So I finally got around to watching the film, after seeing it on Top Movies listings for years. I guess it was somewhat entertaining, but kind of stuck between the current universe and some Tarantino version of it. Why would such a skilled “cleaner” allow himself to live in poverty? I guess he was meant to be depicted as someone not very intelligent, but that’s inconsistent with being great at his profession. Also, why would Leon have a pig puppet in his apartment before Mathilde got there (and what was he doing with it?).
He’s not living in poverty. He’s got a place to live, enough to eat, a television, a pig potholder, and a lovely plant that he cares for. If there’s anything he wants, all he has to do is ask good old Tony and he could have the money for it. He does have one luxury; he spends his money on the tools of his trade. He chooses to live this spartan life because he doesn’t want (or believes he doesn’t deserve) anything more. There’s a big difference between not wanting things and not being able to have things you want.
He had a very particular set of skills.
Seriously. It’s kind of the whole point of the movie that he’s very, very good at killing people, but, beyond that, he is severely lacking in basic social and life skills. He lives in poverty because he trusts his handler to handle the money, and he doesn’t even particularly notice that he’s living in poverty. He doesn’t want anything more, at least not until Mathilde comes into his life. IIRC, he actually starts questioning his handler about his money after that, because with Mathilde, he actually has someone else to care about, and he actually starts to think about something other than simple day to day survival.
He’s probably also suffering from a cinematic version of clinical depression. And he’s pretty clearly a highly cinematic version of an autistic “idiot savant”, who’s very, very good at one specific thing, but just hopeless at everything else.
I think it’s actually a pretty well done psychological study of a fundamentally broken, lonely, disconnected human being, which is part of the neo-noir vibe it’s going for. YMMV.
I may be totally misremembering this, but wasn’t it just a quirky pot holder? Those kind of hand-puppet pot holders are pretty common, and was presumably on sale or just prominently displayed when he bought pot holders, so he bought it without thinking about it.
Two of them, even. Mathilda’s got serious, serious issues even before her family is slaughtered.
Beyond the story and the characters, the film is a masterpiece of cinematography and editing. The opening sequence alone, with its tight shots and stabs of lighting, is an incredibly well-thought-out and executed few minutes, keeping us nearly as disoriented as Leon’s victims. (Besson often has exciting and physical starts to his films eh).
Yeah, this too.
Isn’t he living in Manhattan? Even a small, spartan apartment in a run-down building in Manhattan isn’t cheap.
Leon is depressed because he still hasn’t gotten over pouring acid on a guy who wasn’t dead yet. That’s why he moved to NYC.
It’s a good character study of flawed characters.
Its less so if you see the director’s cut where Leon and Mathilde have sex.
Besson himself has some issues.
Tell me you’re kidding about this. :eek:
Yeah, I had the same reaction. I hope its a bad joke.
I just did a little digging and it does appear to be a bad taste joke.
This isn’t funny. It’s inappropriate. Where did you hear this?
I also think it’s way off the vibe from the movie. I get no sense of any unspoken creepy sexual thing between them at all. That’s not what their relationship is about.
In the extended cut, which was released internationally but not in the U.S., there is a scene where Mathilde clumsily does try to seduce Leon. He rejects her advances. They don’t have sex. But @Just_Asking_Questions isn’t completely off-base.
Also, apparently, in at least one draft the script, they do have sex.
Cite:
Ah, you know, I think this is the version I’ve seen. I do recall something like this now. It’s been a while since I watched this.
1.) The director’s cut should be considered the only cut, and I assumed that was the one the OP saw until this post.
2.) There is absolutely no sex in the director’s cut.
3.) The character of Matilda was originally written to be 16 years old. Besson was so blown away by Natalie Portman’s audition that he rewrote the script to tone it down. In the original script she did not only did end up having have a sexual relationship with him bit also did actual kills, too.
Here is a PDF of the original script, translated from the original French.
(FWIW not only did I buy the DVD imported from Japan in the late 90s before it was published in the US, but I also bought the French coffee-table book.)
This, very much. I have lived in Manhattan, and it isn’t just a matter of paying for an apartment, it’s a matter of finding one-- especially at the time the film was made. I knew people who stayed in bad relationships because neither one could find another place to live.
I even knew one couple who filed for and completed their divorce, and still lived together, because they couldn’t find another apartment for either of them that was an appropriate place for their kids. They finally ended up taking a studio, and taking turns spending time alone there, and the kids never had to travel back and forth. I’m not sure how they worked out the finances, or who signed what lease. I’m sure it was way, way cheaper than two 3-bedrooms, though-- but the fact was, they couldn’t find another 3-bedroom in an acceptable neighborhood that was close enough for the kids to get to their school on time in the morning.
As for why the film is “good”; part of it is the acting. Natalie Portman is hugely impressive in this. I saw it when it first came out, when nobody had heard of her, and she was still a genuine child. I was blown away by her talent. She gave one of the best performances I’d ever seen by a child, and she really was a child-- she was a 13-year-old playing a 12-year-old, and she had no experience whatsoever. She came out of nowhere to give this monumental performance.
Jean Reno was a known quantity, but IIRC, this was not a typical role for him. I also think that part of his performance came from the fact that he did not speak English very well, but I could be wrong. At any rate, he acts without delivering a lot of dialogue, and also turns out a powerhouse performance.
Acting across from a child is not easy, but Reno does not let either Portman’s age nor inexperience affect his performance. I’m trying to think of the last time a child and adult did so well in something like this, and I have to go back to 1962, to Patty Duke and Anne Bancroft in The Miracle Worker.
As for why Leon has such a spartan lifestyle-- it’s sort of a reflection of his soul. It’s because of that, that he can do the job he does, and not carry any guilt. The potholder symbolizes a sort of backdoor, or crack or what have you, though. He’s not so far shut down that he’s entirely impossible to reach. It’s foreshadowing.
I am not necessarily a fan of this type of movie, but I loved this film. We showed it at the art house where I worked, or I wouldn’t have seen it at all-- then I ended up watching it 3 or 4 times. It’s a dark, twisted, modern take on Silas Marner, with some of the best acting ever, and as another poster said, beautifully filmed and edited.
On top of the amazing job done by Portman and Reno, who can hate watching Gary Oldman chew through his scenes?
Have you seen Wasabi?
This is what I came in to say. The scene where she tries to get Leon to open the door is so well done. It’s hard to believe this is the same actress who was so wooden at times in Star Wars. I like a number of NP films but this might be the zenith of her acting.
The movie (directors cut) does a good job of skirting the edge of Mathilde’s sexuality. It acknowledges that she’s on the brink of learning how to use it but doesn’t quite get into creepy land (it gets close when she impersanates Monroe). It helps that Leon is an innocent in that regard, which of course is part of the incongruity of his character.
This thread prompted me to rewatch the movie for the first time in a few years. There is a brief moment midway through the movie that I had forgotten. Leon is visiting Tony in his restaurant. He pauses to touch one ceramic pig in a row of them sitting on top of a case, says “Nicer than people, right?” to which Tony replies “I told you that.” So that’s the why of a pig for a potholder.