Jean Cocteau’s ORPHIC TRILOGY (1930, 1949, 1960)

French artist/poet Jean Cocteau was one of those people who could have changed the entire dimension of film as art if more people (including himself) had taken him seriously, or perhaps a little less seriously. (*see explanation, Cocteau Biography,) By entering the depths of the unconscious and creating a film reality , Cocteau definitely offered some new possibilities for the art of film. His work was inspirational, inventive and generally pretty strange. This movie trilogy ought to be seen by anyone interested in film as art.

The three movies were created over a time frame spanning decades. (1930, 1949, 1960) In many respects they were autobiographical, yet still have a universal appeal . Because as Cocteau explores the inner workings of a “poet” in all three movies, he reveals much about the way any artist relates to the universe.

I had the option of reviewing each of these movies separately, but had I done that, you would have been the victim of my interpretation of these odd surrealistic masterpieces. This way I can tell you just enough to get you interested. Maybe someday, I will post individual reviews.(Not soon)

THE DVD SET is offered by Criterion and comes with an interesting array of extras. The film transfers are excellent, the subtitling superb, and the discs are accompanied by lengthy discourses in written or interview form with the artist/director himself. It is a little expensive, but in my opinion, each movie needs the other two to complete the vision.

Jean Cocteau 1889-1963

An artist of many talents, Cocteau always considered himself first and foremost a poet. He was published at 16, a fact that supports his claim, if all the other remarkable works by Cocteau did not in fact give that message as well. Playwright, Novelist, poet, actor, painter and sculptor were among his endeavors. There is no evidence of his composing written music, although he wrote Opera lyrics, and he was friends with many composers, among them Igor Stravinsky, and others. Cocteau wrote for the theater, and ballet, painted murals in Churches with traditional themes, but not in a traditional; style. But if you had asked Cocteau his profession, he would have said without reservation, “poet”.

When I taught advanced drawing a few years ago Cocteau’s two dimensional art was the best example of line drawing I could find. With an economy of strokes, he created simple images , containing the essence of what he was drawing, devoid of annoying details. His drawings were fluid, and based mostly on humanity. They were everywhere in his life. He put them on doors in his house, and paths outside his house, the ceiling, the walls and his films. . His drawings are part of his poetry , speaking eloquently without words.


Cocteau was a key figure in the art community in Paris. He hob-nobbed with Picasso, Daighilev, Stravinsky, and other great artists of the day. He amusingly recalls some of his old f friends in an autobiographical short feature, (AUTOPORTRAIT D’UN INCONNU) the most humorous of which was his discussion of the dancer Nijinsky .

Much about this trilogy is autobiographical, all of them have surreal elements. Some of the scenes are extremely funny. Others are very sad. Jean Cocteau invites us to make of each of these films, what we will.


OF THE BLOOD OF THE POET

“Mirrors should reflect a lot more before sending back images. “

This movie has been called many things, not all of them good. At the time, the conservative world read some anti-Christian message in the film, unfairly as it turns out. Because Cocteau’s friends included the surrealists Dali, Bunuel, Breton THE BLOOD OF A POET was thought to have some big social message that in fact it did not have,. There are hints about the public, all slyly amusing, but no big criticisms that warranted banning the film for two years. . The movie was financed by the Noailles , a family who also financed the Brunuel’s L’AGE D’OR, a surreal movie that actually set off riots in the streets. In fact Breton and the other surrealists made fun of Cocteau’s highly subjective film, thinking it silly.

But the movie has withstood the test of time,. It is surreal to be sure, and hard to understand, because it follows the reality of the unconscious, like a waking dream. But all the elements of the surreal dream do in fact make up a story, and it is in the film itself that we see some amazing, experimental techniques made to represent the inner more mysterious state being. This is a time period where Freud was discussed and the power of the “unconscious” seemed worthy of exploration through film. If you appreciate film as art, then this one is for you.

The actual idea for the film came at a party when composer Georges Auric mentioned that he would like to write a musical score for an animated feature. Cocteau came up with an idea at once, and the patron Noailles financed it. It did not air for two years in Paris , but still managed to be striking , innovative and interesting.

The film is narrated by Cocteau himself (I believe) and is set into three distinct chapters. There are elements in each one that reflect something of Cocteau’s experience. The entire film is more than l likely inspired by the death of Cocteau’s friend, Raymond Redact, who died of Typhoid fever in 1923. Cocteau was in such despair, he turned to Opium, an addiction that would recur often in his life. Other plot elements may reflect his father’s suicide (by gunshot wound) and the snowball fight, (and the outcome) may relate to his childhood. In fact throughout this movie Cocteau is giving us an intensely personal and revealing look into what it would be like to be him. And Cocteau seems to be acutely aware of the absurdity of some of his romantic assumptions about the life and the blood of a poet, making fun of himself. It is something that people don’t seem to notice when discussing this film.

THE PLOT

The opening shot is a young man draped with classic toga poorly applied, against a background of tangled film equipment. Flash then to a scene of a huge chimney beginning to fall apart.

The movie really starts as the “poet” dressed in a wig , sketches a face. To his great dismay the mouth he has drawn comes alive. He tries to rub it off the drawing with his hand, and it maintain its life on his hand. One of the funnier scenes occurs when the poet is asleep, and wakes up being aware that the mouth has been kissing his body while he slept. Then to get rid of the mouth, he puts it on a stature, and the statue comes to life.

The statue directs him to walk through the mirror, and this is an act that you will find frequently repeated in the trilogy.

The second Act is the penance the poet pays for bringing the statue to life. He is in an Hotel, (The Hotel of Follies) and opens doors, or peers through keyholes, to see parts of his own unconscious reflected in each little vignette. Some of the these are startling in special effects, and surreal appearances, as is the difficulty he has in navigating the hallway of the hotel. It is a bizarre but fascinating journey into areas that will surprise , perhaps, and bewilder you , almost certainly.

The third act begins with a snowball fight. More than anything this segment seems to reflect Cocteau’s relationship to the public, the consumers of his art. It is well worth watching, so I won’t spoil it for you. Watch for images of a casual observer that recurs, and the woman as the statue.

The music was one of the innovations of this film, by Georges Auric. In 1929 when this film was made, sound in movies was not at all common. The music is very well tailored to this piece, although the themes are clearly identified by the times in which they were written. The other sounds and rhythms are unique as well. From Cocteau’s own narrative , he says

"The musician will underline the noises and the silences”

Perhaps that says it best. Auric would continue his association with Cocteau.

The CINEMATOGRAPHY was the work of an artist as well, if only with the camera. Georges Perinal would win an Oscar for THE THIEF OF BAGDAD, in 1940.s all the shots are framed with the kind of compositional elements that show modern film-makers as casual and uncertain . There were a lot of mistakes made in filming, which Cocteau incorporated into the body of the film itself, making them the work of his improvisational genius.


The imagery is bizarre, and sometimes obviously manufactured. Two dimensional art, is used for example, in the line drawings of the Hermaphrodite, , and reinforced by three dimensional art, in the statues and then the living statues. There are few Cocteau forms of expression that we do not get to sample in this film.

CAST AND PERFORMANCES

Enrique Rivera as the poet-this character is the constant one, and the one that does the majority of the acting. There is dialog in this film, but it is sparse. Most of speaking is the third party narrator. He had a remarkable ability to express himself in broad gestures, and facial expressions. It was extraordinary.

Elisabeth Lee Miller as the statue, was an American- born model, and this is her only film. Quite beautiful in a cold impersonal way, she is perfect for the role in which she is cast. She later became the mistress of Man Ray the photographer, and later, became the exclusive photographer for Vogue Magazine.

Jean Desbordes-as Louis XV-friend-This is the character that looks on, as still as a statue, always affecting a pose, whether of indifference or mild amusement. He does this well.

Feral Benga-as the black angel. This is one of the strangest of all the characters in this movie. The actor only had only three films to his credit. But he is an extraordinary looking guy, whose purpose in this movie I have yet to figure out, although he makes a dead body disappear by laying on it.

Barbette-Not sure which this character was, but he was known as a great trapeze artist, and was friends with the art group
______

ORPHEUS

This second movie released in 1949 reads the most like conventional movies of any of the trilogy, and as such is the easiest to watch. The story is easy to follow even if the fine points are lost. The humor is a good deal more subtle, less playful and more biting. On the story telling level, this is a “watchable” film, and starring the popular Jean Marais, must have been a box office success.

But viewed as the middle of the trilogy about the “poet”, we see here a poet at the height of his popularity, who at once recognizes that his peers no longer respect him or his work, although the public still loves him. His dilemma is of deeper personal significance to the film-maker than might first be thought.

The telling scene for how Cocteau is beginning to feel about the “art” world, is probably contained in one scene, where a friend shows him a “review” published called “Nudism”, with nothing but blank pages within. He is laughing at the pun of course, but he is also laughing bitterly at the emptiness of the new generation of artists and philosophers-an era reflecting Existential philosophy. Another example of this is the “broadcast” poetry of Cegeste, which sometimes almost seems to mean something, but is usually meaningless.

The MUSIC, again done by Auric is of particular interest, because the tragic themes are well used, and will become the standard background fare for dream or fantasy sequences. The sound effects are extremely interesting, as well, including the shrieking train, similar to Hitchcock’s use of that sound in many of his movies.

THE CINEMATOGRAPHY, by Nicolas Hayer is very well done, with special attention to sharp contrasts in light and dark, particularly in the composition of the scenes involving” the primness. “. The scenes with her in them are elegant and stark. The ones with Eurydice, who represents life, are warmer and softer. Several specific scenes are outstanding ane memorable.


THE PLOT

Simply, as the opening narration tells us, it is the legend of Orpheus translated into a time that could be identified as contemporary with the movie. Our Orpheus, however is a popular poet . And death assumes an entirely unconventional character, taking on a an almost dominatrix persona. And her vehicle is a Rolls Royce.

Orpheus goes into a poet’s coffree house, aware that he no longer fits into the younger generation of “poets”. He claims they “hate him”, but he also states “but the public loves me”. A drunk, obnoxious, yet beautiful young man , the 18 year old poet Cegeste, comes in with his patroness, a beautiful elegant princess (not from” here”) A fight breaks out, and the police are called. The young man breaks and runs frm the police, and is struck by a motorcycle. The princess gets Orpheus to help her put him in the car, and he gets in as well. But they do not go to the hospital. The young man is dead. And here is where the surrealist masterpiece starts.

Orpheus, meanwhile, is missed at home, by his wife Eurydice, who has just discovered she is pregnant. When he comes home the next morning, with the chauffeur Heurtebise , he is obsessed with the mysterious princess, the rites he witnessed, and the “poetry” broadcast from the radio of the Rolls Royce. He ignores his wife, and treats her badly.

Much is yet to happen. Of particular interest are the mysterious journeys through the looking glass (accomplished with liquid mercury, among other things) and the entire other world on the other side of the mirror. My favorite is the struggle to move forward, and the wind effects.


CAST AND CHARACTERS

Jean Marias as Orpheus-Note here that Maltin’s biography contains an error. Marais does appear in the “TESTAMENT OF ORPHEUS” but only in a cameo role, not as the star. Marais was a French Errol Flynn type character, and long time lover of the director. He was handsome, energetic, and charismatic, a fact that is obvious from the first time we see him on screen. In this movie his character is complex, and I believe it was well done. Marais was also Cocteau’s star in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

Francois Perier as Heurtebise-this is my favorite character in any of Orphic trilogy movies. Heurtebise, as the chauffeur is witty, and intelligent, a man of some complexity himself, who, like his “employer” does a bad thing when dealing with Orpheus and his wife. He serves as the foil for us, the audience, in understanding what is going on. If nothing else, he talks more than the others. This is an extraordinary performance of a man who we suspect from the beginning knows much more than he is telling anyone,. The actor had a career that lasted 60 years, although his last years were spent with progressive Alzheimers.

Maria Casares-the princess- (death) she is elegant, dark, with a strong personality that shows in the elegant and severe lines of her persona. She, of all the “characters” is certainly the most interesting. I really enjoyed this character, and even sympathized a bit.

Marie Dea as Eurydice-blonde, sweet, beautiful, the epitome of the wife included in scenes of domestic bliss. She was perfect for the part, really. Her vulnerability makes sympathy for her character almost inevitable.

Edouard Dermithe as Jacques Cegeste (the young poet). This too is an interesting character, who was physically quite beautiful, but seemed not too bright. As he learns his new role in the afterlife, he is occasionally inept and funny. Most interesting to me is the evolution in the way the princess treats him as the plot progresses. This is the one actor who will play the same part in the third part of the trilogy.

_____

THE TESTAMENT OF ORPHEUS

“An artist always paints his own portrait”.

This is the final film of Cocteau. Made three years before his death. It still maintains some of the lightness and fun of the first, but it also contains more than a little bitterness, as the poet realizes that his public is starting to disappear, along with appreciation for his work. Of all of the movies, this one is the most “all about Cocteau”, who is trying to make an artistic statement while engaging in a painful life review process. The move was released in 1960, with little financial success. It was still, like the others, a very strange and interesting movie.

THE MUSIC is again the contribution of Georges Auric, and it is appropriately more sophisticated than either of the other two scores.

The symbolism in this movie is complex and in part derived from the other two of the Trilogy. The most interesting (and there are many) is the repeated motif of an hibiscus flower that appears , and like the poet himself is reborn many times.

The CINEMATOGRAPHY, contributed by Roland Pontoizeau, incorporates the symbols and connects this movie with the other two in a nearly seamless mesh, making the trilogy mean something. It is in this final film that Cocteau is able to identify his own physical presence with the body of work that he created. The special effects continue to be a little surprising, in particular the reconstruction of a living flower, a person who springs from the sea, and a photograph that reassembles from a roaring fire.

THE PLOT-or something like it

In this movie Cocteau himself is the main character, although he first appears as a seventeenth century poet, wondering around in different time periods. He is attempting to find the scientist with the key to getting him back where he belongs (wherever that is). But in fighting his way back, he encounters many of the creatures he created in his art and poetry, and indeed is even put on trial by his art at one time. He is executed and is reborn on more than one occasion. This plot is particularly difficult to follow without some knowledge of Cocteau’s biography, and in this respect, it is very self absorbed.

Also of interest in this particular movie are the cameo performances by Cocteau’s personal friends, which include Pablo Picasso, Jean Marais (as Oedipus) , and Yul Brynner, who plays a particularly officious mid level functionary.

Cegeste, a character in the second of the trilogy reappears in this one, as a sort of guide to bring Cocteau to the end, and help him review, and revisit his crime. He is accused, by the way of Innocence, and attempting to access other worlds. This movie is full of humor , not the least of which the poet directs at himself.

This movie makes more sense if you have seen the other two, but it does stand alone as Cocteau’s legacy of the meaning of art, and the relationship of the artist to that which he has created.


CAST AND CHARACTERS

Jean Cocteau as the poet-I enjoyed seeing him in his own movie, that he also wrote and directed. He looks slight and spare, occasionally weak and overpowered, by the strength of his work makes him appear as he is, a poet who will long live through the beauty of his art.

Claudine Auger as Minerve (who tosses a spear through the poet. ) Miss France of 1958. Need I say more?

Charles Azanavour-as Le Curieux.- I failed to recognize him in the movie, despite his international fame

Lucio Bose as a friend, (the countess, I believe) was Miss Italy in 1947.

Yul Brynner as the Court Usher. A fun character, who makes the hapless Cocteau wait for “an audience” for a very long time.

Maria Casares The princess, formerly death, now a tribunal judge, who hears “the charges” against the Poet. I enjoyed this second appearance of this actress, and her character, which is still recognizable after 11 years.

Henri Cremiex as the professor. This is the temporal connection for our mystic poet, who makes the “magic” bullet that will allow him to return to his own time. An interesting character, although not a stretch for the character actor.

Edouard Dermithe-as Cegeste. Cegeste has become a much stronger character, and takes a very active role in leading Cocteau through his experiences. He is also the closest we have to a character that will make sense of it all for us.

Luis Miguel Dominguin-as friend of the poet, but is in the movie because of Bose, with whom he had fathered a child.

Guy Dute as the first horse man. I could only wonder how heavy those costumes must have been.

Jean Marais-as Oedipus. Blinded being led around in a toga. Does not look at all bad considering everything.

Pablo Picasso-appears several different times in the movie.

Francois Perier, as Heurtebise-Again, the dialog that he and the princess share with Cocteau is the most memorable of the movie. I enjoy his condescending yet compassionate view of humanity as this character.

----

FINAL RECOMMENDATION


This TRILOGY is well worth your attention, and I certainly recommend it. Expect to take a little time to watch each film a time or two. They are fascinating, offering a nearly completely different art form than films that are made today. It may take a little extra attention on your part to decipher the symbolism and artistic merits of each. But I believe it is worth it.