Similar Pages

Transcript

Film-thinking in Rosetta and Mouchette Understanding the Dardenne Brothers 2 INTRODUCTION During this essay I will perform a reading of Rosetta (1999) by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne with comparison to Robert Bresson’s Mouchette (1967) focused on film-thinking which Daniel Frampton analyses in his book Filmosophy (2006). Since Lumiere brothers, cinema has been always closely connected to reality. Definitely, cinema can never be the exact copy of reality but sometimes it can even be more effective with its new reality in a new world. Both philosophers and film theorists have been trying to find out how film affects us. Filmosophy is a combination of film and philosophy that tries to answer that question with its elements such as filmind, film-thinking and film-goer. In the first section I will contextualise filmosophy and define its elements. The subsequent sections will analyse specific film-thinking features of the films that are considered to be quite similar to each other. I will be concerned with the basic fields of film composition namely image, sound, colour, frame, movement and edit-shifts even if Frampton warns that, “the main problem of this design is that all film forms arrive as one, and are not delineated as individual fields when shown.”1 I will conclude with a textual comparison of the films in which I will blend together the issues mentioned above using an allegorical type of interpretation. 3 CONTEXTUALISING FILMOSOPHY Film is a subjective experience of the film-goer which can not only think but also “can philosophize.”2 As John Mullarkey claims “cinema is philosophical because thinking is cinematic.”3 Instead of trying to move towards reality, film aims to move towards the mind. The mind recreates the world in its own way, which has its own time and space; it’s ‘a world thought-out.’ For Epstein, film is “an eye independent of the eye”4 Film has its own mind, images and thinking which is different than our mind. The conscious intentions of a film-maker structure a film as much as unconscious impulses. The nature of film-making is often unpredictable and you never know what kind of problems you can face. I don’t think that any film-maker can have total control on the film; there will always be some differences between the film he imagined and the film he created. These elements can be called as filmind or as Frampton argues, filmind can be seen as just the film. Film-being is “a general term for what we understand to be the origin of the images and sounds we experience.”5 Image, camera angles, sounds or any possible narrator can be an example of film-being. It can basically be seen as all the elements of the film individually. Frampton defines filmosophy as “a study of film as thinking, and contains a theory of both film-being and film form.”6 Filmosophy is designed to analyse films in the philosophical concepts so it is neither philosophy nor films itself that questions the deeper meanings and effects of watching a film as a film-goer. Filmosophy tries to find out how film creates the meanings and emotions film-goer feel. Film-thinking is the action of thinking about film in the philosophical way. It dramatises the intention 4 of filmind which “designates that the dramatic meaning of films comes within the film rather than from some outside force.”7 “The filmind is philosophy’s concept of film-being, the theoretical originator of the images and sounds we experience.”8 It is the conceptualisation of film-being which is strongly connected to film itself, almost interchangeable. Filmind is related to reality. The film world is not a copy of reality but a new creation that sets its own rules. Each film is unique with its own world, which is generally similar to real world but definitely not the same. Film world can be seen as a combination of real world and filmind. The filmind creates its own objects and people who are living in the film world. The film-goer sees the objects created by the filmind in the film world and to understand this world, film-thinking is the action of thought. Image The Dardenne brothers’ cinema is “poor” and pure at the same time. In their fictions, they never use any special effects or artificial lighting, which is exactly what neo-realist cinema does. The audience witnesses real experiences of real characters from a distance but harsh tone of the Dardennes’ Rosetta strengthened by the constantly active camera that follows Rosetta from behind, makes the viewers feel themselves almost as being a part of the story. The film-goer is almost running with her. For example, in the opening sequence the moving camera goes wherever Rosetta goes. The camera is like a bird standing just behind her shoulder. Everything she lives is also being lived by the spectator. The camera acts as if looking for something very hard to find. It is almost active in the story structure; it is the eye of the audience. 5 The brothers choice of moving-camera makes the spectator feel imprisoned. We are wherever Rosetta is; we see her seeing things. We cannot see her from a wide shot; the camera is always behind her shoulder for a mid-close up shot of her face. Generally, most of the shots are almost close-up. The widest camera angles are when Rosetta and Riquet are riding a motorbike and when Rosetta is crossing the road. These are both obviously the favourite shots of the brothers since they use them in almost all of their movies. It is a Dardennian way of opening and ending sequences. The best example of ‘living with the protagonist’ is the sequence when Rosetta is lying on the bed in Riquet’s flat. She is talking to herself. Actually, she is talking to us: ‘Your name is Rosetta. My name is Rosetta. You found a job. I found a job. You’ve got a friend. I’ve got a friend. You have a normal life. I have a normal life. You won’t fall in a rut. I won’t fall in a rut. Goodnight. Goodnight.’ Rhys Graham explains this part well, “this ‘you’ is the viewer that has been one step behind Rosetta in every step of her journey.”9 That part is by no means a monologue of Rosetta but a dialogue between the spectator and Rosetta. Mouchette is just as lonely and hopeless as Rosetta. They both spend much time on the streets just walking, living in another life where there is no one else with them. Mouchette pours herself coffee and milk mechanically. It helps her escape from real life and makes her different from the other characters. She does not really belong to the corrupted society. Children are showing her their penises, she was raped and then called a slut, while other schoolgirls her age are going out with men; her brother and father are doing illegal jobs. Everything around her is corrupted. Only in the bumper car does she feels close to a man –just like Rosetta and Riquet- and then her relative slaps her as if she was doing something bad. The images of shoes, mud, highway, and forest are almost the same in both movies. Rosetta is curing her belly 6 with a hairdryer while Mouchette is heating milk on her chest, which gives the sense of tactility to the viewer. In both movies, we do not know where the story happens; both of them could be in “any-space-whatever.”10 The locations does not play big roles as we do not really see many things except the main characters. There is no sign to help the audience understand where they are. The biggest difference between movies is that Bresson presents Mouchette as a pure body. The film-goer sees her hands more than her face. Even when we do see her, it looks like a statue without any facial expression. Bresson explains it in his book, “No actors. No staging. But to use models coming from life itself.”11 On the other hand, the Dardennes show Rosetta like one of us. It is like playing a game in which we have all the control. We are moving. We are having friends. Furthermore, as Paul Shrader states of Bresson’s style: “There’s no desire to capture documentary ‘truth’ of an event, only the surface.”12 This is just the opposite of the Dardennes’ style. Robert Bresson tries to reach the raw material of the Transcendent by using only surfaces. Bresson is more fascinated with very ugly and dull images instead of beautiful images; on the contrary. He does not want the spectator to get lost in beautiful pictures and forget about the plot. Bresson rejects everything which the moviegoers enjoy watching; that is why his movies are cold and without excitement. Colour Filmind gives colours different functions, just as it gives it to music. It’s not so usual to see the gas pipe of a huge company in a warm reddish or greenish colour. The industry image in our minds is inherently dusty, dirty and old. During the 1960s, Michelangelo Antonioni made several movies like Red Desert (Il Deserto Rosso, 1964), which was the director’s first colour film. This movie shows the alienation of 7 people in the industrial life after the end of the World War II. What connects Red Desert and Rosetta is the use of the colour. The colours almost do not even exist since their saturation is very low except the fact that Antonioni paints the colours in postproduction in his artistic way. Dardenne brothers do not use special effects so it can be said that Rosetta does not have anything special to do with colours, which is not true especially taking into consideration the use of red and blue in the film. Dardennes use red in the same way to help the audience accept the things Rosetta is constantly facing with during the movie. In general, Rosetta is by no means a movie that one could be happy after watching; both because of what it explains and how it presents it. Rosetta’s clothes talks for itself; red and blue combined with greyish colours, which are the colours of industrialisation. Additionally, the Dardannes’ use the natural lighting in both indoor and outdoor scenes. Sound In Rosetta, the Dardennes use non-edited natural sound and do not use any music soundtrack. In a film where every sound has a role, a casual sound like breathing has an indispensable role in the film. Even the silence has a sound. The use of only real sound has a vital role in the realistic film style of the brothers and of course no one can expect some special effects. The filmind is strongly affected by the sound, too. For example while Rosetta is stuck in the mud in the river, she tries to evade swallowing more water. That sound puts the audience almost inside the mud, it puts them in the situation of trying to save themselves from getting drowned in the river. What makes it so special is that the only sound that we hear is a simple natural sound, natural as the human flesh. Surely, the sound cannot be thought separate from the image. The realist handheld camera is strengthened by the realistic, non-edited 8 sounds by the Dardennes create a realistic documentary effect on the film-goer. It creates an impression almost like watching a documentary, making the audience feel like living inside the movie. Both movies are using non-edited, natural sounds. However, unlike Rosetta, Mouchette uses a song both at the beginning and at the end of the movie. The usual sounds from daily life are strengthening the cold reality. As Joseph Mai writes, “Bresson uses sound to de-figure the supposedly shared world between author, reader and character.”13 That is one of the reasons why Bresson’s style is making the moviegoer feel so apart from the movie. Moreover, In Mouchette, the off-screen sound also plays an important role. For example when Mouchette is on her way to the classroom, the camera shows her getting through the door. Even though she moves away, the camera stays still on the door and we are left only with the sound of her steps. For around 2-3 seconds, the only thing we can see is the door, just a door image and the sound. Then it cuts inside the classroom with a wider shot of the door and we keep on hearing the sound of her shoes. Basically, there are around 5 seconds during which the only thing we see is the door and the only sound we hear is her walking. This is done on purpose to make the movie cold, which Bresson sees as a way to reach the Transcendent. Thus, even though both movies use natural sounds, we can say that Bresson is using the sound in a more stylistic way to reach the Transcendent. As Bresson says, “When a sound can replace an image, cut the image or neutralize it. The ear goes more towards the within, the eye towards the outer.”14 Focus Focus is effective for film-thinking when it is not ordinary. Rosetta does not offer anything special about focus except the running sequences. Many of the running 9 and following sequences are out of focus but not on artistic purpose. That is so because the camera moves trying to follow her so fast that it cannot focus itself automatically. Thus, there are very few shots (when she is running and when she is eating crepes) in which the background is blurred on purpose and her face is in the focus. The Dardennes’ realism aims to show everything as it is. Their style does not take Rosetta’s side and blur the rest. The style gives the same importance to everything that is on the screen: Rosetta, trees, river, streets, Riquet… That is another feature of their almost documentary style. For example, in the beginning of Red Desert, the director shows the parts of the industrial factory out of focus, which lets the viewers see whatever they want to see. It leaves it open to their imagination. Another example from Red Desert is the shot when the workers are getting out the factory. All the workers are out of focus and the protagonist is alienated among too many people. So, focus can be used intentionally as both metaphorical and meaningful. It also can be used just as the Dardennes do it in Rosetta. They just show everything as it is, which is effective, too. In both films, focus is not really used as a tool for artistic aims. Generally, the focus is just normal, indicating that nothing is more important than something else. In terms of the position of the focus, Bresson’s main focus point is the pure body, especially the face without any expression on it, and hands. On the other hand, as Sarah Cooper says, “by choosing to focus frequently on the backs of the characters, the Dardenne brothers steer us down, rather than up, the topography of the body, from the face to the back.”15 In a way, focus orients us. 10 Speed Rosetta opens with a sequence in which the camera constantly follows the character behind her shoulder. The only thing the viewer realises is that the girl is running and the camera unsteadily follows her at the same pace. She is running in the workspace, shouting around. That is almost the only plan, which is really hard to watch making the viewer feel like drunk. The faster she runs, the faster handheld camera follows her and the dizzier the spectator gets. As Rhys says, “Rosetta is charged with a visceral energy that makes the act of viewing less a visual and emotional experience than a forceful physical sensation.”16 She is energetic as nothing can stand on her way when she gets nervous. We can see that in the sequences when she gets fired from the job, when she is trying to catch her mother in the forest, or when she is escaping from Riquet. All of these have the same effect. The filmind is getting tired as Rosetta runs. Unlike Rosetta, Mouchette is a very slow movie. There is no real action except in the sequence where the gamekeeper and the poacher are fighting. Another fast part is in the bumper car. But when we look at the rest of the movie, it is very slow and often unbearable. Framing Rosetta often contains handheld shots following her from behind or lingering on her expressionless face when she eventually stops moving. The filmind is always behind her, following her wherever she goes. There are no point of view shots in the entire movie. The brothers never use point of view shots because they do not want the viewer to act the protagonist, but to be with her, as her friend. The film-goer is not Rosetta herself but someone who is with her. The Dardennes do not use shots and 11 reverse shots either. When they want to show a cause-effect sequence, the camera first shows the reason and it just moves on to the effect part. For example when Rosetta is fighting, after she got fired, they have a physical argument with the boss. The camera, handheld as always, first shows Rosetta, then the boss and Rosetta again without a cut. It just moves with a very limited framing and it shakes as if there was an earthquake. The camera is almost inside the fight and it behaves in that way. She obsessively hides and watches people working behind the walls. Also, there are many expressionist close-up shots of her face that do not tell anything directly but in the context of the movie, they make the filmind think about her troubles and sympathise with her. Bresson’s transcendental style is more special for cutting the head in the framing, which keeps the viewer away from the person. There are many shots in which the viewer sees only a part of the body. Even in a full shot, he enjoys cutting from the neck down, not showing the head. Moreover, the indoor shots in the movie generally include some parts of the doors, which is another obsession of Bresson. When he wants to show what a room looks like, he usually shoots it behind the door to create the frame-into-frame (door as another frame). Frame-into-frame helps him give the feeling of imprisonment. Mouchette is imprisoned in a small village, always surrounded by the same people. She cannot escape. If she does something wrong, the next day she will have to face all the people living in the village. After having been raped, she lies and says that she was with Arsene, which makes everyone call her slut, and think of her as a slut. Mouchette is imprisoned there, with no way out. Just as Rosetta, after she tells the boss that Riquet is cheating, Rosetta begins to work instead of him. But the village is too small and everyday Riquet comes to the crepes shop and sees Rosetta. After a few days, Rosetta cannot stand this anymore. Every time she 12 sees Riquet, she feels sad and she quits the job that she was trying to get for a very long time. Rosetta cannot stand seeing Riquet even her one and only aim is to find a job and lead a normal life. Movement If cinema is an art created by moving images, which it certainly is, the movement plays the vital role. The Dardennes’ style always offers more images and movements than dialogues or words, which is one of the missions of the cinema. In Rosetta, the Dardennes’ obsession with crossing the streets and riding a motorbike is very meaningful. Each time the viewer sees Rosetta crossing the street running, the filmind feels the fast moving life deep inside. When she rides the motorbike with Riquet, the viewer is left with the idea of time. Daniel Frampton writes, “…with its close images and following movements, (it) makes us feel that the characters really are being understood by a filmind, a metaphysical film-being that watches them without their knowledge.”17 The filmind allows wider interpretations. The handheld camera in the hands of the operator is much more alive and complex than any other machine-produced movement. The living camera makes the viewer, “who drop their popcorn can reach toward the film in an almost tactile experience.”18 For example, when Rosetta tries to heat her belly, the viewers can feel the cold in their own body. Robert Bresson does not use a handheld camera. The camera is always on the tripod, but generally panning towards the action. Because of his realist style, which generally uses mid-shots, the shot is not usually wide enough to capture all the action. The camera usually stays at the chest level of a standing person. Just like Ozu, there are many plans in which the camera stays stable but the characters enter the frame, perform the action and exit the frame. Compare with the Dardennes, Bresson has 13 almost no similarities with relation to camera movement. While the Dardennes choose the handheld camera always following Rosetta from the back and making the filmind go with her, Bresson uses a stable camera. Shifts Shift is the “blood” of filmind putting the elements together and creates new meanings and emotions. As Frampton writes, “The filmind (the film) creates and colours and orders itself, and within this conception image shifts become another kind of movement, a decision to go somewhere else, to show a different view of an event in progress.”19 The Dardennes use the shifts not only as change of plans but also as time cuts. Each cut in their movies changes the time and generally the location as well. As R.D. Crano writes, “An infrequency of cuts preserves, through continous movement, a shared image-space anterior to seperation.”20 From a very fast moving plan, like following Rosetta running, the viewer is sometimes forced to see a very stable plan in which the camera shows only her expressionless face eating crepes. The editing is so disturbing, as well as the camera and the characters, that it leaves the filmind in a state of unrest and discomfort. Many times the viewer loses track where Rosetta is, what she is doing and how she feeels. Unlike the Dardennes, Bresson uses fade-in and fade-outs as a time-cut (showing that time has passed) in the story. The editing is generally continuous but. As it has been previously indicated, he rejects everything that makes the filmind feel anything. While the Dardennes never let the spectator take a breath, Bresson does the opposite: he shows dull images which are not really connected to each other. 14 Rosetta is a story of a young girl, who is living with a drunkard mother. She does not have any friend, even no one to communicate with. For her, working is the only chance to live a normal life. So, she does everything to find a job, she even chooses to lose her only friend. At the end, Rosetta gives up, accepts that she will never have a normal life like others and tries to commit suicide. But the economical difficulties do not let her even commit suicide. The Dardennes style makes the filmgoer live with her. We have friends, look for jobs with Rosetta. And at the end, we realise that Rosetta never lived at all. So, how could someone who has not lived commit suicide? Rosetta lives a life of the dead, without any social life. There is no family life, either; no father, an almost dead mother. Similarly, Mouchette is in the same situation. Bresson explains her life in one shot. She is helping the mother sleep, taking care of the baby, covers her father and brother to make them sleep well. But on the other hand, her father does not really care about her, neither does her brother. Mouchette can never be one of the schoolgirls, she can only be the one washing the dirty glasses for a shot of drink in the bar. Mouchette has to go to school in shoes that do not fit her, in which she hardly can walk. Rosetta has to change her shoes before she goes to work. They are both stuck in the mud just like their shoes. In addition, their ends are not so different from each other. Mouchette cannot stand being seen as a slut. She cannot stand to live in this society where the girls are used as an award for their silly games. Not surprisingly, their stories end in the similar way. They both do not really want to die but cannot think of a better solution. Mouchette tries to commit suicide by rolling down to the river. She cannot do it in her first try. When she realises that life still goes on for her, she tries to jump on a work machine but the man, even he sees that Mouchette is desperate and about to 15 jump, does not stop and keeps on moving. The man symbolises the last hope for Mouchette. But it does not work and she keeps trying to roll to the river till she succeeds. On the other side, Rosetta tries to commit suicide by opening the gas in a closed caravan. But there is not enough gas to kill her. Rosetta goes to buy more gas but she cannot carry it to the caravan because it is too heavy for her. At the same time, Riquet makes fun of her and the movie ends with an open ending, which the Dardennes always gladly do. All of their movies have open endings but still, Rosetta’s end is for me the same as Mouchette’s. They never really belonged to the world they were living in, because that world never saw them as human beings. CONCLUSION To conclude, even the stories of these heroines are almost the same, they are way different from each other stylistically. This is especially visible in their use of camera and editing, which is almost opposite to the Bresson’s. The Dardennes are making the filmind always active and letting us feel the tactility, while Bresson is almost not letting us watch anything. We can feel how it feels to have a pain in our belly when we see Rosetta heating it with the hair-dryer but we do not have any feeling for Mouchette. Bresson does not let the moviegoer has any joy or emotion, does not give us the chance to feel sympathy for his character. During Mouchette, the moviegoer doesn’t really feel any sympathy for the protagonist because the film style doesn’t let us. However, Rosetta is a movie of us. It is taking the spectator inside the movie and making us feel like the protagonist, live her role, feel her pain and have her problems that she faces. When she tries to commit suicide at the end we are also with her, on the other hand while Mouchette dies, the moviegoer just watches what 16 happens to her with cold eyes. So even the stories are almost the same, Mouchette and Rosetta are good examples to see how a director can change the entire story. 17 Word Count: 4771 1 Daniel Frampton (2006), ‘Film Thinking’ in Filmosophy London: Wallflower Press, 2006) p.116 Jerry Goodenough, “Introduction I: A Philosopher Goes to the Cinema,” in Film as Philosophy: Essays on Cinema After Wittgenstein and Cavell, ed. Rupert Read and Jerry Goodenough, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005, p. 30 3 John Mullarkey, “film as philosophy: a mission impossible”, in European Film Theory, ed. Temenuga Trifonova, London: Routledge, 2008, p. 74 4 Jean Epstein, ‘Bonjour cinema and Other Writings’, trans. Tom Milne, Afterimage, 10, Autumn, 1981, p.19 5 Daniel Frampton, p.27 6 Daniel Frampton, p.6 7 ibid, p.73 8 ibid, p.6 9 Rhys Graham (2001), ‘When Bodies Collide: Rosetta’. Senses of Cinema. March. http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/13/rosetta.html 10 Gilles Deleuze (1986), Cinema I: The Movement Image (trans. H. Tomlinson and B.Habberjam). Minneapolis: University of Minnesote Press p.108 11 Robert Bresson (1977), Notes on Cinematography. (trans. Jonathan Griffin). New York: Urizen Books. p. 1 12 Paul Shrader (1946), Transcendental Style in Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer. University of California p. 65 13 Peter Brunette (1998), The Film of Michelangelo Antonioni. Cambridge University Press. p.92 14 Notes on Cinematography. p.28 15 Sarah Cooper (2007), ‘Mortal Ethics: Reading Levinas with the Dardenne Brothers’ FilmPhilosophy. vol.11, no:2 http://www.film-philosophy.com/index.php/f-p/article/viewFile/88/73 16 ‘When Bodies Collide: Rosetta’. Senses of Cinema 17 ‘Film Thinking’ in Filmosophy. p.146 18 Joseph Mai (2007), Review of Luc Dardenne (2005) Au dos de nos images (1991-2005), suivi de Le Fils et L’enfant par Jean-Pierre et Luc Dardenne. Film-Philosophy. vol.11, no:1 p.72 http:/www.filmphilosophy.com/2007v11n1/mai.pdf 19 Daniel Frampton, p.131 20 R.D. Crano (2009), ‘Occupy without Counting’: Furtive Urbanism in the Films of Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne’. Film-Philosophy. vol.13, no:1. p.6 http:/www.filmphilosophy.com/2009v13n1/crano.pdf 2 18 Bibliography Bresson, R. (1977), Notes on Cinematography. (trans. Jonathan Griffin). New York: Urizen Books Brunette, P. (1998), The Film of Michelangelo Antonioni. Cambridge University Press Cooper, S. (2007), ‘Mortal Ethics: Reading Levinas with the Dardenne Brothers’ Film-Philosophy. vol.11, no:2 http://www.film-philosophy.com/index.php/fp/article/viewFile/88/73 Crano, R.D. (2009), ‘Occupy without Counting’: Furtive Urbanism in the Films of Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne’. Film-Philosophy. vol.13, no:1. p.6 http:/www.filmphilosophy.com/2009v13n1/crano.pdf Deleuze, G. (1986), Cinema I: The Movement Image (trans. H. Tomlinson and B.Habberjam). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Epstein, John (1981) ‘Bonjour cinema and Other Writings’, trans. Tom Milne, Afterimage, 10, Autumn, p.19 Frampton, D. (2006), ‘Film Thinking’ in Filmosophy London: Wallflower Press, 2006) Goodenough, Jerry (2005) “Introduction I: A Philosopher Goes to the Cinema,” in Film as Philosophy: Essays on Cinema After Wittgenstein and Cavell, ed. Rupert Read and Jerry Goodenough, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan Graham, R. (2001), ‘When Bodies Collide: Rosetta’. Senses of Cinema. March. http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/13/rosetta.html Mai, J. (2007), Review of Luc Dardenne (2005) Au dos de nos images (1991-2005), suivi de Le Fils et L’enfant par Jean-Pierre et Luc Dardenne. Film-Philosophy. vol.11, no:1 p.72 http:/www.film-philosophy.com/2007v11n1/mai.pdf Mullarkey, John (2008), “film as philosophy: a mission impossible”, in European Film Theory, ed. Temenuga Trifonova, London: Routledge Shrader, P. (1946), Transcendental Style in Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer. University of California 19 Filmography The Child (L’Enfant). Directed by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Belgium, 2005. DVD Germany Year Zero (Germania Anno Zero). Directed by Roberto Rossellini. Italy, 1948. DVD Mouchette. Directed by Robert Bresson. France, 1967. DVD The Promise (La Promesse). Directed by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Belgium, 1996. DVD. Red Desert (Il Deserto Rosso). Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Italy, 1964. DVD. Rosetta. Directed by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Belgium, 1999. DVD The Silence of Lorna (Le silence de Lorna). Directed by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Belgium, 2008. DVD The Son (Le Fils). Directed by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Belgium, 2002. DVD