Leon and The Fifth Element (Luc Besson)

Offer an analysis of the style and work of ONE European director, with reference to AT LEAST THREE FILMS.

In this essay I am going to discuss the style and work of Luc Besson focusing on Nikita (1990), Leon aka The Professional (1994) and The Fifth Element (1997). Firstly I shall be looking at the director before moving through an analysis of each film and finally concluding with a summary of elements and themes prominent in his work.

In Paris, 1959 Luc Besson was born. The son of Club Med scuba diving instructors, the young Besson travelled the world with them. The sea was a major influence on his life and he wanted to be a marine biologist. However, this was not to be. An unfortunate accident meant he was unable to dive. This led him to consider other possible career choices. “I took a piece of paper and on the left I put everything I could do, or had skills for, and all the things I couldn't do. The first line was shorter and I could see that I loved writing, I loved images, I was taking a lot of pictures. So I thought maybe movies,” (Besson, The Guardian, 200). The joy of creating stories was evident from an early age and it is to be believed that early drafts of The Big Blue (1988) and The Fifth Element came into existence while he was uninterested in school. After his parents split Besson was 18 living in Paris. Through a friend of a friend he started getting odd jobs in the film industry. As a young filmmaker he directed commercials and music videos. His first feature length film was Le Demier Combat (1983) and even here you start to see some elements emerge, morally ambiguous protagonists reflected against societies with equal moral questions. In the eighties he was to become associated with the ‘Cinema du Look’ movement. The young director disagreed with this categorisation.

During the Eighties film critic Raphael Bassan used this phrase to describe the movies being made by a number of new French directors. ‘Cinema du Look’ was attributed to films that he felt contained style over substance. He stated that these directors due to most of their involvement and/or influence from shooting adverts and music videos lacked art and humanity favouring flashy camera techniques and violence. Other key directors that fell into this criticism were Jean-Jacques Beineix and Leos Carax. Looking at this from a post-era perspective I’m disinclined to agree with Raphael. When MTV arrived in 1981 music videos were little more than a new promotional product. Overtime the medium developed and now you have a number of works that serve more as short films, such as: Rabbit In Your Headlights by UNKLE (Jonathan Glazer,1998).  When looking at any creative medium I think it‘s a good idea to approach it using “Sturgeon’s Law” standpoint that 90% is rubbish. While most is probably made for money and lacks any real depth or creativity, sift through and something really well accomplished can be found. Therefore I would argue this: By labelling these films with seemingly negative themes it distracts from observing the positive elements they may contain. Personally I feel Raphael’s analysis Is more appropriate to my problem with a number of modern films. My trouble is this: I find myself at the end of the film unable to recollect much about the characters themselves, even when the visual effects and spectacle are well achieved. In comparison; These French films while clearly having strong stylistic approaches, slick cameras and a heavy dose of ‘cool’ they can still contain interesting characters and plots. While I am aware there is a number of exceptions to my thesis Besson (overall) is not one of them.

Nikita (1990), stars Anne Parillaud as a criminal junkie turned assassin. The film tells her story first focusing on her transition then on her struggle to juggle her job and her more normal life with her partner. The psychology of Nikita in the first few scenes is very animalistic she acts very primal in her fight for survival e.g. the scene where she stabs the inspector with a pencil. Has her character develops she becomes more mature, she grows up in a sense. This contrast is displayed in its fullest when Jean Reno’s character Victor: The Cleaner appears. He is cold, ruthless and kills without mercy in a very casual manner, even to the point when he his shot himself. Nikita seems to feel and care about most of her kills, with a mix of sadness and regret. So despite being this gun-toting femme fatale assassin type she displays elements commonly associated with the female. Authority figures on the whole lack humanity in this film, they are shown primarily as goal orientated and have questionable morals. In the opening sequence I thought it was worth noting that a number of them are wearing masks. This dehumanizes them making them appear as one oppressive force. The use of blue here I found interesting, normally associated with the tranquil and the calm it is juxtaposed here with the violence and pace of the scene. Relevant to the sea perhaps where it can at one point be still the other wild and dangerous. Considering the directors upbringing the changeable aspects to tides and the ocean would be something he’d have seen first hand. As a diver the experience of looking into another world between lenses can also be related to film, throughout there are frequent shots of guns lenses and door peepholes. I can understand how this film became attached to the Cinema du Look movement. There is a strong use of style here that could be argued to hide a flawed plot: Why does the French Government feel that young, junkie, multiple felon, brat-punk girls as the most trustworthy, reliable and ideal candidates to be trained up to be sent back into the world as their top assassins?

In this paragraph I am going to compare aspects of Nikita with Leon and then relate it back to my defence of Besson regarding Raphael’s argument. These two films have a number of parallels: Both feature lost female characters, morally questionable governments, violence, amoral characters, transformation and themes of love. So how is Leon the better picture? In defence for Nikita you can argue that Leon has the unfair advantage of having much more money enabling better sets, access to a larger variety of actors and bigger action/effects.  I feel the truth is this: Besson has matured as a director, improved at storytelling and has become more confident as a writer. Nikita is a women who starts off as a criminal drug user who instead of death becomes a trained assassin. Mathilda is a much younger more vulnerable girl, and after her families massacre has more motivation and nothing to lose. Victor is ruthless and cold, no more no less. Leon starts off like this but is revealed to be controlled by mobsters and underneath his killer image is more of a lost child who matures by developing paternal instincts, right up to the point of self sacrifice. The score has gotten more confident, Eric Serra (who has provided the score to all but one of Bessons films) experiments more using more elements. In Nikita it’s primarily drum machines and percussion with the exception of strings and a guitar when Victor enters. In Leon this is all there but it’s evolved it brings in more influences and contains more melody. These two films are comparable to A Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone, 1964) and For A Few Dollars More (Sergio Leone, 1965). The same thing happens with Leone, the first film contains all the trademark elements and ideas that are identifiable as his style but in the second film the confidence in his style allows bolder steps to be made giving you a picture that by being aware of it’s own conventions and ideologies is able to explore its themes further. While in no way a sequel Leon is For A Few Dollars More and Nikita is A Fistful of Dollars. Take Magneto from the X-men: The original idea is an evil man who can control metal with his mind. His motivation is what makes him interesting: a victim of Nazi concentration camps he feels mankind will treat mutants the same and therefore fights against being taken, numbered etc. With more development a character gets fleshed out and becomes a lot more believable. This is where I would argue Raphael in his classification of Bessons films. While style over substance is evident in Nikita, the exercise in style is necessary for an artist to develop. By looking at Leon you can see how Besson has matured on his own themes. Therefore Nikita isn’t the junk food the Cinema du look tag would have you believe it’s more of a starter to a bigger course.

Leon (1994), tells the story of Leon (Jean Reno) as a French assassin working for Italian gangsters in New York. He finds himself in the care of Mathilda (Natalie Portman) after her family are slaughtered by a corrupt police officer. The 12 year old finds out his occupation as a ‘cleaner’ and demands to be trained in the trade so she can get revenge. This film contains a number of themes that are frequent in Bessons work. As an example I’m going to look at the scene where Stansfield (Gary Oldman) character kills Mathildas family.

The scene opens with a long tracking shot of a corridor you see a nice gang free from racial stereotyping appear (armed, corrupt, drug-dealing, child-murdering officers and henchmen we may be but hey, least we’re not discriminating). They reveal they are armed. Gary Oldman appears and consumes a capsule of some kind. Already you can sense he is unstable. His next line proves this and that he is a fan of classical music (which I shall explore further). Here you see Leon observe, now we know from the third act he his more than capable of stopping the next series of events should he wish. Instead he just watches through the hole in the door. This could be analysed as voyeuristic but I feel it’s more like a diver will watch nature in the ocean. Why should he do something about it? He is curious but is yet to display any real motif to help, he doesn’t know what’s going on and considering his job occupation he’s aware it’s probably none of his business. Stansfield then wades into the house trashes the place and murders two fifths of the family (The mother and half sister, Mathilda is out buying milk, Blood shoots the boy shortly and the Dad gets killed near the end of this scene). He is clearly relishing this, waving his hands about like a conductor. Classical music has been used as a juxtaposition against violence for a long time. A notable example here is Alex from Anthony burgess’ A Clockwork Orange (Anthony Burgess, 1962). He is a youth who amuses himself by hanging out with his friends, collecting vinyl, being polite to old people, keeping up to date with fashion and indulging in an orgy of violence, rape and drug use. Alex is also a classical fan, in the book he mentions an article he read about someone claiming that in order to solve the youth problems they must be educated in the arts. Alex amuses himself at the absurdity of this statement. By having a character who has a knowledge of something that is often symbolised with the higher classes and intelligence you get the feeling that they are smart enough to be fully aware of their actions. This makes it more menacing as they know the difference between right and wrong and just choose to do the one they derive the most enjoyment out of. While this is going on the score switches to a menacing tone. The same melody is used right before when Leon is in his apartment, this could be used to forewarn the coming events but I feel it also shows a similarity between Leon and Stansfield. It makes Jean Reno’s character seem that much human when he lets Mathilda in. The score utilises the harmonic minor scale. This is where the 7th note of the minor scale is moved half a step up and gives the scale an Egyptian/Eastern feel. This serves to give Stansfield an alien feel in the house, he doesn’t belong there. The same way For A Few Dollars More gave us Morricones signature mariachi horns over surf-rock style guitar to add an extra sense of drama, Serra’s score here doing a similar thing here. This alien force invading a personal space is accented even further when Gary Oldman enters through the beads. On a side note, there is a Christian cross on the wall and when Stansfield passes through the beads it is left behind in the other half of the room. Religion is behind him, those ideologies don’t work here, you can’t hide behind them, in this world living by them won’t save you. Using foreign, exotic culture to help establish a form decadence is something that has existed in western literature for a long time, as far back as the Victorians. It also adds fear from a ‘fear of the unknown’ standpoint you now don’t know what he will do next or what he’s capable of. I find this interesting considering Frances’ multi-cultural society you’d be inclined to think some of these techniques would be rendered ineffective. However, I don’t believe it to be a racist thing more just an ideology that works because it’s always been there, much the same way that pure, well-rounded virgin girls survival rate in a horror film are quite high. The scene then has an extreme mix of drama and humour. This is a theme that runs throughout the film and many of Bessons others. To summarize this has a lot of depth to it, the use of dialogue, shots, performance and mise en scene all compliment to tell the story. It is very effective and demonstrates the directors capabilities.

Now onto the issue of love, the relationship between Mathilda and Leon is something that has often been criticised. Many are quick to label it with ‘Lolita’ and ‘paedophilia’ because of the awkwardness to some of the scenes. I would argue otherwise. For my example I’m going to look at another unlikely on screen relationship: Baloo and Mowgli in Walt Disney’s The Jungle Book (Wolfgang Reitherman, 1967). Mowgli is an orphan, he is confident in his own abilities and sees himself as strong,  plotlines and characteristics him and Mathilda share (and have similar hair). Baloo is strong, clever and is like a child that hasn’t really accepted adulthood, but over the course of his time with Mowgli he grows to care for him and even displays an act of pure self sacrifice against a psychopath everyone in the jungle fears. Leon and Baloo both train their new adopted child to be the next generation versions of themselves, both take on numbers against their odds and adopt disguises to aid their plights. While I’m sure this statement has made you smile I am being quite serious in the fact that both, when you way the relationships up are maternal from Leon and Baloos perspectives. It is the children that give us something different. Mowgli isn’t after a father figure, his relationship his platonic they are good friends, when Baloo tries to talk to him about serious matters he runs away. It parallels a males transitions into puberty second he meets a girl he leaves Baloo behind (personally I think this ending feels a little tacked on, akin to a wizard of Oz. As kids why cant we stay in the jungle with jazz and our animal friends or with the Munchkins and our ragtag walking companions. Nope its off to bed early for you, we’ve got a nice long day of establishing your all-American nuclear families and morals for you tomorrow. Put your red slippers and loincloth away young man). I digress, the point I am making is this, it is Mathilda who is confused about her feelings. It is apparent from the opening scene with her family that love isn’t in abundance, therefore the only way she can express it or understand it is not going to be from a paternal view. This is one of the reasons why I feel the decision to kill Leon was a necessary one, it enables Mathilda to re-establish herself as a child who’s going to settle down and grow up, get educated and become a positive contributor in a new part of society we get shown (the teacher, kids her age, greenery etc).

Finally, The Fifth Element (1997). We have certain Besson Films in place, score by Eric Serra, Use of previous cast (Gary Oldman), An oppressive force and strong female leads. The confidence has grown again allowing more of these themes to be played with, arguably too much. Where Jean Reno’s Victor and Leon are very similar characters with one being far more developed than the other. Gary Oldman is far from a more developed Stansfield, he is almost unrecognisable. The Score to this film moves through genres pace and style like tuning through a radio station. The main villains in this are quite literally monsters. The Female leads role means her transformation saves nothing short of THE ENTIRE WORLD. Contextually though this films is supposed to be fun and we are to belief this was conceived in the mind of an adolescent Besson. It is self aware of how ridiculous parts of it is, take its nods to the sci-fi films that have came before it. This film expects you too have seen others like Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982), Star Wars (George Lucas, 1977), Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927) and Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985). In Back to The Future Part II (Robert Zemeckis 1989), ‘The Two Bobs’ Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis respectively, decided very early on that they would never get a vision of the future right so they opted not take it seriously and cram as many jokes as they could into the scenes (Sourced from DVD Bonus Material). Every generations vision of the future changes based on what’s happening at the time. After WWII American visions were these grand shiny utopias, when the cold war threats appeared so did mind controlling aliens, death rays and abductions, most visions of the future from contemporary times show dystopias with people poverty stricken and failed governments (recession?). So there’s a level of self irony that Bessons vision of the future should be this hyperactive, slick, exaggerated world of adverts and MTV-style pop culture a warped world where style is most definitely favoured over substance. It’s probably as close to a caricature of what the Cinema du look movement was criticised for and associated with you can find in a film. This sense of parody and mockery of the critics is certainly not the driving force behind this film but I can’t help but feel it’s an element (no pun intended). Even though Bruce Willis is the main character you see the world through Leeloos eyes. This is not uncommon in this genre of film. The Skywalker Scenario: By having a character who knows little or nothing about what’s going on and has to rely on the other characters to tell them also lets the audience know. However, using a female for this has been common in all of these films.

From these Besson films we have a number of common themes. The main characters tend to be loners and outcasts to conventional society. Authority figures or people in power are shown to be corrupt and unlawful themselves. These elements could be unconscious links back to his childhood. Travelling around meant it would have been difficult to maintain friendships, love of diving and influence on certain ‘watching’ style shots. His parents split and remarried, this could be why a common character transition in his films is to have them rather childlike in aspects before being thrust into a situation against their will where they a forced to mature to survive. The role of the female is always more than a love interest, they are strong-willed and are guided by their own set of principals not anyone else’s. Morals are not clearly defined, sides Mathilda’s brother no one is ’innocent’ in that film, Mathilda herself grabs a gun and fires rounds into a street and she says swear words. This moral ambiguity can be taken as a film noir influence, his films do show similarities: In terms of character psychology, uses of light, criminal underworlds and tones of violence. Hollywood influences such as this is something the critics disliked when discussing The Cinema du Look movement. Considering that the same critics were praising the work of François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard and other directors of the French new wave there was a level of hypocrisy to this. The directors of the French new wave were drawing influences from the Hollywood films of their era. As my conclusion I would say that Luc Besson is a director whose style was criticised for the wrong reasons without being given a chance to develop first. Much like a character in his films he had to mature on a level in order to survive and produce the films that are seen as his accomplishments in this medium. Like when Phil Harris said ‘When you a pawpaw or a prickly pear and you pick a raw paw well next time beware. Don’t pick the prickly pear by the paw when you pick a pear try to use the claw, but you don’t need to use the claw when you pick a pear of the big pawpaw.’ (The Bear Necessities, 1967)

By Carl


Bibliography

Books


Silver, A & Ursini, J. Film Noir Reader. Limelight Editions 1996
Vincendeau, G & Graham P. The French New Wave: Critical Landmarks UK: British Film Institute 2009
Ferman, J. W. Venture Science Fiction March 1958
Burgess, A. A Clockwork Orange. UK: Penguin 2000
Wilde, O. Complete Short Fiction. London: Penguin, 2003

Films
Besson, L. Le Demier Combat 1983,  The Big Blue 1988, Nikita 1990, Leon 1994, The Fifth Element 1997.
Glazer, J. Rabbit In Your Headlights by UNKLE 1998
Reitherman, W. Walt Disney’s The Jungle Book 1967
Fleming, V. The Wizard of Oz 1939
Leone, S. A Fistful of Dollars 1964, A Few Dollars More 1965
Scott, R. Blade Runner 1982,
Lucas. G,  Star Wars 1977
Lang, F. Metropolis 1927
Gilliam, T. Brazil 1985
Zemeckis. R. Back to The Future Part II 1989

Websites

http://www.stuartfernie.com/besson.html Notes on characters and themes in Luc Besson Films. visited 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2000/mar/23/guardianinterviewsatbfisouthbank1
 Luc Besson interview, visited 2010
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000108/bio Biography for Luc Besson visited 2010