Temporal Possibilities of Set Design and Architecture in Jacques Tati’s Mon Oncle

Set design largely functions as the fictional counterpart of nonfictional architecture. Sets often mimic existing architecture and explore possibilities beyond the technical, financial, and social constraints of functional architecture, sometimes even inspiring future architecture, critiquing the present built environment. One of the most successful filmmakers using set design as architectural critique is Jacques Tati, particularly in his 1958 film Mon Oncle. The film follows the character M. Hulot (played by Tati) as he takes care of his nephew and traverses a modern French suburb. Hulot, who lives in an older, traditional neighborhood, humorously interacts with this modernist environment, refusing to fit into the harsh constraints the environment attempts to impose. Hulot has a close relationship with his nephew, creating jealousy in the boy’s father, M. Arpel. At the end of the film, M. Arpel sends Hulot away to the countryside but learns how to relate to his son and abandon the constraints of modernism. Characteristically for Tati’s films, the sets function as main characters—specifically, the old quarter and the new modernist neighborhood. The film’s soundscape is composed of imposing background noises from the multitude of machines in the film, with limited dialogue present, allowing the sets to take center stage. The sets for the film were designed by Jacques Lagrange, alongside Tati, who included detailed descriptions of sets in the script since they play a vital role in the plot.¹David Bellos, Jacques Tati: His Life and Art (London: Harvill Press, 2001), 208. Through historical architectural analysis of Mon Oncle’s set design, I examine how the sets both critique modern French architecture and provide alternative possibilities for the future through humor, irony, and absurd, playful aesthetics. My architectural analysis of the film considers the way set design, as a medium, can provide temporal fluidity between past, current, and possible future architectures.

Many of the sets within Mon Oncle, specifically, the home of M. and Mme. Arpel and the plastic factory owned by M. Arpel, humorously critique modern architecture in 1950s France. In both sets, the characters are confined by rigid structures and technologies, often causing amusing situations to arise as modern technology becomes more inhibiting than helpful. The sets reference specific architectural and design trends of modernism, most prominently the designs of the influential French architect, Le Corbusier.²Dietrich Neumann, “Mon Oncle,” in Film Architecture: Set Designs from Metropolis to Blade Runner, ed. Dietrich Neumann, Donald Albrecht, and David Winton Bell Gallery (Brown University) (Munich; New York: Prestel, 1999), 136. A prominent architect and urban planner in the 1920s, Le Corbusier’s design ideals focused on functionality in hopes of creating a more utopian way of life an idea much of the French public in the 1950s still held to, especially as urban redevelopment overtook France following the destruction of World War II.³Guen-Jong Moon, “Inhuman Characteristics of Modern Architecture Represented in Jacques Tati′s Films,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 16, no. 1 (January 2017): 92, https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.16.91. Le Corbusier influenced the rise of modernist planning in Paris, such as his block tower and car-centric “Plan Voisin,” designed in 1925, that proposed rebuilding Northern Paris with sixty story buildings in a grid pattern. Le Corbusier published many of his ideas for the future of Paris and urbanism in 1935 in La Ville Radieuse.⁴Alan Colquhoun, “The Significance of Le Corbusier,” in Le Corbusier, ed. H. Allen Brooks (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), 17–26 Modernist architecture of the early twentieth century was deeply intertwined with the technological and industrial changes of the time, such as the rise of the production line and machines like the automobile and airplane. Reflective of this fascination with architecture, Le Corbusier stated, “The house is a machine for living in.”⁵Colquhoun, “The Significance of Le Corbusier,” 17. By the 1950s, architects were still greatly influenced by the work of modernists like Le Corbusier, offering solutions to post-war Europe as it was grappling with a modern world.⁶Colquhoun, “The Significance of Le Corbusier,” 21. However, by the late 1950s modernism was no longer at the cutting edge of avant-garde architecture but became instead an inspiration for young architects, turning it into a “petit-bourgeois fashion item.”⁷Bellos, Jacques Tati, 207. The set in Mon Oncle highlights the absurdity of the rigid, isolating, and materialistic nature of modernist design, especially as it was used in post-war Europe as a frivolous statement of class.

Lagrange’s design for the Arpel family’s house is a collage of the “International Style” of modernist architecture of the early twentieth century, of which Le Corbusier was one of the most influential designers. The name “International Style” was used to imply the high function of the designs beyond their geographical contexts, which, by the 1950s, was a dated style.⁸Bellos, Jacques Tati, 207. The Arpel’s family house mimics Le Corbusier’s white, cube-like houses of the 1920s, as it appears in many shots of its exterior.⁹Paul Greenhalgh, “The Struggles within French Furniture, 1900-1930,” in Modernism in Design, ed. Paul Greenhalgh, Critical Views (London: Reaktion Books, 1990), 74. The house is a gray cube with some absurd details, such as two windows which appear like cartoon eyes watching over the garden below. The kitchen of the house is filled with labor-reducing devices, such as an automatic steak flipper and an egg cooker, which just appears as a light on the wall. The stove top is covered with dials and buttons, looking painfully complex when Mme. Hulot spends many moments adjusting the device as she cooks. The kitchen is very sterile, as everything in it is bright white, reminiscent of a scientist’s lab or a doctor’s office. Through the kitchen’s set, Tati makes fun of modernist homes and their obsession with function, as it increasingly seems to make Mme. Hulot’s life more difficult. Another moment on the set where Tati pokes fun at modernist design is when, after returning to the Arpel home late one evening while delivering his nephew safely home, Hulot falls asleep on the couch in the living room. However, he cannot comfortably sleep on the couch until it is turned on its side, mimicking the design of the lounge chair by Le Corbusier and Charlotte Perriand.¹⁰Greenhalgh “The Struggles within French Furniture,” 74. Here, once again, Tati is commentating on modernist design principles being greatly impractical, masked by a narrative of function.

The narrative of function is further turned on its head by Tati, likening modernist design with a materialistic, American culture to be enjoyed by the bourgeois, instead of an avant-garde statement.¹¹Neumann, “Mon Oncle,” 136. This is clearly represented in the set for the garden and garage of the house. The garden reflects the trend of modernist gardens that appeared in France in the 1920s, with an absurd fish fountain and narrowing, winding pathways that are anything but practical.¹²Moon, “Inhuman Characteristics of Modern Architecture,” 93. When the Arpels have friends over for a small party, they constantly have to negotiate these pathways in single-file lines, with comedic body movements. Hulot eventually steps into the fountain when he mistakes water lilies for the round stone pathway. In the garden, there is also a driveway and garage which Mme. Arpel purchases a new, automatic door as an anniversary gift for her husband. M. Arpel, coincidentally, purchases a new car for his wife for their anniversary, emphasizing the couple’s obsession with cars. The new garage door is motion censored, which provides another humorous plot point when the couple’s dog activates it and locks the couple inside. The set design of Arpel’s house provides a critique of modernist architecture by referencing specific designs, and highlighting their absurdity and trivialness, as a marker of class and status, despite their great inconvenience at every moment. Furthermore, the emphasis of the car reflects a greater change in French culture at the time, as the products of American capitalism grew increasingly popular.¹³Kristin Ross, Fast Cars, Clean Bodies: Decolonization and the Reordering of French Culture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 38. The car became a common product of the upper-class home as a result of the American and Fordist production line spreading to Europe.¹⁴Ross, Fast Cars, Clean Bodies, 22 Tati’s connection between modernism and American consumer culture is critiqued through the Arpels’ blatant desire for these items despite the inconveniences created by these cultural objects.

Lastly, Tati critiques the lack of leisure in Arpel’s life by likening the sets of the school and nightclub as almost identical to that of M. Arpel’s plastic factory, the only difference being the names which hang on them. Similarly, many of the appliances found in the factory are also present in the Arpel home, and it is even stated that the whole house was designed and made by the plastic factory. Tati’s commentary is expressed in the set design which suggests modernism leads to alienation and emphasis on labor that is present in all moments of life, causing the home, the school, and entertainment to all be variations of the factory. Despite a short stint working at the plastic factory, M. Hulot is seemingly unemployed, spending his days taking care of his nephew and neighbors. Tati is subverting the hyper-productivity that is valued in modern, capitalist France through the absurdity of the plastics factory and M. Hulot’s refusal to conform to this as the standard for life both in his home and work. Furthermore, the role of plastic in the film also signifies the larger cultural critiques of the material in French society at the time. Many French people contemned the move from artisanal, local made items to the mass-produced—often plastic—everyday items, as it reflected a loss of a national culture and a move to a more globalized, disposable world.¹⁵Douglas Smith, “‘Le Temps Du Plastique’: The Critique of Synthetic Materials in 1950s France,” Modern & Contemporary France 15, no. 2 (May 2007): 136–37, https://doi.org/10.1080/09639480701299954. In contrast to the artisanal and handmade, plastic can be anything and take any form. The viewer experiences plastic in the Arpel’s kitchen when M. Hulot drops a jug expecting it to break, but instead it bounces, as well as in the factory, when the material takes on a life of its own, overflowing the building and the film screen. In contrast, the material is nowhere to be found in the old quarter in the film, further contrasting the useless, overwhelming material with the old way of life which uses natural materials.¹⁶Smith, “‘Le Temps Du Plastique,’” 145. Mon Oncle draws attention to the irony of modern life through the technology of the factory and the home, constantly causing disruptions, while also wiping out leisure and human connection.

The set in Mon Oncle, while critiquing many aspects of modernism, also provides an alternative vision for the future through whimsical and playful opportunities, often embodied in Hulot and his old-fashioned neighborhood. Here, the film shows the social connections between the neighbors, as everyone knows each other and interacts at the market and pool bar, greatly contrasting the sterile, isolated Arpel house. Hulot lives in a multistory building, and every time he enters, he is seen wandering through the halls and interacting with neighbors to get to his apartment. Hulot’s personal connection with his neighbors is obvious, as one irons his shirt for him, and another invites him to a game of pool. This is very different from entering the Arpel house, where a visitor has to be buzzed in through a tall, electric gate, or when the Arpels arrive home they drive directly into the garage. The juxtaposition of the two neighborhoods further highlights the isolation of the Arpels’ modernist lifestyle, while emphasizing the possibility of communal, neighborhood living. The neighborhood also rejects the sterility of modernism, with piles of garbage often shown in the street, as when the street sweeper is seen chatting with residents of the neighborhood. However, people do not seem to mind the garbage, as everyone seems familiar with it and each other.

At the end of the film, M. Arpel and his son share a moment together of closeness, as M. Arpel breaks from the confinement of modernism, playing a practical joke with his son. This, again, shows a possibility of a life away from the isolation of modernism, because even in the same environment, it is a change in the attitude of the people which allows for a positive, playful future. This is seen repeatedly in the film as Hulot acts atypically in the Arpel home, such as turning the couch on its side or stepping in the fountain, because it is the people within the home that create the rigidity and isolation, as well. As Tati once remarked on the film, “If only I had given the same house to a simpler and more intellectual people, everything would be different.”¹⁷Neumann, “Mon Oncle,” 136. Rather than a depressing critique of modern life, the playfulness and childlike spirit of the film renders it a warning of rapid modernism and development and a re-centering of the joy and importance of leisure and human interaction. However, Mon Oncle also provides an alternative to modern life through the old quarter.

The opening credits of the film show a construction site with workers jackhammering away, which is returned to in the final shot of the film, and it becomes clear that the old quarter is being torn down to build more modernist high-rises. In 1950s France, there were many of these types of urban redevelopment projects , such as the Grand Ensembles housing development. These projects often destroyed the existing urban fabric and furthered physical separation between social classes.¹⁸Moon, “Inhuman Characteristics of Modern Architecture,” 91. Tati tactfully sets up this contrast between neighborhoods of the old and the new, as Lucy Fisher suggests, “a suggestion of an earlier, more idyllic world.”¹⁹Lucy Fischer, Jacques Tati: A Guide to References and Resources (Boston, Mass: G.K. Hall, 1983), 25. However, while the old quarter neighborhood is reflective of the past, it also presents a possibility for the future. The rejection of modernism by Tati is also a rejection of the International Style of Architecture and emphasizes the importance of locality instead.²⁰Moon, “Inhuman Characteristics of Modern Architecture,” 96. Tati’s old quarter contrasts Le Corbusier’s and modernism’s ideas of utopia as something that could occur through top-down design. Instead, Tati creates an utopian idea absent of the contradictions of modern society. As Erica Stein argues, “Utopia uncovers the structuring absences on which contemporary social relations are founded…This allows utopia, simultaneously, to indicate other ways of living, societies founded on the very relations our own makes impossible.”²¹Erica Stein, Seeing Symphonically: Avant-Garde Film, Urban Planning, and the Utopian Image of New York (Albany: SUNY Press, 2021), 7. This temporal balance of returning to past ways of living, as an alternative future or utopia, is clearly displayed in the sets of Mon Oncle, portraying the old quarter as what is missing from modernity and a viable possibility for life. Unfortunately, many of Tati’s warnings of modernism were unheeded, as we live in a further global, alienated, technologically-driven world, where the risks are omnipresent with the impending disasters of climate, overconsumption, and materialism. However, Tati’s suggestion of communal and neighborhood structures of the past is still present as a viable solution.

The undeniable power of the set design in Mon Oncle functions as a main character to the film and provides a strong example of how set design can function to critique the current architectural conditions of a city, while also providing an alternative vision and possibility for the future. The sets of Mon Oncle do this by referencing modernist architecture, conveying the uselessness and isolation of these designs, in comparison to the playful life of M. Hulot who lives in a neighborhood of the past. The medium of set design allows for a collective viewing of spatial experience of the past, present, and future simultaneously, while critiquing architecture and providing possibilities and imaginaries beyond it.

[Ed. note: This article is part of our bi-annual, peer-reviewed Student Voices section. Click here to read about this issue and the other articles in the section.]

Anna Molloy

Anna Molloy is a senior undergraduate student at Vassar College studying Urban Studies and Studio Art. Her interests include urban design and theory, fine art, and art publication. She is intrigued by the ways space and art interact and shape the world around us.