Actor, Director, Realist: Mathieu Kassovitz's contradictory works

In his conflicting rolls: on the set of La Haine (left), a still from Amélie (right)

In April, The Guardian's Steve Rose called Kassovitz "versatile to the point of contradictory", but is the famous Frenchman really that back-and-forth?

From The Little Boy to the Distinguished Director
Welcome to History 101. Well, it's actually just a basic timeline of Kassovitz's life, but we'll need the grounding before we go any further.

In 1967 (making him 46) Kassovitz was born to French film editor Chantal Rémy and Hungarian writer and director Peter Kassovitz.

At the age of 12, Kassovitz appeared in his first movie - Au bout du bout du banc (deliberate tongue twister, I believe). He had a few other acting roles as a child, including a credit for Le Petit Garçon in the 1981 film L'année prochaine... si tout va bien.

In 1993 he tried his hand at writing and directing his first film, and so came Métisse. Just two years later he released what would become his best-loved film, La Haine. Starring the fabulous Vincent Cassel and filmed entirely in black and white, La Haine is a strikingly real portrayal of the suburbs of Paris which Kassovitz himself said tells a story of "police brutality".

After collaborating again with Vincent Cassel in thriller Crimson Rivers (2000), Kassovitz apparently wondered onto the set of Amélie (2001) as an extra merely hoping to meet Jeunet, when he was cast as the romantic Nino Quincampoix and gained world-wide recognition for the role.
A few years later, after starring in a film here and directing one there, Kassovitz once again poked his head into the political scene. In 2005 riots broke out in Parisian suburb, over the death of two North African youths during a police prosecution. Shortly thereafter, Sarkozy was quoted calling the rioters "scum" and claiming that they should be "cleansed" from the banlieues of Paris with a "fire hose". Kassovitz reacted to Sarkozy's statement publicly via his blog, writing that Sarkozy had "ideas that not only reveal his inexperience of politics and human relations, but which also illuminate the purely demagogical and egocentric aspects of a puny, would-be Napoleon." In 2012 he reinforced his statement in an interview by deeming the outgoing Sarkozy administration as "horrible".
So there it is, you're pretty much up-to-date with Kassovitz. But that's not all.

Captain Contradiction?
In his article, Steve Rose points out the huge contrast between Kassovitz's efforts as a director and as an actor, and the contrast really is colossal. La Haine was critically acclaimed for being controversially honest and realistic about the situation in Paris, while Amélie is well known for painting over every droplet of context surrounding the film. It's not just that the films held different points of view; the confusing thing is that Kassovitz appears so passionate for people to see the true portrait of Paris at the time, and yet nothing about Amélie even touches on the subject. So what's the deal? Why would Kassovitz take part in a project which went so strongly against the grain of what he had in his head? Rose's interview holds some hidden insight.
When asked about his career as an actor, Kassovitz said:

"As an actor I'm very easily bored, so I just work with directors that I'm interested in. I don't really care about the script or the part."

So maybe it's just that he didn't care about what message the film was putting across, so long as he was within a ten meter radius of his childhood hero, Jeunet. Alongside this, when asked about his contradictory projects - hip hop videos, Amélie, La Haine, and the Lancôme campaign - here's what he had to say:

"Sometimes it's nice to do the opposite of what you just said."

So why does Kassovitz get involved on both sides of the fence? Because it's nice, and that's all he wrote. 

Evidently, Kassovitz is a contradictory character, and you have to respect that he admits it. But maybe he's right to switch it around. After all, it's his career, and actors in Hollywood are celebrated because of their versatility. So, why shouldn't he chop and change?  Kassovitz might have many faces, but so long as the movies he gets involved in don't all end up like Babylon A.D, then there's no significant problem.

Where, when, and why: Setting in Amélie

Being one of France's most popular films (at least amongst Francophiles), setting is  a focal point of Jeunet's Amélie. From the first second to the last, no viewer could possibly be unaware that what they were watching was a scolding melting-pot of all things Parisian. What they might be a little less aware of is when exactly the film is set. The question is: is Amélie a reflection of Paris, or is it an abstract painting manufactured by Jeunet?

Paris, je t'aime
Well, Jeunet certainly does. Amélie takes its place in the picturesque streets of Montmartre, in Paris. With claims to such names Van Gogh, Renoir, Picasso, Monet and Dalí - amongst others - it's no wonder that this quartier of Paris has earned the title of the 'Artistic quarter'. But it doesn't stop there. Montmartre is equipped with winding cobbled streets, shops which fail to age, buildings older than any viewer's grandfather, all - of course - overlooked by the famous Basilica Sacré Cœur.

Montmartre by night - overlooked by the Basilica

Jeunet really has chosen the picturesque part of Paris for his film,  and it was by no means an accident. The entire film displays Jeunet's intense desire to show Paris in the most fairytale light possible: the accordion dominates the movie score; it only rains once in the entire film; and perhaps most telling of all, Jeunet had the streets and metro stations he used cleaned every morning before he started filming.
 

Jeunet's completely spotless Metro stations

In reality, if you were to venture outside of the streets of the film, you'd find yourself in a city like any other; graffiti, trash, and (shock horror) homeless people who accept money. 

A homeless man refuses money -
"Non merci madame, je travaille jamais dimanche" 

Even the metro stations we see in the film are not the picture of perfection Jeunet would have us believe. Perhaps Jeunet is a painter, not a photographer.

But does the setting really change the plot? Are the characters affected by where they live? It's probably best to break it down to really get the truth here. 

Amelie
Amelie seems to have spent most of her life in Paris. She grew up there, her mother met her unfortunate end at the city's famous Notre Dame, her father notoriously never left the place, and her entire adventure seems to take place within a few streets of Montmartre, and one or two nearby houses. So it would seem that Amélie is fairly attached to Paris (much like her creator). That said, she doesn't seem to be much affected by it, nor her actions. You might argue that her mothers death affected her greatly, and that had they not been at the Notre Dame, she would have survived. However, we don't really see any of Amelie's traits or actions stem from that particular event. In actual fact, the one event we do connect to her actions is the death of Lady Di, and while that took place in Paris, it could have happened in Paris, London or Abu Dhabi and she would still have been shocked. So in short, no - Amelie isn't massively affected by where she lives. She's a protagonist of a fairytale, and Jeunet could have made any city into that fairytale.

Nino
Let's keep it short for Nino, considering he doesn't appear that much in the film. His few traits are that he was bullied as a child, that he collects discarded passport photographs, and that he works in a sex shop. None of these things belong explicitly to Paris, and Nino could easily exist outside of the city and still follow the exact same plot. 

Nino's connection to Paris

The Coffee Shop Crew
The gang at the Deux Moulins are obviously brought together because they all work in Paris. However, none of them are specifically affected by it. You can be insufferable (Joseph), flirtatious (Gina), or hypochondriatic (Georgette) in any city. And you can certainly fall off a horse if you aren't in Paris too (Mme Suzanne).

Monsieur Raymond Dufayel
Now here's someone who really is worth talking about. Dufayel is a lonely-living, brittle-boned recluse who never leaves his Parisian apartment. He might never set foot on the streets of Paris, but no matter, because the spirit of Paris lives in his apartment via his obsession with Renoir. Recreating one of Renoir's works each year, Dufayel adores his idol and can't stand for people not to feel the same way. It's arguable that Dufayel is the only character whose home - the artistic quarter of Paris - really affects his life. 

Auguste Renoir - Luncheon of the Boating Party 1880-1881
Dufayel's obsession

What of it?
So what of Jeunet's setting? There are two ways to look at it - one in favour of Jeunet and one against him.
On the one hand, it's likely that Jeunet's aim was to create a fairytale version of Paris for the film. He'd just come back from filming Alien in Hollywood, and probably wanted to make a film which celebrated everything that was his homeland. In this respect, he's absolutely been successful. The Paris we see in Amelie isn't realistic, but 'féérique' - which is exactly how Jeunet wanted it.

On the other hand, is this really success? Serge Kaganski argues that Jeunet's Paris isn't Paris at all. He believes that Jeunet is 'incapable of filming anything human' and that Paris' ethnic diversity is grossly misrepresented throughout the film - with only one ethnic minority being show in Lucien (who is even given a French name). Kaganski's idea of a good setting is a truthful one, and in this sense, Jeunet's setting isn't a good one at all.

My vision is blurred by my intense dislike of Jeunet's style. If you asked me, I'd side with Kaganski in that Jeunet's model of Paris is suffocating and too manufactured. Compared with other classic French films like La Haine, the Paris we see in Amélie just isn't real enough for me.I prefer my directors to capture a place and show it to me for what it is - whether that be good or bad. I think that Jeunet looks at a place and reproduces it as it looks through rose tinted glasses. It's not my cup of tea.

But don't take my word for it. It's up to you to decide whether Jeunet has done a good job with his representation of Paris in Amélie. While you're deciding, keep one question in mind: is the setting successful when it's true to the city, or when it's true to the director's intentions?