Elle (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Elle (2016) – P. Verhoeven

Isabelle Huppert has stated that she wanted to play this role because the character of Michèle Leblanc is so complex, indicating that she saw her as someone who resolutely refused to be a victim or to be treated as a victim.  This makes the film, during which Huppert’s character is raped during a break in, seem as though it might be an in-depth study of an empowered woman who rejects the patriarchy and its attempts to control her.  She is, after all, a successful businesswoman (running a videogame company with another female friend and an all male staff of workers) who seems to toy with a herd of past and present lovers.  But really I think director Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Starship Troopers) is up to his old tricks, offering some outrageously misogynistic (or at least sensationalistic) content under the guise of an exploration of gender politics.  We are forced to see the rape in flashback numerous times and there are several other psychological or physical assaults on Huppert throughout the film.  Verhoeven slyly offers viewers the temptation to say that Huppert’s character deserves some of her negative treatment, since she often plays cruel games with those around her and treats her family in a blunt unfeeling way. (Alternately, we should of course declare that even mean women do not deserve this).  However, true to the source novel (I think), there are also psychological reasons for Huppert’s personality and demeanour (which she carries off with the aplomb of the truly amazing actress she is) – her father is guilty of a series of horrific crimes that she witnessed as a child and her life has been subject to the fallout (and hostile reactions from others).  So, to state that the character is complex is to put things quite mildly.  Verhoeven gives Huppert the freedom to fully delineate Leblanc and to do so with verve and, yes, a comic touch.  It is the wryly funny moments that really unsettled me – we are encouraged to laugh, even as the content of the film itself is truly dark and horrible (albeit also interwoven with the mundane).  In mixing this strange brew, Verhoeven seems to have sought to provoke a range of reactions, both savoury and unsavoury, and on the DVD extra he declares that this is reality (referring to a film that is mostly all social interactions – but he resists offering any interpretation).  In the end, it is up to us to control the narrative of our lives and the interpretation of the events around us.  It is telling that Huppert saw the story as empowering (justifying her decision to play the part).  However, that reading may simplify things, as would the alternate reading that this is a chance to play out violent fantasies (either as dominator or submissive).  Instead, the film is a success because of its ambiguities (and Huppert’s acting), challenging us to resolve the unresolvable. But should we take the bait?