it should not affect the access and study of his or her work, nor should it erase his or her artistic contribution.

CINE EN LA PLAZA — “ONZE JOURS EN FÉVRIER”: El hombre, su obra y sus acciones

Comentario de Sergio Martínez

El tema de este documental recientemente estrenado en Montreal debería despertar algunas viejas rencillas y reabrir la discusión sobre un caso que muchos preferirían mantener cerrado. Lo más probable, sin embargo, es que no sea así: Onze jours en février se exhibe sólo en un par de salas en Montreal.

Claude Jutra (1930-1986) fue, hasta 2016, una de las figuras más veneradas en el medio cultural de la provincia de Quebec. Como muchos intelectuales de ese tiempo él también era un ferviente separatista, al punto de haber rechazado la Orden de Canadá, que le había conferido el gobierno federal. Considerado uno de los padres del cine quebequense moderno, Jutra se hizo conocido primero por su película À tout prendre (1963) y especialmente Mon oncle Antoine (1971). Hacia los años 80 Jutra empezó a sucumbir al Alzheimer y en 1986 se suicidó lanzándose al río San Lorenzo desde el Puente Jacques Cartier. Sin embargo, treinta años más tarde caería en desgracia y pasaría a ser prácticamente un desaparecido de la historia moderna de la provincia.

En este film dirigido por Jean-Claude Coulbois se examinan los once días en febrero de 2016 entre el momento que se lanza una biografía del cineasta escrita por el periodista Yves Lever (1942-2020) en que se menciona que Jutra habría abusado sexualmente de varios niños, hasta el momento en que, luego de la controversia desencadenada, el gobierno provincial, las instituciones del cine en Quebec y hasta las autoridades municipales, literalmente borran de la memoria colectiva la presencia del cineasta.

De figura clave en la cultura de
Quebec, Jutra pasó a ser innombrable
Coulbois en su film hace una detallada presentación de los hechos, empezando por situar el impacto de Jutra en el cine quebequense a una audiencia que probablemente nunca ha oído hablar de Jutra, como no sea en un contexto negativo, para luego reconstituir en base a material de archivo y varias entrevistas con gente que conoció el caso, lo que fue ese proceso de persecución y condena, efectuado en un tiempo récord.

En estricto sentido hay que admitir que en general el film da una mirada muy crítica al proceso por el cual Jutra pasó de ser personalidad clave de la cultura e identidad quebequenses a villano innombrable. Jutra era conocido como homosexual pero nunca había habido alguna indicación de que incurriera en actos de pederastia. Además, las revelaciones del libro de Lever más bien apuntaban a rumores ya que las personas aludidas permanecían en el anonimato.

Monumento que homenajeaba a Jutra


Precisamente es esa rapidez con que se actuó la que la película remarca: la entonces Ministra de Cultura Helene David, aparece dando instrucciones para que se remueva el nombre del cineasta de los premios que anualmente concedía Québec Cinéma , iguales órdenes se dan a los municipios para que cambien el nombre de calles o parques que honraban a Jutra, la entonces Ministra federal de Patrimonio Canadiense Mélanie Joly se mueve con igual celeridad.  Esto es remarcado especialmente en las entrevistas con el abogado Jean-Claude Hébert, el cineasta Denys Arcand y el productor Rock Demers.

El cineasta Denys Arcand
también se extraña de la celeridad del proceso


Es este el punto central del film, que no intenta rehabilitar al cineasta o reabrir un caso que por lo demás nunca se ventiló en los tribunales. En este sentido, Onze jours en février debe hacernos reflexionar sobre los alcances que puede tener una acusación tan seria como la pederastia. 

Es indudable que el movimiento #MeToo surgido precisamente en el medio cinematográfico para denunciar abusos sexuales cometidos por poderosos hombres en Hollywood ha contribuido a denunciar y —esperamos— a desalentar y penalizar ese tipo de conductas que se dan en muchas otras esferas de la vida pública. Sin embargo, y ese es un importante llamado de alerta que este film hace, en una democracia debe siempre haber el debido proceso, y antes de condenar y especialmente, antes de borrar la obra artística de una persona, tener claro que su trabajo no debe sufrir las consecuencias por las acciones reprobables en que pudo haber incurrido su creador en su vida privada.

UNA COMPLEJA SITUACIÓN ¿PERO SE PUEDE BORRAR A LAS PERSONAS Y SU OBRA?

El tema de los abusos sexuales especialmente en el medio artístico-cultural, aunque también en la política y en el mundo de los negocios, ha estado en los titulares desde hace ya algún tiempo. El movimiento #MeToo contribuyó de manera importante a revelar estos abusos, de eso no hay duda y por cierto es bueno que así haya sido. Pero atención, ello no debe significar pasar por alto que también hay otras dimensiones a considerar. En Montreal se dio el caso de Charles Dutoit, controvertido director de la Orquesta Sinfónica de Montreal (OSM) quien, por un lado, hizo una notable contribución al desarrollo de ese conjunto musical. Dutoit, sin embargo, también fue acusado de abusos sexuales y ahora cuando en la radio se escucha algún tema musical grabado por la OSM cuando él conducía, su nombre se omite.

Woody Allen, celebrado director cuyo aporte al arte cinematográfico no puede ser negado también fue blanco de acusaciones que sin embargo fueron descartadas por los tribunales y por la agencia de protección de menores. Entonces esas instancias legales determinaron que su ex esposa, Mia Farrow, había influido a los niños para que hicieran esas acusaciones.  A pesar de eso, los filmes de Allen y él mismo han sido objeto de actos de rechazo y más de alguna vez sus exhibiciones canceladas.

El tenor español Plácido Domingo, por su parte, ha sido acusado de acoso sexual por parte de algunas de las cantantes con las que ha actuado a través de su larga carrera. En 2019 cuando esas acusaciones salieron a la luz pública él se vio obligado a renunciar a su cargo como director artístico de la Ópera de Los Ángeles. Al año siguiente emitió unas disculpas públicas por haber hecho que algunas de sus colegas se hubieran sentido incómodas, sin embargo, reiteró que no había hecho nada que causara daño. El tenor ya no es bienvenido ni figura más en Estados Unidos, pero en España es aun considerado uno de sus artistas icónicos. 

El problema es que mientras el abuso sexual debidamente comprobado o reconocido ante instancias judiciales debe indudablemente afectar la reputación personal del artista que incurre en tal conducta, por otro lado, ello no debería afectar el acceso y el estudio de su obra, ni tampoco borrar su aporte a la disciplina artística en que se hubiera destac
ado.

15.1.24

MOVIES AT LA PLAZA: FREUD’S LAST SESSION-- God in the dock

Movie Review by Sergio Martinez

The film, directed by Matthew Brown, opens with the episode of the abrupt arrival of Gestapo agents at Sigmund Freud's (Anthony Hopkins) home in Vienna, an event that would lead to his exile in London, where he would die shortly thereafter. Freud had always felt a great appreciation for Vienna, so his forced departure had contributed to the deterioration of his health. It had probably also exacerbated his critical sense and the angry tone of his words. At that point in his life, he was also struggling with advanced cancer of the jaw.

C.S. Lewis (Matthew Goode) and
Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins) on the questions of God,
the afterlife, science and faith
There is no record that this meeting between the father of psychoanalysis and the writer C.S. Lewis (Matthew Goode) ever took place, but that is no obstacle to the development of the film's plot. What is important is that both characters embody opposing positions on the central theme of the session: the existence of God.

Freud, a Jew who has adopted atheism as his conception of life, is thus involved in a dialogue with Lewis, who has moved from atheism to a very deep adherence to Christianity. Issues such as mortality, the role of God in the world and the presence of evil are addressed in a rather passionate way by Freud, while his interlocutor maintains a more relaxed tone, though no less firm in defending his position.

Freud and the death of his
granddaughter: "What kind of God would 
allow such a thing?"
As concrete illustrations of these themes, at one point the dialogue is interrupted and Freud and his visitor must rush to a subway shelter in the face of an air raid warning over London. When the conversation is resumed, other events unfold in the background affecting Freud in some way. His daughter Anna (Liv Lisa Fries) must confront her own compulsive devotion to her father, which even interferes somewhat with her work and her lesbian relationship with Dorothy Tiffany Burlingham (Jody Balfour).

Undoubtedly one of the strongest moments in the confrontation with Lewis over God occurs when Freud brings up the death of his little granddaughter, only five years old. "What kind of God would allow such a thing?"

C.S. Lewis had moved from
atheism to deep religious views
Freud, who perceives that he will soon die, also addresses the issue of what happens after that moment with particular vehemence: certainly for him that is the end of everything. Lewis, for his part, will also have his rejoinder on the subject, although it will sound less strong than Freud's sharp critical vision. Science, faith, love and the human condition clash or complement each other, depending on the point of view of each of the interlocutors, in a way that leaves the audience pondering their own judgments on the subject.

With scenes mostly set indoors, the film emphasizes its intimate character and the more theatrical than cinematic atmosphere. It does, however, allow us to appreciate the solid performances of the great master Hopkins, and Goode, both of whom bring out the contradictory sides of the characters.

Freud's Last Session is a film that will surely delight those who are interested in these philosophical issues of human existence and the psychological and religious aspects that this discussion also involves.

Running time: 118 min.