Élève libre (2008) Online

Let's get something straight: the English translation of the title "Eleve Libre" is very, very wrong. It will confuse the viewer and it does not do justice to this sensitive, well-made, subtle work of art. "Free Student" is a 'mot à mot' translation but, if I invoke the creative goddess, I would be inspired and call the film: "Student with a Choice". The alternatives were always available to this 17 year old "not so keen to study" a talented tennis player who besides school, tennis, friends and family, also has to deal with sex, because nature was calling him to do so. But sex is something our society is NOT taking very seriously, besides saying: Just don't do it, or it is something shameful, dirty and embarrassing. Well, society got these erroneous notions from the old, and misguided religious texts, and most people are stuck with them even today. Sex is life, sex is normal, sex is beautiful and important in this unorthodox, well written, directed and edited film. The film is perfectly paced, it has a pleasant rhythm like a sexual act or better yet, like Ravel's Bolero; it starts slowly and it calmly arrives to a climax just in time for you to have lots of honest and uncommon questions. This film is also utterly sincere, open and nonjudgmental; it makes us uncomfortable, because the approach to life in general is different to what we are accustomed to. If you are not willing to let the wind of the "atypical" caress you, then this film is not for you, but if you are willing to see a group of people struggling with life in a very different way that will create discussion after the credits are rolling, get this gripping and attention-grabbing film.

Jonas is an adorable, charming and open-minded talented teenager who is privately tutored not only in math, chemistry and geography but also the art of freethinking, going steady with his girlfriend and the art of sex. In a very crucial moment, his mother comes to visit and asks Jonas if all is well and if there is anything she can do for him, but he assures her that everything is fine and that he likes his private lessons.

There are many layers and metaphors in this linear and simple story with extremely complex issues or unspoken topics, such as the sexual awakening of teenagers today. Jonas is quite sure about his sexuality and his attraction to the opposite sex, but open to experimentation with his adult friends when the time is right. In life, how do we know if anything is good or bad, wet or dry, sweet or bitter if one does not try them? Jonas does it and gets his assurance that he is very heterosexual. This crucial scene is handled elegantly by the sensitive, talented director Joachim Lafosse, and well acted by the young protagonist. Some viewers slandered the film, it is understandable, because the subject matter is taboo, and frankly, there is no other film like it. For those who think this work of art is perverted or abusive, I suggest to watch the end of the movie carefully, because the answer to this positive, rare and moving story it's there in the last 2-minutes, in the last 2 cuts of the film.

I'm sorry, that the previous critiques on this 2010 French/Belgian movie paint such a dark, horrific and - most of all - wrong picture of it's content and meaning.

First off, let's get the plot right: Jonas, a young man around 17/18, lives alone with his brother near the Belgian border of France. His parents separated and his mother moved away and just visits them once ore twice a month. Jonas usually spends most of his time practicing to be a tennis-pro (just to get to a critique formally posted: you can not expect every young French actor to play tennis like a pro, bro) or with Didier, Nathalie and Pierre, friends of his mother, who play in the same tennis-club as Jonas does. As Jonas spends most of his time on the tennis-court, his academical achievements are not quite the top of the crops, actually he already is 3 years older than most of his classmates. Anyway, as most young man at his age, Jonas makes first contact witch sexuality (with a young girl from his school: Delphine) This stirs the interest of Didier, Nathalie and Pierre, who seem to have a very very good relationship with Jonas, as they talk (almost) openly about Jonas' experiences with Delphine.

When Jonas isn't allowed to take the regular exams, Pierre offers, to prepare him for a special test to replace it.

During this "private lessons" (which by the way is the German title of the movie) Pierre (Nathalie and Didier also) start to get very very VERY close to Jonas in the process of "teaching" him how everything works concerning sex.

The movie does not (as previously claimed) deal with a "pedophile pervert" or "mid-thirties giving blow jobs to minors" but with the sometimes thin borders between being helpful, being close and being abused. Joachim Lafosse (the director) depicts in a very distant but still not cold way the subtle changes that lead to... well I don't wanna tell you to much ;-)

After I watched the movie, I, personally, asked myself the question: When did this road towards "abuse" start? was it planned by Pierre from the beginning? Or was it Jonas' decision in the end?

I think you should get your own answers and watch this astoundingly intense movie, perfectly fitting into the wave of Western-European new-age movies (for example the German movie "Everyone Else")

Thanks for reading

Maik

P.s. : Excuse my weak English, it's actually 2.30am, but I just had to get some things right here ;-)

It is rather difficult to separate the presentation from the message, especially when the content of this film is undeniably disturbing (and exceedingly complex), no matter how liberal and open-minded some reviewers may wish to portray themselves. The story, the acting, the directing and the final product are all exceedingly well done, regardless of how one is angered and disturbed by what happens to Jonas, the central character in the film. In fact, the resulting emotional response to it all is testament to how well it was done.

Towards the end of the movie Jonas, the young man who is the central focus of the story, angrily declares to his "mentor" that he has been abused by him. The stark reality of this, while hardly revelatory to the viewer, appears to come as a shock to both the abused and the abuser. In fact, most of the adults in the film have abused him, either actively or through neglect or incompetence or indifference. While the sexual aspect of it is the most glaring and disturbing, it is not the only way in which adults have failed him. At his age, he might be thought of as being on the border between child and young adult, but he is clearly child-like in his emotional development and vulnerabilities.

The title, élève libre, has been translated to "Private Lessons." A more accurate meaning of the original title would be, in American English at least, an "auditing student" or an "unregistered student," someone studying outside of the normal student-in-school setting. Because Jonas believes, or has been led to believe, that he has the potential to become a professional tennis player, he has neglected his school work. Since he is already several years older than the other students in his class, his school refuses to allow him to repeat his studies again. They recommend that he enter a vocational school, which Jonas regards as a place for losers. Coincident with this personal trauma, his mediocre performance in tennis means he must face the fact that he will never become a tennis pro.

His core family offers no support for him in his hope to once again prepare for his exams. Enter Didier, Nathalie and Pierre, friends of his mother. Initially they appear to offer Jonas support, both practical and emotional, in his quest to prepare for re-sitting his exams. They, in particular Pierre, take on the role that might better have been played by his family.

At the same time that Jonas is dealing with problems with family, school and tennis, he is trying to understand the mysteries of sex and romance. He has a girlfriend, Delphine. They are both virgins and they begin to explore their sexuality together to their mutual satisfaction, but because of all the other "failures" in his life, Jonas wonders whether he is failing in this too.

At first it seems the trio of adults in his life are also going to provide him with the benefit of their experience and wisdom in matters sexual, but what begins as dinner table conversations offering reassurance and some helpful advice, turns into an increasingly obsessive interest by them in Jonas and his sexual performance. Following their advice and sharing with them the intimacy of his relationship with Delphine eventually, understandably offends Delphine and ruins their relationship. The adults then become sexually involved with Jonas in a way that even the most open-minded person cannot deny is totally exploitative and abusive.

I've read some reviews where the writer feels that the story is dragged out excessively by the lengthy conversations between the characters, especially the dinner table discussion between Jonas and the three adults, but these were essential to the development of those characters and the increasingly obsessive, disturbing interest they had in Jonas as someone to exploit for their own pleasure.

This film will undoubtedly disturb or anger or titillate or otherwise provoke an emotional response from viewers. It is certainly not a feel-good experience with a happy ending (although there is a somewhat lame final scene that might be considered a happy ending). That the hetero and homosexual target of the abuse is a beautiful young man rather than a girl will probably be all the more offensive to some. Objectively it can only be considered an excellent production that deals with an unpleasant topic.

It is said (and I have noted to be true) that people see in other people, in works of Art etc. or anything subjective, what THEY actually are. They project their own being, or shortcomings or fears or hidden secrets. That the author of the review below attack this sensitive film is such a disproportionately virulent (and plainly erroneous) way has said much more about him as a person than he probably intended to express. And to call a 17 year-old a 'child' (and who is in his full legal right to consent to any relationship he wishes to pursue, protected by the law itself) is so absurd as to suggest the author had a North American education. To see rape, to see perverted seduction in what is most obviously all but that, would be an alarm calm for anyone reading his review on this subtle film. What is sure is that with such a serious imbalance within him to feel the need to explode in this way, I would make sure no one below 18 walk near him. We have many recent examples of those who shouted far above the rest, and ended up being caught with their pants down, and I don't mean figuratively. His review reads like an open book of serious personal issues, as yet unresolved, and if his review serves any purpose it would be to help him seek assistance. More to do with the film now; it is of course slow and bleak like many European films, but like many European films dare to recount real life, real subtleties, real complexities of relationships that much cinema avoids - and that many like the author mentioned above would like to push so deep into (their subconscious) perversion as to ...create a perversion in itself, quite aside from the what the filmmaker made. It somehow makes them feel they have crushed their demon for a while - little to do with a review.

Okay, this movie may not be everyone's cup of tea. Whichever way you look at it, the main theme is undeniably a one-sided sexual relationship between an overbearing adult and a naive and gullible adolescent boy. Jonas being "already" sixteen years of age may make sexual intercourse with him legally permitted, but the fact remains that there's a huge unbalance between the two of them: the adult party acting as a self-appointed teacher and as the last hope of Jonas' ambition to succeed for his final exams, while young Jonas is (or at least feels to be) totally dependent of Pierre. If Pierre had been his actual professor at school, he would without any doubt have risked expulsion because of sexual harassment. So Pierre could have known (and was intelligent enough to actually know) that he was wrong. It's only in the very end of the movie that the balance weighs a little bit back in favor of Jonas, who - with the sleek opportunism of his age- , sees that his knowledge of Pierre now gives him control over him and makes him get what he wants: a degree.

This doesn't sound as a fun movie, and it isn't. It's appalling to witness the machinations of Pierre and his two equally adult friends, who very gradually but deliberately succeed in sexual corrupting Jonas. They make his first sexual experience with his (equally inexperienced) girlfriend into the favorite topic at the dinner table ("does she has a vaginal or a clitoral orgasm?"), with total disregard to Jonas' uneasiness on the subject, and at some point start to "teach" him the real stuff: making him witness them having sexual intercourse and giving him blow-jobs, in the process teaching him so many adult tricks that his girlfriend can't cope with it and shies away.

It's all the more appalling because Jonas is a vulnerable child, with his parents divorced, he and his brother living with his mother but she's all the time away on some vague missions and the boys are totally on their own. Jonas does bad at school, his tennis doesn't work-out either and he feels like a total looser. And now he also feels like he's a looser with sex, because these adults make fun of him and his girlfriend backs off. As said before, it's only at the end of the movie that Jonas discovers that he can stand up for himself. If the choice he makes is morally a good one is questionable, apparently the director wants us to judge for ourselves.

The acting in this movie is mostly strong, although these adults all three of them have a pompous way of delivering their lines, but maybe that's just to emphasize their deliberate and self-righteous character. But I was especially impressed with young Bloquet as Jonas, he seems like a natural and is totally convincing as the naive, slightly dumb but eager to learn, impressionable adolescent who outwardly shrugs away his problems rather than face or discuss them, but all the while subtly showing the inner turmoils and doubts he harbors. The actor cannot have been much older than the character he plays here, so it makes you wonder how he coped with all this.

The direction calmly lets unfold the story by itself, there are no artistic mannerisms to distract the viewer; on the contrary, the direction is almost clinical and with that chillingly effective. The script is great. I loved the fact that we seem to step on board of a riding train and never get anything explained, so things only very gradually begin to dawn on you or just stay in the dark. What's Jonas' mother going away for? What is the role of his silent (older?) brother? How did he encounter Pierre and his friends and why does his mother trusts them so much to allow her son to spend so much time with them? It's like the script cut-off all the fringes to make the bleak story all the more visible. It's the same with the ending: we see Jonas finally getting his degree. But how things with Pierre will go from there on we don't learn. We will have to guess.

To sum it up: it's an impressive and bold movie with a repulsive story and a questionable morale, that lingers in your head for a long time and can cause some serious discussion on the topics of sexual exploitation and opportunism. Movies like this, that shake you up rather than entertain you are not a bad thing at all.

Although I can't say I liked this movie, I'm giving it a fairly high rating (six stars) because what it does it does very effectively. I had to keep reminding myself that the creeps in this movie are not real people, which means the ones who made it did a good job.

Unlike some other reviewers, the sexual element didn't affect me much either way. I neither approve nor disapprove of unrelated adults coaching an effectively orphaned teenage boy in the arts and sciences of sex, any form of sex he's interested in experiencing. If he's old enough to do it, and if he's interested, then it's okay. If God hadn't wanted adolescents to be sexually active he could easily have designed them to mature sexually at a later age, but he didn't.

But what does bother me a great deal in this movie is the extraordinarily selfish way the adults treat the adolescents. They are cruel, shallow, snide, petty and totally self-absorbed creeps, and they push their creepiness aggressively onto the emotionally vulnerable adolescents. That emotional abuse is what I find repellent. The fact that Jonas and Delphine are children (and they ARE children emotionally, even though they are not children physically) is almost incidental.

Pierre, Nathalie and Didier are bullies, and if their victims had been people of any age, even people their own age who were less aggressively arrogant than they are - and even if the focus had been on something besides sex: on money or looks or physical fitness or social class or something else - their behavior would have been just as despicable as it was in this movie. They are bullies, and bullies are always despicable.

But the creepiness is so pervasive and so effectively portrayed that the director and writers MUST have done it intentionally. We must be SUPPOSED to despise these people, and we do. So this movie is in the odd class of well made movies that are intentionally unpleasant to watch because they're about despicable characters. Dennis Hopper was in many movies like that.

In hedonistic France this is probably defined as a "family drama", rather as "sexploitation shock-cinema".

Thumbs up for French cinema: it has actually managed to devolve from perennial underage-Lolita-seduces-middle-aged-man to middle-aged-man-seduces-boy scripts. Just as you thought decadence in French movies could not possibly get any worse than it's been in recent decades, comes EL, a movie that will have you vomiting for weeks.

The basic plot: Jonas, a not-too-bright 16(?) year-old tennis hopeful (how many tennis hopefuls ARE bright?) is sent to the home of Pierre, a middle-aged intellectual wannabe, where Jonas learns maths, history, and how to receive oral sex from people two-to-three times his age.

Pierre - the smelly society-loathing anarchist pervert who ogles him at every opportunity and indulges in lame, self-serving philosophical diatribes - quickly introduces two more smelly perverts in Jonas's life: Nathalie and Didier, an open-relationship orgy/swinger couple who treat sex as if it were a used chewing-gum. One look at those three and you'd run. But what does Jonas know about running? After all, he's just a tennis player... Very soon Jonas finds out that maths, history and nihilistic philosophical rants are not at the top of Pierre's passions, but that molesting boys tops all his lists by a long shot. He sneakily prepares Jonas for this delightful adolescence-ruining ordeal by first destroying the boy's relationship with his girlfriend (by having everyone at the dinner table openly snicker at her for her alleged sexual inadequacies), and then getting Didier and Nathalie to prepare Jonas for a world of sexual perversion by giving him oral sex while Jonas, the gullible schmuck that he is, sits there blind-folded, unaware that he's being set up by three very, very smelly perverts for a life of bisexuality involving older men and rather unappealing middle-aged women with big noses.

In the end, Jonas predictably starts feeling rather gloomy about having regular catching sex with his 45 year-old pitching male teacher. To cheer Jonas up a bit and perhaps avert a suicide attempt or two, Pierre tells him the movie's final line of dialogue: "I never forced you to do anything you didn't want." That line must be what all pedophiles love to use after desecrating the body of a minor. (Right after "hey, you asked for it!".)

Even worse than all the stench-drenched pedophilic shenanigans that transpire in EL is the writer's message to the (young?) viewer to "think for yourself (like Kami says you should)" which invariably means - at least in the context of this degenerate movie - that children are the hope of not just the world, but of all of the world's lusting pedophilic perverts. The movie can even be understood as a guide for emerging pedophiles: it offers useful seduction tips for all those losers who are sexually attracted to children. For example, leave porn tapes lying around the living room, the way Pierre does.

Who financed this abhorrent trash? That notorious Dutch pedophile political party?

Pierre is supposed to be a former tennis player. However, his skills are on par with the most talentless beginner imaginable. It was like watching a rhino play golf.

Why would they cast Jonas, a kid who obviously knows hot to play, along with an "established ex-pro" who obviously can't swing a racket in any useful manner - except to accidentally hit himself over the head with it?

Needless to say, the movie is also bad because it contains dozens of drawn-out scenes/moments when everything seems to move in slow motion. Yeah, the century-old affliction of Europe's pretentious "cinema del arte" i.e. junk cinema. "Arteaux means never having to rush, never having to edit the movie to make it compact hence interesting". Did Kami say that? From his grave, perhaps...

AVOID.

A certain reviewer has posted a comment here with the sole intention of "educating me". (Or so he claims in the laughable email he sent me.) Read his "wonderful" plea for child-molestation: it's poetic almost. And, no, the kid is 16, pal, not 18.

To the other reviewer (the one who says "bro"): no, I didn't refer to the kid's tennis-playing abilities being under-par. I was talking about the adult pervert playing like a rank amateur. Read my text properly.

The problem with this film is that it appears to have set out with the intention to be broadly exploitative about the wider questions concerning the nature of seduction, sexual awakening, discrimination , freedom and so forth.

However the manipulative spectacle which governs the seduction of Jonas becomes so outrageous that it ends up becoming the central axis of anxiety that dominates the main thematics within the work.

We slide quickly from ambitious reaching for parallels which involve evocations of idealised intellectual emancipation and a nod to ancient Greek love. Where do we end up ? Subsumed in uncomfortable realisations about the clumsy motives which lie behind the adult desires to which we are spectators. There unfolds a glaring itinerary of dubious motives.

1. Jonas initially approaches his adult friends for help about a very specific issue (premature ejaculation) but far from helping him, they never identify the issue but rather use it to increase their grasp over the boy by introducing a confusing melange of pornographic speak.

2. The adult group effectively chase away Jonas' girlfriend presumably because she is not compliant with their intentions or power over Jonas.

3. We never actually see the scene where Jonas agrees to submit to a group sexual encounter. Because of this it is difficult to assess the moment he crosses over into their world and is entirely seduced.

4. When Pierre isolates Jonas and begins his own seduction the question which rises is whose pleasure is he really pre-occupied with ? The boy's own relationship with pleasure or Pierre's desire to sexually over- power the boy and fulfil his sexual conquest.

Both Jonas and his girlfriend challenge the adult's power by backing away sharply at some point. The very fact of this awkwardness indicates a failure of Pierre and ultimately the adult group to transmit his/their noble sexual awakening project. The question arises, why did it fail or why was it so flawed in the end ?

The abuse here is not strictly speaking outside the law and illegal so much as it is about the insensitivity of adults to the vulnerability and naivety of youth AS WELL AS to a notion of inter-relational abuse regardless of the issue of age.

The adults violate their relation to Jonas when they use his problem with premature ejaculation to ensnare him as a candidate for sexual recreation within their group by not providing clear solutions for his needs but instead playing with him. They further abuse him by openly ridiculing the boundaries of his relationship with his girlfriend in what is an unforgivable act of adult manipulation. Finally Pierre abuses Jonas by offering a sexual experience that is closeted, furtive, rather squalid, lacking in a sense of fun and ultimately serving his own interests and this a a far cry from all the talk about the freedom of sexual pleasure as a form of self emancipation.

It's a shame the film lost touch with what appears to be it's original broader potential. Had Jonas been seduced by someone who was more at ease with his sexuality, more playful, giving, indeed well adjusted as a feminine gay man, Jonas' seduction may well have been a positive portrayal of precisely the ideals Pierre harks on about. However the message of the film was in the end ambivalent concerning if it thought gay was OK as an option over and above a flawed notion of bisexuality devoid of emotional attachment which it was at odds to present to Jonas as the acceptable form of sexual fluidity. To this extent one had to wonder what Jonas had been taught in the end about sex, his body and power etc and if he had indeed missed out on a more effective awakening of sexual self knowledge which could have been experienced through more likable, well intentioned, wiser, better adjusted peers.

This movie depicts a sexual abuse of a male child by his "friends" who help him with his tennis training and school exams.

The child has three elder "friends", one of them is a female. His mother and father are far away and he is alone with "them".

There are 5 abuses depicted in the movie which take place when the child is in the "protection" of those elders.

At first, the child is exposed to a sexual discussion in which the "elders" try to indoctrinate him about "infidelity" and they try to convince him to have sex with one of them.

In the second, an elder, finally forces and convinces him to have sex with her while the child is drunk. The child's eyes are tied. Other two people watch him at that abuse.

The third is a homosexual child abuse. While the second abuse is continuing, one of the male elders "take turn" and abuse him. At that moment, the child doesn't know a male is giving blow-job to him. He thinks a woman is doing it.

The fourth is another homosexual child abuse. The second elder, who helps with exams, pushes to, convinces, and gives the boy a blow-job while the boy is trying to study to his exams.

The fifth is again another homosexual child abuse. Like the previous, same elder "gay" person first gives him a blow-job then he penetrates the boy making it an "anal intercourse with a child".

The elders use/abuse "Position of trust" to convince and push him to have sex with each of them.

When the child accuses them for abusing him, the last abuser accuses him back with being an "opportunist". The movie takes side with the elders and it is depicted as if it is "normal" for elders to have sex with a child.

The last guy says "I never did anything that you refused" or something like "I never forced you to do anything." And the child is showed as walking back into house as a justification of all this sexual abuse.

I think producers, writers, and directors of this movie think that it is normal for an elder to have sex with a child if he or she doesn't "refuse." They should have known that a child isn't equipped with mental competency to cope with child abusers. You can't justify having sex with a child by saying "he/she didn't say no!" This is a crime against humanity.

I condemn who contributed to this movie.