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,