La petite Lili (2003)

Director:

Claude Miller

Writers:

Julien Boivent (writer)
Anton Chekhov (play)

Release Date:

27 August 2003 (France)

Genre:

Drama

Plot Keywords:

Kissing | Female Frontal Nudity | Female Nudity | Passion | Nude In Nature

Awards:

3 wins & 3 nominations

Cast

Nicole Garcia	...	Mado Marceaux
Bernard Giraudeau	...	Brice
Jean-Pierre Marielle	...	Simon Marceaux
Ludivine Sagnier	...	Lili
Robinson Stévenin	...	Julien Marceaux
Julie Depardieu	...	Jeanne-Marie
Yves Jacques	...	Serge
Anne Le Ny	...	Léone
Marc Betton	...	Guy
Michel Piccoli	...	Actor Who Plays Simon
Maylie Del Piero
Mathieu Grondin	...	Julien-Acteur
Louise Boisvert	...	Actress Who Plays Léone
Mustapha Chadli
Fani Kolarova

Also Known As:

Little Lili (International: English title)

Runtime:

France:104 min | Japan:89 min | Argentina:102 min | USA:104 min

Country:

France | Canada

Language:

French

Color:

Color

Sound Mix:

Dolby SR

Certification:

Argentina:13 | Australia:M | Brazil:14 | Italy:T | Philippines:R-18 | South Korea:18 | Switzerland:12 (canton of Geneva) | Switzerland:12 (canton of Vaud)

Filming Locations:

Île-aux-Moines, Morbihan, France

Company:

Cinémaginaire Inc.

Movie Connections:

References Les enfants du paradis (1945)

Proust's Way

The most annoying thing about french movies about cinema is certainly their need for self-criticism. By doing so, they think they can hide themselves from any other criticism. It's exactly like when someone tells you - with an ironic intonation - all his major flaws, only in order to be contradict. But showing your flaws is not suppressing them.

And so it goes with Claude Miller's "La Petite Lili". This movie is a naturalist drama, where you can only watch "actors playing their parts", and who speak by "mots d'auteurs", trying to reach by them a certain "psychological truth". Furthermore, there're indeed an impression of constant semi-failure in all the scene of the movie, even in the one where a character says so. And, once again, it is not because all this is underlines by the movie itself that it's not true.

But the movie seems better than that and manage to get over all the clichés of a certain french "cinema d'auteur" -with the DV in bonus. Maybe because Proust's shadow, more than Tcheckov, seems to be everywhere in the movie. The writer is directly quote twice in the movie. The firth evocation - more of an invocation by the way - is made by Brice, the conventional director, who, in order to seduce the "jeune fille en fleur" Lili, quotes "Les plaisirs et les jours", where he found "something beautiful about the desire's angst". This sentence, of course, perfectly fits with the preoccupation of Lili, tortured double of Anne Baxter in Mankiewiictz's "All about Eve". Later on, Simon - the great Jean-Pierre Marielle - looking for something to argue with his doctor he can't stand, says to him that his illness comes from intelligence, and therefore, he needs an intelligent doctor to cure him. This sentence is a reminiscence of what's Marcel told to the Doctor Cottar in "In search of lost time". Of course, for it's hard to establish one and only direction for the movie, you can reproach to Miller to use as many cultural references as possible - Tchekhov, Proust, Mankiewicz - in order to satisfied his intellectual spectators. However, the Proust's way goes beyond Lili's "Desire's angst", and of all the characters, and gives birth to strange scenes in the second part of the movie, where the events of the first one, like in Proust's, are lived a second time by memory and artistic creation. It even reminds me of Eustache and the shooting of "La Maman et la putain".Everyone tries to transcend his own flaws, his pitiful routine, his ridiculous past and present to transform them in artistic energy - and especially Lili.

Meanwhile, Simon meets Michel Piccoli, his fictional double - another proustian theme - and strangely walks in a foreign and familiarly stage, the artistic copy of his holiday's house. You can then interprets the movie as an old man's dream, the search of lost time of a man who never lives anything, but who sees himself as an artist through his son. Because it's also in their memories that the characters walks in this second part. They live their life once again, but changed by art, which makes them unrecognizable, and certainly more true than the little family drama they lived four years ago. The movie becomes really good in this repetition, which almost belong to the fantastic, because, as in Proust's, art gives birth to a memory which is more real than art, and life becomes then its own ghost.