Rosetta (1999) - by kay.
Rosetta, directed by two Belgian siblings, shocked many Cannes attendees when it won the Palme d’Or in 1999. The competition was stiff that year, with the likes of Pedro Almodóvar (All About My Mother) and Jim Jarmusch (Ghost Dog) vying for that specific award. There are plenty of people who think its success at Cannes boils down primarily to protest - in a year with colorful and sometimes downright musical choices, how did such a drab film take home an award like that? Surely, it was the judges panel telling the film industry and critics alike to go fuck themselves at the turn of the century.
Even some 23 years later, there’s still strong arguments against this movie: Is it just suffering for the sake of suffering? Yes, we have the titular character to root for, but she’s about as Sisyphean as they come. Nothing ever gets better for her, and if it does, it never lasts. That’s what makes Rosetta such a waste of time for some people - you watch a young woman flop around like a fish out of water for 95 minutes to the point where it’s uncomfortable and, one might argue, unbearable. Movies are meant to sometimes cover distressing topics, but this one has no reprieve, save maybe the only time Rosetta smiles (it’s quickly ruined by the debilitating cramps in her torso).
What’s the point? Why sit through something like that?
I only recently (literally last night) found out about the correlation between Rosetta and Belgian labor laws, so I can’t truthfully say that’s what has brought me back to that movie more than 3 times now. For me, maybe it’s stubbornness - I’ve in no way lived in poverty to the extent that Rosetta did, but there’s some echoes of my childhood in there. Mostly, I see myself in her, though; the hard set of her jaw, her unwillingness to let people be kind to her and, especially, the scene where her mother’s weight flings her into a muddy river and she’s forced to claw herself out. She’s an incredibly difficult girl in every sense, and I think that’s what makes her one of the more believable characters I’ve seen. People talk of wanting to see more “messy” women on-screen: Gena Rowlands breaks down and smokes in Opening Night, but she still does it beautifully. Michelle Reis has a thousand-yard-stare as she eats in a diner at the end of Fallen Angels, lacking makeup, but there is still something otherworldly about her. It’s certainly not a dig, because I adore both of those performances, but there is still a hint of glamor in those women’s unglamorous moments. Perhaps because that wasn’t their first time acting, whereas Rosetta was Émilie Dequenne’s debut. Her performance is feral, it’s desperate, and furthermore, it pulls at you. She is, after all, just a kid, evident in her “your name is Rosetta, my name is Rosetta..” speech.
If the performance itself is not enough, I think the Rosetta Law holds some weight. While the directors argue that the law already existed, that the name was just convenient because the film had freshly won the Palme d’Or, I believe it had a serious influence. International audiences were undeniably moved by Rosetta in one way or another (sometimes by empathy, often by rage) but Belgian audiences took it to heart. Yes, the Rosetta Law was not new, but at the movie’s release, it hadn’t actually been voted in yet. The legislation itself revolves around “youth employment”, more specifically exploitation and how they are paid. It’s obviously a stretch to say that Rosetta is the driving factor for the law being passed, but I have a hard time believing it had nothing to do with it.
That’s why I can’t subscribe to the idea of Rosetta “romanticizing” poverty. There is nothing charming in the film; no string quartet in the background, no beautiful, sad sunsets on the river. It’s painful. It’s disgusting. If a movie about destitution doesn’t make you angry, then I don’t think it’s effective.
ncG1vNJzZmiekamura%2FFoqOmcV6owqO%2F05qapGaTpLpwvI6rpqydpKmubn2YcnA%3D