Modernity in Jacques Tati's- Mon oncle

Anne Friedberg in Ch.2 of Window Shopping: Cinema and the Postmodern (U of California P, 1993) discusses the relationship between the city, modernism, film and architecture. Throughout this essay, I will relate her ideas of modernity particularly in the 'mobilized gaze' and 'commodity-experience' to Jacques Tati's film Mon Oncle (1958).

Anne Friedberg's ideas of modernity in the 'mobilized gaze' and 'commodity experience' as well as the reversal of public and private spaces can be inexorably applied to Mon Oncle (1958). Their interconnectibility, and Friedberg's ideas on modernism can be observed during the 20 minute sequence of scenes in the 'garden party' in the ultra-modern Arpel residence. Jacques Tati's Mon Oncle (1958) narrates on two opposite extremes of the social spectrum with the main characters of the Arpel family, and Mr.Hulot. The Arpels are the epitome of nouveau-riche bourgeoisie in France and represent the future, in contrast with the other main character of the unemployed Uncle Mr.Hulot, symbolizing the past.

The 'garden party' sequence at the Arpel residence commences with a visitor. It is the greengrocer arriving in his aged truck outside the front gate. The audience is exposed to an almost proportionately perfectionist shot- where we see a clean, grayscale, modern home occupying the top left of the frame, then the greengrocer's old truck in the bottom right outside the fence. The contrasting dissonance between the two areas of the frame is symbolic of the differences between modernity and traditionality, and maintains a fascinated gaze from the viewer. As Friedberg discussed, "the tourist simultaneously embodies both a position of presence and absence, or here and elsewhere, of avowing one's curiosity and disavowing one's daily life", and "tourism provides an escape from boundaries...it legitimates the transgression of one's static, stable or fixed location" (1993: 59). Although the greengrocer is engaging in his daily duties, he is yet emphasized as a tourist to the Arpel residence.

As he rings the doorbell, Mrs.Arpel turns on the ornamental garden fountain and once realizing whom the visitor is she quickly turns it off. The greengrocer leans toward the fountain with a bewildered look on his face, and after receiving payment we see scenes of him uncontrollably and yet cautiously gazing around. As if he would like to experience more of this modern world, yet afraid of what he might discover.

The above is an illustration of the mobilization of the gaze, and the disbanding of the barrier and function of private and public ways on many levels. We see by his hesitant body language that he does in no way feel 'at home' in the Arpel residence, as we see his tensions ease as he moves outside its boundaries. This depicts to some extent the reversal of roles that public and private space has encountered with the advent of modernity. As Friedberg stated, "the once-private interior become a public realm, and the once-public exterior became privatized" (1993:64).

This view of the Arpel residence is in great contrast to the romantic warmth of Mr.Hulot's 'vieux Paris', we see how the modern private home is no longer atmospherically convivial. But instead is superficially and competitively judgemental towards the visitor, observed even more so

as this sequence in Mon Oncle progresses.

As the 'garden party' sequence continues, Madame Walters (the single neighbour) arrives at the gate. The audience is exposed to a shot dominated by the vertical bars of the window frame which appear like a cage, with Madame Arpel on one side. The fact that it is indistinguishable on which side of the bars the 'cage' exist subtly communicates to the viewer that there is indeed no escaping modernization, that it is everywhere- perhaps connoting Tati's views that it is a social trap. This ambiguity is further stressed when Madame Walters is confused for a hawker and told 'we don't need rugs'. She herself is an exhibit of how, in the words of Friedberg, 'power was obtainable only through a triangulated relation with a commodity- "fetish"' (1993:58), as we see her wearing a ridiculous looking red hat, and her outfit appears to be a thick, red white and black designer rug. We see her sensation of power as she talks to young Gerard Arpel, as he sits there seeming totally uninterested and unimpressed. We see how, although visually she is interesting to look at, emotionally she is the exact opposite, and yet through her confidence we see how she still considers consumerism through fashion as all that is necessary to attain fulfillment in her life. Her fundamental lack of power, and hence superficial delusion, is clear as Gerard who is disinterested in this modern world, instead plays a prank on one of the guests by whistling and causing him to impact with a pole - true power for a child. The fact that a child is now carrying out pranks in his own home, rather than out in public further emphasizes this role reversal through modernity of public and private spaces.

In the next scene, a guest couple arrive to the Arpel's garden party, bringing with them a bunch of plastic flowers as a gift in which they give to Madame Arpel saying 'they're plastic - they last and last'. This commodity-experience seems to undermine the entire purpose of flower' pleasant odour, instead they smell of rubber. This emphasizes how they have become purely a consumeristic statement in the modern world, rather than a genuine and practical gift. In which its purchase was the fulfillment of a consumerist, agoraphilic fetish, which has mobilized their thoughts and vision through their acceptance of its functionless modernist symbol.

It leaves us ultimately with the melancholic realization that the 'mobilized gaze'