Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Now and Then: Quentin Dupieux's 'Wrong' Exposes the Limits of Surrealism

by Matt Brennan
March 26, 2013 3:21 PM
  • |
Jack Plotnick in Quentin Dupieux's "Wrong."

Drafthouse Films, the distributor of Quentin Dupieux's bizarre new film, "Wrong," describes the French director and electronic musician (stage name: Mr. Oizo) as "one of the world's most fearless cinematic surrealists." The surreal does indeed seem to be Dupieux's preferred register, but this leads me to a trickier question. Should we care?

Surrealism isn't exactly fashionable anymore. Whether you consider it a movement, an aesthetic, or a politics -- and wherever you place the dividing lines between these three -- art critics agree that Surrealism grew out of Dadaist anti-rationalism in the terrible years of World War I and petered out somewhere between the end of World War II and the Sixties, replaced by other, fresher radicalisms.

The poet Guillaume Apollinaire coined the term, but it was Andre Breton, writing "The Surrealist Manifesto" in 1924, who brought it to prominence (and proceeded to be its domineering life force until his death in 1966). It was this eccentric, absurdist creed that came to mind watching "Wrong," especially Breton's "Encyclopedia" entry for Surrealism:

Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all, all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principal problems of life.

A working definition of what Dupieux might be up to begins to take shape: unexpected associations and juxtapositions (a Southern California landscaper speaking French-accented English); dreamscapes (a dog riding the bus, reunited with his owner); resolute playfulness (heavy downpours inside a nondescript office building). So close to Breton's definition is Dupieux's version of Surrealism, in fact, that it resembles a relic from another age -- a curiosity found rummaging in culture's closet, mothballs and all.  

"Wrong," which Dupieux wrote, directed, photographed, edited, and scored, follows Dolph Springer (Jack Plotnick, of "Reno 911") as he searches for his lost dog, Paul.

To be frank, that's about as far as synopsis can go. I could tell you that the palm tree in Dolph's backyard mysteriously becomes a pine. I could tell you that he encounters a shadowy figure named Master Chang -- played by well-known character actor William Fichtner, layering on so many oddities of inflection, accent, and movement that the performance becomes a black hole in the center of the movie, absorbing any light that approaches its orbit. I could tell you that the film includes an extended deconstruction of a pizza place flyer. But I could not promise you that any of these constitute "important plot points" or "illuminating details" or "useful ironies," because then I would be lying. 


  • Matt Brennan | April 1, 2013 1:56 PMReply

    Shade and Sen2860, in their comments below, get at why I chose to focus on Surrealism as a form rather than on all the things I did not like about "Wrong" (there were many). As I note in the column, the film resists easy synopsis, even of seemingly inconsequential happenings, and each individual moment can be read in multiple ways. (I especially like Sen's suggestion that the palm tree is emblematic of sudden changes in our lives.)

    That's why I think you need to see it in the context of Surrealism in order to make any sense of it. Black Daze's accusation of "emphatic film critic analyzing" is unfair, even beyond the fact that analyzing is, hopefully, what film critics do. "Wrong" quite clearly draws from the Surrealist tradition, and this illuminates a problem not just with "Wrong," but also with Surrealism itself. I think of the form as a false posture: one that says "don't think so much," but is in fact utterly over-thought. (Just because the rain in the office isn't "logical" doesn't mean its appearance on screen did not require thought. Nothing in film production is "automatic" in the Surrealist or Dadaist sense of the term.) "Wrong," like Surrealism, doesn't try to negate meaning or thought, but instead promises a way of finding some "deeper" meaning in the jarring, the unexpected, the bizarre, the subconscious. To my mind, the movie fails to keep this promise. To be over-thought and then expect us not to think critically about whether the film's choices are empty is an unfair set of rules. If, like Sen and Shade, your critical thinking leads you to like the movie, that's an absolutely valid conclusion to draw. I am (emphatically, as Black Daze noticed) not in this camp.

  • black daze | April 1, 2013 4:21 AMReply

    emphatic film critic analyzing. doesn't get anywhere. movie says don't think so much. he does. he says "movie can't get around critic, nothing is critic proof". takes aspirin. the end.

  • sen2860 | March 27, 2013 2:15 AMReply

    I completely agree and yet I think your conclusion is all wrong (hehe). While the limits of surrealism are obvious, I have to say I love exploring the world of Dr. Oizo. He has a strange way of pulling you in and like Rubber I found myself becoming attached to the characters despite all the bizarre imagery. I think it was strongest when you saw some mundane reaction to the bizarre that was in some ways relatable.

    The palm tree is probably the best scene, Dolph reaction to something inexplicably changing I found to be completely bizarre and relatable at the same time. Throughout the movie I found myself being thrown into a weird world that was completely off and I still found it compelling. As far as experiences go I count that as a win.

  • shade | April 1, 2013 4:23 AM

    I agree. I laughed my head off, and in fact thought there were some moments that bizarrely recalled those 30s screwball, sturges eccentricities the author said he was missing. perhaps by way of the cohens, but there humor was there.

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • 'Frank,' Starring Michael Fassbender ...
  • WATCH: William H. Macy Directs Billy ...
  • TIFF WATCH: Simon Pegg & Peter Chelsom ...
  • TCM Remembers Lauren Bacall with 24-Hour ...
  • Kickstarter Film Festival Hits Los ...
  • 'Legends': Twisty Sean Bean Spy Series ...
  • Every Hitchcock Cameo (IN ONE VIDEO ...
  • TIFF Brings International Trailblazers ...
  • Heads Up, Documentary Filmmakers: Sundance ...
  • Bill Paxton Returns to History Channel ...