One Sings, the Other Doesn't (1977)

Not rated, but this is a pretty intense R-rated movie.  Let's put most of the nudity to the side.  There is a lot of nudity, but most of it isn't done in the sexual context.  Some of it is, so keep that in mind.  But this is a movie that has really unnecessary underage nudity.  Like Valerie Mariesse, the protagonist, at one point plays a teenager despite being an adult.  That's not what I'm talking about.  I was pretty shocked to see this in a movie.  Also, add to this that the core motif of this film rests on the role of abortion.  Even beyond that, there's an on-screen suicide.  This movie ticks off a lot of parental red flags.  Still, not rated...

DIRECTOR: Agnes Varda

Come on, Varda, what are you doing? I have to come forward with something pretty uncomfortable right off the bat.  As hippie dippie progressive as I am, I kind of have a hard time completely agreeing with the politics of this movie.  My thoughts on abortion are pretty colored by my Catholicism.  I will say that I am probably way more sympathetic than a lot of Catholics when it comes to this story, often sympathizing with the women in these situations.  But this is one of Varda's political films.  If you know me at all, I'm all about making art political.  But it's not going to read well that I disagree with a lot of Varda's politics and am annoyed by the way she makes her political films.  I'm basically dropping a disclaimer saying that my bias might be affecting the way that I view this movie.

One Sings, the Other Doesn't has some of the best moments of Varda coupled with some of the worst moments of Varda.  It's been a minute since I've seen this movie, but I can't help but compare it to Crimes and Misdemeanors.  In Crimes and Misdemeanors (which I'm not even sure that I'm spelling right), Woody Allen (I know!) challenges himself by making half the movie a comedy and half the movie a drama with no bleedover between films.  Varda doesn't take things that far.  Varda, instead, tells the story of two women emotionally bound over an abortion at the inciting incident of the film.  Now, these two women don't see each other a lot.  The connection between these two is locked into the fact that they are exchanging letters informing the other of updates in their respective lives.  The problem is that I really like one of the stories and I can't abide the other story. 

Now, while watching this, I kept thinking that either Varda is playing me or I was supposed to like the entire film, but instead I just didn't care for part of the film.  That title.  Guys.  That title is messing with my head.  The film ends with the title of the film being dropped.  Varda is a smart human being.  When Varda is a genius, she's next level.  But I also --and this is from watching way too many Varda films --understand that sometimes Varda is desperate to maintain that level of genius.  She often hits things with a blunt object and expects people to applaud her.  Half of this movie is brillaint and challenging.  The other half is the Varda stuff I hate.  Because I'm second guessing everything that I just watched, I'm going to proceed with the following assumption that I might be wrong about:

"Agnes Varda made a movie that is kind of brilliant and kind of stupid by accident.  She meant to make a movie that was challenging throughout and instead screwed up on parts." 

It's the title that's making me second guess myself.  But I am going to be talking about the title of the film a lot because I think it has so much to do with how I understood this film.  (Note:  Everything I just wasted digital real estate on is me basically saying that I'm always nervous to question the auteur because I know people are smarter than me out there.)  Now, Varda has a story about one person who is a singer, the other person who isn't.  If we wanted to go literal, the storyis about how Apple is a singer, who lives this charmed bohemian life traveling all over the world, unburdened by parenthood until she embraces it at the time of her choosing.  The other story is about Suzanne, who has a hard life because she was sattled with these kids that bogged her down into a life of burdensome responsibility.  She eventually finds happiness when she embraces the notion that she dosen't have to be a mother 24/7 and can make quasi-selfish choices.  

If Varda made the movie One Sings, the Other Doesn't and literally makes one about a singer, it could be the idea that she's literally pointing out whose life we should be rooting for.  She's using singing as a symbol for how one should live their life supported by art.  Now, I don't agree.  I think Suzanne lives a far richer life.  However, once again I don't get the vibe that's the message that Varda wants me to take away from the movie.  And here comes me being the meanest I'll be on this blog:

"I think that Apple is meant to be an avatar for Varda.  Varda loves experimental political art and hates to be tied down.  Thus, Apple is meant to be Varda." 

If I was being far more fair, I bet that both Suzanna and Apple represent different parts of Varda.  After all, I watched the shorts that were on this disc, and she straight up says that women are far more complex than people give them credit for.  (I love the shorts more than I love the feature length film, in this case. )  But I'm once again --uncomfortably again --pointing out that I think we're meant to pity Suzanne and meant to champion Apple.  The thing is, I can't stand Apple.  I honestly can't.  Part of this, and I again feel mean about it, is that Valerie Mariesse really hurts this role.  It's not her fault altogether.  Therese Liotard as Suzanne is absolutely nailing every shot she's in.  But every scene with Apple almost hurts.  I hate being this way because it makes me feel so ugly and judgmental about the film when I want to look at the film for intent.  

But Apple is also an incredibly problematic character.  I started this whole thing advocating that I was progressive.  What I accidentally deleted was the term "Hippie Dippie."  There are times that I think that I would have flourished during the hippie movement of the '60s and '70s.  I really do.  I watch some of those old movies and wonder if I would have found my people.  (Sure, these people are boomers now, but I'm sure some of them kept the cause.)  But Apple represents a lot of Varda's work.  I unironically see things that Apple is platforming as typical of Varda's political work.  There's nothing subtle about it.  There's nothing all that well crafted.  It's instead borderline terrible.  We're supposed to believe that Apple is really crushing it out there as a musician.  She has all of these street corner performances and people are sitting and infatuated with what she's doing.  Those songs...good golly.  They.  Are.  Terrible.  The thing that That Thing You Do! gets right is that it wrote a fictional bop.  Everything that Apple makes makes me want to throw up.  This is from a guy who wants filmmakers to get more political.  

Instead, her audiences seem to really be taking in what she's singing as if it is really changing their lives.  Like, there's no metaphor.  There's no nuance..  (Okay, there's the simile of being like a bubble, but that even gets questioned.)  My goodness, it made me want to tear my hair out.

Again, I love the Suzanne parts.  It's not even like Suzanne is a flawless character.  I'm genuinely bothered when she gets married to a married man.  She knows that this dude is bad for her and her kids, but she marries him because she's lonely?  While I don't agree with that for a second, it does make her an interesting character.  Not only that, but she has these morals and understandings and still makes mistakes.  It takes years before she gets married to that doctor.  But it was interesting seeing what was up with Suzanne.

​I don't know.  I wish I didn't hate so much of this movie.  It was a rough one for me.  The parts I liked, I really liked. The parts I hated...well, those were awful.