I, Dalio - or the Rules of the Game

V' 15

I, Dalio - or the Rules of the Game

Mark Rappaport
USA/Frankreich, 2015
33min, OF

© Viennale

I, Dalio - or the Rules of the Game

Mark Rappaport
USA/Frankreich, 2015
, 33min, OF

Production: 
Mark Rappaport
World Sales: 
Mark Rappaport
Format: 
DCP
Color

THE VANITY TABLES OF DOUGLAS SIRK identifies the director’s signature prop as a metonymy for the complex mixture of adoration and contempt Hollywood held for the subjects and intended viewers of its women’s pictures. The mirror and the melodrama lay the same trap, allowing women to see only an inverted reflection of themselves and the world. James Mason, and Danielle Darrieux were each in several Ophuls projects but were never together in an Ophuls movie, although they should have been. What might that movie have been like? JOHN GARFIELD examines one of cinema’s greatest Jewish, proletarian sex symbols. In France, Marcel Dalio could only play a Jew, and his starring role would come only after he fled, on anti-Semitic posters that appeared throughout Vichy-era France. Now in America, Dalio would play the consummate Frenchman. In a purloined first-person account, I, DALIO narrates the ironies that proliferate from this reversal of fortune. (Colin Beckett)

In the presence of Mark Rappaport.

Mark Rappaport
Along with Martin Scorsese, James Benning, the Kuchar Brothers and Tweety Bird, Mark Rappaport was born in 1942. He entered the world at a moment when Hollywood cinema possessed an unrivaled cultural hegemony. Over the course of his adolescence, its grip on the American popular imagination would be loosened by the coming of television and the breakup of the studio monopolies. By the time he began doing his own film work, he and the rest of his cohort – which would also include Laura Mulvey, Jim McBride, Thom Andersen, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and Owen Land – had been cast as unavoidably self-conscious managers of the cinema’s “decline” into respectability. All of these figures staked their claim on the meaning of the movies, some as reformists, others as revolutionaries. Compared with the efforts of his peers, Rappaport’s meta-cinematic peregrinations have followed an oddly roundabout course. Neither brashly triumphal nor ruthlessly critical, Rappaport’s work has consistently achieved a wholly unsettling ambivalence.