Reviews

Love Me If You Dare (2004)

Cynthia Fuchs

The violence of their romance is striking, sometimes moving, and always disturbing, even as metaphor.


Love Me If You Dare (jeux D'enfants)

Director: Yann Samuell
Cast: Guillaume Canet, Marion Cotillard, Thibault Verhaeghe, Joséphine Lebas-Joly, Gérard Watkins, Emmanuelle Grövold
MPAA rating: R
Studio: Paramount Classics
First date: 2003
US DVD Release Date: 2004-10-19

Eight-year-old Julien (Thibault Verhaeghe) and Sophie (Joséphine Lebas-Joly) meet in that meet-cutest of circumstances, when their cruel classmates are tormenting her from the school bus. As she struggles to regather her scattered books and supplies, Julien appears, and, on her dare, comes to her rescue, sending the school bus down the street driverless. The kids scream, the driver runs off after the bus, Sophie is impressed, and the camera cranes out to reveal the newly anointed partners-for-life, bordered by sweet little homes on either side of their sweet suburban street.

Jeux d'enfants, newly released on an extras-less DVD by Paramount, proposes that these two kids are destined to be together, even when they're apart. In making what seems a typical romantic gambit, the film is also inverting it. For even as Julien and Sophie might appear the ideal couple, fated to adore and possess one another for the rest of their existences, they are also awful for one another, so determined to test and stretch their mutual obsessions that they nearly kill one another.

At first, and rather perversely throughout the film, they define their relationship as a sort of game, a series of dares to perform outrageous acts (alarming to adults and other children alike). They assign these dares to one another according to who has possession of a tin cookie can given Julien by his ailing mother (this particular device seems unnecessarily overt -- the dying mother inspires instability). "Game," one child will say, handing over the can, and it's up to the other to deliver on the just uttered dare. As the game escalates, and the acts become more outrageous (Sophie blurts out a series of sex euphemisms during class, Julien pees on the principal's carpet), Julien is also grappling with his mother's (Emmanuelle Grövold) death by metastatic cancer. While he can't quite understand her deterioration and abandonment, or his father's (Gérard Watkins) increasing agitation, the boy does appreciate that his mother sympathizes with the game, and even claims to have played it herself when she was young.

The film is structured into parts, titled "Game," "Set," and "Match," that suggest the escalation of the game even as the kids grow into adults, and, as ways of daring one another and indeed, trumping each other's dares, even as they develop an obvious, if perverse, deep love for one another. This relationship flowers in college, where Julien (now grown up into Guillaume Canet) and Sophie (the lovely and also aptly edgy Marion Cotillard) continue their game, while they initiate a romance. Still, they hang onto their childhood and the passion they ignite in one another by raising the stakes, daring one another to sleep with other people (for instance, "a total bimbo" whose earrings Sophie covets), or to take dangerous action, as against an athlete whom Sophie dares Julien to hit, knowing that he'll be clobbered in return.

Eventually and unsurprisingly, each player is hurt by the other's machinations -- or in some cases, even the thought of such machinations -- leading to still more earnest efforts to injure, to the point that each marries someone else (in Julien's case, he even has children with the wife), as a means to "get at" the other. While these instances look extreme in the context of well-fitted, excessively contrived fiction, they're not so far removed from the sorts of emotional horrors wreaked by folks who seek "justice" (or rather, payments) on Judge Mathis, and their appeal is also similar -- they're freakish and banal at the same time.

Though Jeux d'enfants is most obviously about games in a metaphorical as well as literal sense, it is also about the risks that such activities represent and entail. While some viewers have compared the movie to Amélie, because it includes similarly bright color schemes, slow motion, jump cuts, CGI fantasies, and cutesy narrative turns, Yann Samuell's vision is dark and violent in a way that Jean-Pierre Jeunet's is not (at least not on its surface). That's not to say that the darkness doesn't lead to predictably moralistic lessons, for instance, love is a dare, commitment is serious, death is a bad idea.

Still, the violence of their romance is striking, sometimes moving, and always disturbing, even as metaphor. The beginning and end of the film occur in the same moment, as the lovers are buried in a construction site, a building's cement foundation laid over them as they are locked together forever in what may be a gratifying embrace, after all the pain they've caused one another. Impossible as this scene is -- contractors pouring cement on a young, breathing couple -- it makes visible in an overtly grisly way, the extent to which Julien and Sophie push their mutual testing. The radical nature of their test only makes it more conspicuous, evident to a greater degree.

A next step might be to imagine that these tests are only different in degree, and not in kind, from those shared by more plainly average couples. Whether or not Julien and Sophie are average, in their way, is not the film's concern (in fact, it presents them as extraordinary in mundane ways). Their expectations of one another seem excessive as physical ,emotional, and moral demands. The fact that they are demands of proof ("Are you game?" is their repeated challenge, hissed or muttered in a sort of grim self-referentiality), rather than demonstrations of faith or trust, makes them well-matched, but also brittle, breakable, and finally, painful to imagine beyond the limits they set for themselves.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image