By overlapping the reality, the writing of a 16 year
old outsider (Claude) and, most importantly, the wish-fulfillment of his patron
an ageing unhappy literature teacher (M. Germain), In The House sets out to
demonstrate the adage that those who can, do, and those that can't, teach.
Played with the right mix of arch knowingness and
humour the cast does a good job with characters who display a myriad of faults
and foibles. Amongst the unfulfilled women and unaware men, a lonely boy
who yearns Pinocchio-like for real family wealds his vivacious imagination to
shape his own (and Germain’s) familial and burgeoning sexual desires. They are
essentially the same person - the boy at the back of the class - as is demonstrated
from the adult perspective in the first scene. The manipulation grows, as
Germain demands more from his protégé, naive to the understanding of teenage
interpretation in contrast to his own.
Throughout the movie the trustworthiness of story
and writer - and as a consequence of 'literature' itself - is held to scrutiny;
but the filmmakers clearly believe literature still triumphs over 'maths'
and, particularly, 'art' which is wonderfully parodied through the various
exhibits in Kirsten Scott Thomas' modernist gallery and scorched distain of
Klee watercolours in a suburban hallway.
Ultimately in trying to jolt everyone into reality
it ends on a couple of unrealistic codas. As the Germain character says a good
story gives the reader the ending they didn't expect but was the only one
that there could have been. Despite a glorious closing shot, that’s not
quite the case here.
7/10
A great review. I concur...the ending was a disappointment for me too.
ReplyDelete