Siskel & Ebert - Babette's Feast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ธ.ค. 2019
- 2 thumbs up from Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert for Babette's Feast. Originally made in Denmark, the movie won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film at the 1987 Academy Awards.
- ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
I love this movie. I miss watching these two talking about film.
It's because of these two that I got to watch this wonderful movie. I think that it should have gotten more Oscar nominations, this really was one of the best movies from 1987.
Wonderful film. I watch it whenever I'm feeling sorry for myself, and afterwards I'm renewed.
Wonderful film.
Great film God's Love demonstrated in one giving their all
This 1987 Siskel & Ebert review of *BABETTE’S FEAST* is fine for what it is, but I have the advantage of having thought about this marvelous film for the past 35 years. I think I can contribute to this discussion about a film that is a favorite of both Pope Francis and atheist me.
(1) The sisters didn’t understand what the ingredients signified, how they would be transformed by Babette just as Babette had transformed their lives and the lives of all the townsfolk. In their religiously-fueled ignorance they could only see witchcraft as the explanation for the science that they couldn’t otherwise explain. Their kitchen had become - as it had been ever since Babette had come to them - Babette’s laboratory.
(2) IMO *BABETTE’S FEAST* showcases the splendor of Man, in Babette’s transformation of ordinary animals and plants into a glorious, sensuous feast: the turtle, the truffle, the caviar, the foie gras (be still, my heart!), the grapes of joyousness, et cetera. All at table are seduced by this hitherto-disguised French chef into enjoying themselves despite their vows of gustatory celibacy. If this is witchcraft, then it’s white witchcraft.
(3) The irreconcilable differences between and among the townsfolk began AFTER their Founder’s death. In fact, it was his (His?) absence that allowed them to slip into sins of infidelity: lying and cheating. Sins that were confessed and forgiven through Babette’s manna from the heaven/haven of the kitchen, formerly so ill-used and ill-considered by Martine and Philippa.
(4) Babette asserts that an artist is never poor. The sisters, otoh, see life as poverty. They believe that Babette’s talents will only be fully appreciated AFTER HER DEATH! OMFG! Says Philippa to Babette: “In Paradise you will be the great artist that God meant you to be.” Philippa’s eyes glisten with tears. But Babette’s eyes are dry, she who had never attended the organized worship of the town - Lorens and Achille had attended, in both cases for ulterior motives, but Babette wasn’t a hypocrite. Her great art has been served up to Philippa, whose misinterpretation doesn’t bother Babette because Babette knows that she is that great artist in the here-and-now, she doesn’t have to be dead to be fully appreciated. She can, she MUST, fully exercise her abilities and express her talents while she lives; this centenary celebration may be her last chance. It may also be, because of the setting and the reluctance of the participants, her greatest gift to HERSELF.
A feast is defined as “an elaborate and usually abundant meal often accompanied by a ceremony or entertainment: BANQUET; something that gives unusual or abundant enjoyment; a periodic religious observance commemorating an event or honoring a deity, person, or thing” (Merriam-Webster). While Babette’s feast commemorates the centennial of the deceased sect founder, it is devoid of overt religiosity. The entertainment, as such, is provided in the form of the general’s explanatory narrative. The enjoyment is both abundant and, to the simple villagers, unusual - remember, they are used to the porridge of plain fish that before Babette’s appearance in the village had been prepared by the sisters in a plebeian (“crude or coarse in manner or style: common”) manner devoid of sensual pleasure, i.e., sustenance without spiritual transcendence. The presentation of the food and its service comprises the ceremony of the banquet.
As I see it, Babette’s feast is seductive to both eye and palate, gustatorially sublime and transcendent. Its seductive qualities are seen in the flush of the diners’ cheeks, the sparkle in their eyes, the smacking of lips and smiles coaxed from visages unwilling to express any pleasure, indeed, joined in a pact not to do so; in the confidential confessions coaxed from hitherto unspoken privacies. The feast has inspired those simple people to open their hearts and souls to each other in a kind of nonreligious baptism: “an act, experience, or ordeal by which one is purified, sanctified, initiated, or named” (Merriam-Webster). There is a series of acts performed in a set manner, akin to those typical of formal religious observance as performed in an ecclesiastical setting yet completely natural and unassuming, unpretentious (i.e., free from ostentation or affectation). The courses are presented in a set service by the young lad (Babette’s nephew, I think) in accordance with Babette’s precise instructions: a service without services.
This is IMO transcendence without religious spirituality. I contend that the spiritual is not solely the province of the supernatural.
Thank you for sharing your insights here with us.
I enjoyed your take on this profoundly moving film. I would agree with your final statement- and I wonder sometimes if without the explicitly religious components, at least to start with, few would be able to find the Transcendence. Look at our current culture- I think it's become fundamentally devoid of transcendence.
@@loge10 You read my comment and you understood what I was saying, for which I thank you. Most folks would see how long and dense it is, a “tl;dr” trigger warning, and would just skip it. Pope Francis would understand it, though he may not agree. I think that you are correct about the absence of transcendence in today’s culture. There is one shot in the film that sums it all up. I described it in my original comment - When Philippa hugs Babette, joyously predicting Babette’s success after her death - that statement still chills me - and you see the two close-up shots: Philippa’s face wet with tears, Babette’s eyes dry and glowing from within because she had just performed so expertly. Transcendence such as Babette’s eyes reflect is not often experienced today, at least not in the secular realm. People like you and me are able to experience it through this film (and perhaps Pope Francis), but it’s not readily transactional nowadays. If someone did what I did: was willing to see the film enough times, to do some research, to think on what the filmmaker was saying … perhaps they would then experience the transcendence of *BABETTE’S FEAST* as it was meant to be witnessed.
Yeah, I know it's accurate to the time, but it's always bothered me that the General never goes into the kitchen to find out who cooked the dinner.
I'm Babette.
With a surname like Brennan, you're Bridget, cabbage and bacon unlike o la la Babette...
It's such a shame that Siskel and Ebert DON"T GET the religious symbolism which THIS STORY IS ALL ABOUT!!!
This story is about Jesus for God sake! It's about the bountuful being among the starving! The story is a mwtaphor! Doesn't anyone see that!!!
Actually, I believe the story is deeply spiritual but doesn't need to be taken as overtly religious, especially Christian. Dinesen, who wrote the original story, was very critical of the Christian religion, but was open to some of its deeper meanings- very much like myself. To me this is one of the very profound and moving movies there is. The meal is definitely sacramental in the pure motive of the artist who created it.
Old film.
So's the original Star Wars.
SNAP!
@@lancegoodthrust546 Good one, Lance. Haha!