"It's on the inside, so don't try and understand."

Last night I watched Trouble Every Day. I've seen it before. I actually own it. And I must say that I have also written about it before. The little essay-esue rant which I wrote for a installation show of mine focused purely on the metaphorical cannibalistic element of the film, linking it to thoughts on Armin Meiwes ("Germany's cannibal killer") and Edvard Munch's The Kiss. There's a little story to my first experience with Trouble Every Day, too. A friend and I wanted to see it so badly (when I was living in Portland, OR) that every time we went into this Mecca-video store, we would ask/implore on the status of the film. See the was released in theaters, but because the distribution company folded (and perhaps for additional reasons), never hit R1 home video. It still hasn't. So I finally saw it when I moved to Los Angeles and acquired a region free DVD player - even still I had to be put on a list for this coded DVD. Short story long, for three years this was a VERY difficult movie to come by. So one's perception of the film is obviously subject to this "quest" to see the film.

My first impression was that of disappointment. Trouble Every Day is certainly a loosely presented film. The script is barebones and the acting at times positively atrocious. I extended all of this labor for a mediocre film? It is important to understand its context in contemporary French cinema, though. Trouble Every Day came out during the high reign of "French Extreme Cinema," and it follows many of the implicit guidelines of this sub-genre: Loose structure, shallow characters existing solely as thematic stand-ins, a violent current that strips the viewer of all comfort levels so that the film is viewed in the most vulnerable state. Trouble Every Day certainly delivers on all of these fronts. I had forgotten how graphically violent it was. I suppose because the violence is SO allegorical, I always construe the sequence as a sex scene rather than a killing. But after Core has consumed her victim, you certainly are stripped to a more weary state of observation. It is also a wonderfully critical homage to exploitation horror cinema. It explores, quite frankly, the trouble with the simplicity of exploitation horror with very quiet asides and - in faltering the film's own structure it functions as a larger critique of this genre. The plot structure is so simple that it becomes a mere suggestion. With the whole genre, I joke that you will glean more reading the box cover than from actually watching the film (plot wise). And here, all we ever get are suggestions of a plot that we already know all too well. It's not necessary to the film. The film thrives on our prior knowledge of the horror genre, offering us an explanation for other similar films while poeticizing its use of their structures.

What's funny about Trouble Every Day is how much it pissed off just about everybody. Director Claire Denis' previous film Beau Travail was heralded as a glorious gift to the canon of cinema. People could not stop singing their love for the film. Even today, it is annoying. I am among the few that was completely unimpressed by the film. Aesthetically it was lovely, but... I just wanted more. It is the kind of film that "proper" capital C Cinefiles wet their pants over. I suppose I'm not one of them. These were the people that, when Trouble Every Day was released (out of competition at Cannes, no less) were incensed at the alleged mediocrity of the film. I have never actually read a good review of the film - a review that hasn't called it gratuitous, plodding and such a waste of a good filmmaker. Whatever. If my life has a mission it is that these so called lesser get acknowledged as nothing more than equal to their "distinguished" others. As an aside, there was a fantastic article of some similar topics published in yesterday's New York Times.

I must say that I think Trouble Every Day is a very good film in many ways. It is prefaced with a short sequence of a couple kissing in a car. This is truly all the intro we need to contextualize the film. What we will watch for the next 90 minutes is summed up in this kiss. All of the violence and yearning are contained in this kiss. When Beatrice Dalle starts devouring her victim, it is exposing the line that is everpresent in human carnality. These are, of course, extreme examples, but for god's sake, you are watching a horror film. A horror film is nothing but essentialized examples of the fears that rack our public consciousness. Some critical studies departments teach history through the horror film because the subject/monster of the film is always that thing that is forefront in public consciousness. Trouble Every Day speaks to many fears, AIDS is very present as well as these powerplays and social structures. Vincent Gallo cannot consume his wealthy and pure American wife, but the eroticized foreign maid is below him totemically, and is, therefore, easy prey. It is a social critique as well as genre. When I first watched the film, without understanding the racial politics of french culture, I did not understand the implications that the killing of the maid suggests. This is a common thread throughout most of Denis' films and allows a greater sense of purpose to Trouble Every Day.

Ultimately, Trouble Every Day is a visually stunning (another job well done by cinematographer Agnes Goddard) nod to horror/exploitation cinema that furthers a discussion of just what we are looking at when we watch a horror film. The characters are SO meta that we cannot take them for actual people and this is perhaps the best success of the film. The film presents us with a theory of not only horror cinema, but of the human condition. It's not a pretty one, but it hardly ever is...