Chabrol the Obscure
Les Cousins (Chabrol-1959)
For many reasons, I find that Chabrol’s Les Cousins provides an interesting starting point to this semester’s discourse on the French New Wave. Though my colleagues will surely begin their work on this film by discussing the formal details/conventions characteristic of the movement at large, I’d like to begin elsewhere:
Thematically, Chabrol’s film is reminiscent of both Thomas Hardy’s Jude the Obscure (1895) and John Fante’s The Road to Los Angeles (1985). Here, and elsewhere, one encounters a long tradition of work devoted to a narrativization of the rural/urban dichotomy. Ultimately, these texts provide the narrative of a provincial man that enters into a particularly devestating relationship with the urban environ he once admired. Whereas Hardy details Jude’s failure to obtain an education in Christminster (a town modeled on Oxford, New England), Fante focuses on the loneliness a young Italian writer experiences in Los Angeles. In Chabrol’s Les Cousins, one can read a very similar narrative: Charles, a provincial Frenchman travels to Paris hoping to obtain an education at the local university. Unfortunately, despite his ambition, Charles experiences profound failure in both his personal life and his academic endeavors. He loses the girl that he has become enamored with to his cousin, and performs poorly on a test at the university.
Though it is clear that these texts warrant comparison based on narrativistic parallels, the implications of such a comparison remain unaddressed. What greater arguments about Chabrol’s text might be extracted from the work of Hardy and Fante? What do these texts contribute to a reading of Les Cousins and the French New Wave more generally? Here, it seems that the predominant thematic thread that runs through each of these works, and perhaps the movement at large, relates to the issue of masochism. Though Conomos alludes to this in his text, especially as he characterizes Charles’ cousin (Paul) as “sado-masochistic,” this issue remains largely underpursued. Here, I feel that Conomos misses a series of important oscillations that occur in the audience’s perception of Charles’ relationship with Paul.
Throughout the film, it becomes evident that Charles suffers from the abuses/transgressions of his cousin. After learning of Charles’ romantic inclinations towards a girl, Paul decides that he must date her. Though one supposes that Charles will lash out at his cousin upon learning of this transgression, he is, instead, incredibly sedate concerning this issue. Charles even suggests that he will have his turn later, presumably indicating that he has given up for the time being. Interestingly, though, this is not the last of Paul’s transgressions. Later in the film, Charles confronts Paul in the kitchen of the apartment and suggests that Paul should start studying for the university tests. When Charles argues that he only has four days to prepare, Paul corrects his assessment, by providing that his test is really a day before Charles’. This scene becomes integral to the details that follow. Unfortunately for Charles, the day before his test, Paul decides to throw a party at the apartment. Though Paul is aware Charles’ important test is the next day, he hosts a party that completely interrupts Charles attempts to study. Here, the audience is led to believe that had the party not occurred, Charles might have performed better on the test.
Though it would seem that Charles is initially frustrated with Paul, as he pulls a gun on Paul while he is sleeping, his animosity soon subsides. Even here, instead of realizing Paul’s deceipt, it is suggested that Charles is just jealous or envious. What becomes apparent, as in other parts of the film, is that Charles, as Grunnes argues, really idolizes Paul. The effect that this has on their relationship is that it encourages a certain naivete about Paul’s deceipts.
This film, in many ways, operates on an important oscillation in the audience’s understanding of Charles’ awareness. Throughout the film, the audience continually questions Charles’ ability to understand the deceipt of his cousin. Though it is apparent that the cousins are engaged in a relationship that is entirely detrimental to Charles’ personal welfare, this does not necessarily indicate that masochism is taking place. As Deleuze suggests in his writings on the matter, a certain awareness of abuse is a fundamental condition of a masochistic relationship. Thus, if Charles is unaware of the transgressions, than this cannot really be considered a masochistic relationship. Though the idea of the masochistic relationship is present in this film, it exists only in the capacity that the audience questions the idea of its presence.
Leave a Reply