The Sign of Leo (1962)

The Sign of Leo is Rohmer at his best: an explorative, curious film that shows a marvellous interest in people and their strange, obnoxious ways. The main character, Pierre, is a happy-go-lucky playboy kind of guy who ends up a bum on the streets. First we see him at a party he has arranged. He's an American living in Paris and from the lot of people at the party it's clear that he has a large group of friends. In one scene, we see Jean-Luc Godard playing the same little snippet of music on a record player over and over again. Such friends. Pierre celebrates because he thinks he will inherit a large sum of money from a relative. Turns out he was wrong and our hero is now in steep trouble: penniless and all the jolly friends are out of town for the summer. He's all alone, trying to make do. The Sign of Leo patiently trudges along with the American misfortunate man in his transformation from playboy into bum. This is as neo-realist Rohmer gets. He takes us to the streets and the camera tracks the subtle details of the composer's struggles and hopeless adaptation to the life of the streets. From being bothered by a stain on his trousers his attention gradually turns to other things, before all finding something to eat. Rohmer frames him against the backdrop of the varities of urban life: well-to-do people distance themselves from his smelly person or leisurly folks pay no attention to him whatsoever. The parisian bourgeoisie has fled the hot city but the tourists eagerly or languorously pace the streets. Jess Hahn who plays Pierre does an excellent job in capturing the physical state of the sweaty and disoriented hero. But not only that, throughout the film, we see what he see, we are engaged by his gaze, his hunger, his scavenging.

Most of the time Rohmer doesn't romanticize poverty or the homeless life. A possible exception is the encounter between the composer and another homeless man. Here, the risk is that The Sign of Leo turns into yet another example of how poverty is rendered into "colorful characters". But perhaps the ending of the film, which I will not spoil for you, defies such an interpretation. Anyway - this film is one of Rohmer's good films (it's his debut), even though it may not be one of his most famous ones. What some have considered to be weaknesses - the digressions, the change of gears and the 'peculiar' ending - is actually something I liked even though I am not so sure how the whole thing is to be comprehended. As in all of Rohmer's films, there is something about the way the film is structured that practically screams to be enshrined within a contemplative aphorism but as always with Rohmer this is more an appearance (which does not mean that the film has nothing to say, just that there's no overarching Message that could be distilled into an aphorism about human existence).