Distant Fingers: Oublie-moi by Noémie Lvovsky

In Noé­mie Lvovsky’s film Oub­lie-Moi, its main cha­rac­ter is Natha­lie (Vale­ria Bruni Tede­schi), but the ope­ning image is of her best fri­end, Christel­le (Emma­nu­el­le Devos). Con­nec­ted by their clas­ped hands and a resul­ting twirl (moti­vat­ing a con­nec­ti­ve pan of the came­ra), they dance tog­e­ther in Christelle’s apart­ment to Pat­ti Smith’s “Distant Fin­gers”. The­se ope­ning seconds are alre­a­dy enough to endear them, aided by Lvovksy and her came­ra­man, Jean-Marc Fab­re, cap­tu­ring it all in an unin­ter­rupt­ed take. Like Agnès Godard and Clai­re Denis, Farb­re and Lvovs­ky know best when *not* to move the came­ra. As such, it’s the per­for­mers who asto­nish, not the vir­tuo­so take that cap­tures them.

Natha­lie spends the rest of the film going to and from for­mer and cur­rent sui­tors (the imper­cep­ti­ble line bet­ween “for­mer” and “cur­rent” is among Nathalie’s gifts; the film’s also). The first she speaks to is a dis­he­vel­led-loo­king Eric (Lau­rent Gre­vill), repel­led by her mere pre­sence, both of them unfa­vou­red by the harsh and truthful-loo­king fluo­re­s­cents of the Paris metro. The next boy in her orbit is her off/​on, live-in boy­fri­end, Antoine (Emma­nu­el Salin­ger), arri­ving at this metro loca­ti­on to lend a see­mingly despe­ra­te Natha­lie a 100 franc note (one she imme­dia­te­ly throws on the train tracks). The third is Christelle’s own boy­fri­end, Fabri­ce, arri­ving to Natha­lie and Christel­le (again, see­mingly pul­led in from the ether into Nathalie’s metro space) in a drun­ken stu­por and, at first glan­ce, Nathalie’s equal in a skit­tish ner­vous ener­gy – one that reu­ni­tes them later in the film for a bot­ched bed-in in his bar­ren apart­ment (Rare­ly has a colour film ren­de­red Paris apart­ments so deso­la­te and white, excep­ting per­haps Bresson’s post-Mou­ch­et­te output).

Nathalie’s encoun­ter with Fabri­ce, buil­ding from the ope­ning dance, streng­thens a flow that cour­ses through the rest of the film (it’s also the second musi­cal sequence in the film, this time set to the strains of Lou Reed’s “The­re is No Time”). Remem­be­ring a pho­ne num­ber insis­ted upon by Fabri­ce, Natha­lie uses a pocket of her unen­ding, waking hours to show up at his place with a bot­t­le of gin. They sub­se­quent­ly sou­se them­sel­ves from it, unchan­ging in their com­po­sure or speech. Fabri­ce pro­ceeds to strip to his under­wear and covers hims­elf in a sheet on his thin, flo­or-bound mat­tress. In respon­se, Natha­lie strips com­ple­te­ly nude and lies bes­i­de him, ridi­cu­ling his face as they sta­re each other down on the mat­tress. Every ver­si­on of this sce­ne not invol­ving Natha­lie would be a tra­di­tio­nal sex sce­ne, but this ver­si­on is inva­ria­bly less inte­res­t­ing than the one that we’re shown. Natha­lie seems only capa­ble in rela­ting to others if she simul­ta­neous­ly attracts and repels them; they must re-ite­ra­te (and some­ti­mes repeat ver­ba­tim) the words she spits out at them. By the time she has ven­tri­lo­qui­sed the­se sui­tors, they’ve alre­a­dy left her sight, aban­do­ning – yet again – what drew them to her in the first place (i.e. that same ener­gy that intro­du­ced us to her).

She isn’t only a repel­lent force, but a cata­lyst for chan­ge; a dis­cri­mi­na­to­ry one that reta­ins, within her gra­vi­ta­tio­nal pull, all tho­se willing/​stupid enough to be held up by such emo­tio­nal hosti­li­ty. Par­ti­al­ly exter­na­li­sed through flin­ty and reac­ti­ve move­ments – the flick of a hand or biting of her ton­gue – all of which fuse Tedeschi’s free­dom as a per­for­mer to that of her cha­rac­ter. It goes wit­hout say­ing that her per­for­mance is remar­kab­le; bey­ond that, she has a free­dom few per­for­mers have had sin­ce. A good nar­ra­ti­ve film usual­ly has both an intel­li­gent direc­tor and an intel­li­gent lead actor; it’s sel­dom the case that the direc­tor lets this intel­li­gent actor move free­ly, unboun­ded by “marks” of tape on the flo­or or a dic­ta­to­ri­al DP and/​or first AC. Lvovksy is among a group of French film­ma­kers under­ra­ted out­side of France and more well known as an actor, like Mathieu Amal­ric (both also got their start behind the came­ra with Arnaud Des­plechin). Amal­ric, and pre­su­ma­b­ly Lvovs­ky also, see acting as a means to finan­ci­al­ly sup­port their direc­ting efforts. But as with Oub­lie-moi’s ope­ning, their prac­ti­cal under­stan­ding of per­for­mance flows through to their per­for­mers (many of whom are alre­a­dy clo­se friends/​collaborators of the­se filmmaker(s)).

We (the view­er, the film­ma­kers and, even­tual­ly, her sur­roun­ding cha­rac­ters) must admi­re the beha­viou­ral boun­da­ries she pushes. Becau­se pla­ced within a film, the­se are dra­ma­tur­gi­cal boun­da­ries also. For Lvovs­ky and Tede­schi – up until the film’s final frame (see­mingly made fro­zen by Nathalie’s smi­le) – all for­mal liber­ties are a result of a cha­ri­ta­ble-yet-unblin­king gaze, and the resul­ting free­doms cap­tu­red from said gaze. They’re enough to – not only jus­ti­fy – but con­duct Nathalie’s inner light.