462 The Last Metro

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#26 Post by GringoTex » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:14 pm

FerdinandGriffon wrote:If you haven't read the letter, it was actually full of very justified, if harsh, criticisms of Day for Night. It wasn't actually until Truffaut's response that the argument descended irretrievably into personal attacks...
Why would I comment on the letter if I hadn't read it? Godard claimed the film is a lie because it shows two characters other than Truffaut's fucking Bisset, when in real life it was Truffaut who was fucking Bisset. That's it. That's the criticism. The whole thing was a personal attack.
FerdinandGriffon wrote:And while you may call Godard a "socially stunted dick" for being able to separate his filmmaking from his personal life, I'd call Truffaut a "morally-stunted dick" for being able to separate his filmmaking from his personal life in such a dishonest, self-denying way.
You assume we're supposed to be praise the film "Meet Pamela" and it's makers. You missed the point of the movie.
FerdinandGriffon wrote:Also, Godard has always been Truffaut the critic's biggest fan, but has never had much of anything nice to say for any of Truffaut's films other than the first two or three. He certainly hasn't retracted anything he said about Day for Night, nor, honestly, do I think he should.
Godard loved Truffaut's first three films and paid enormous homage to them in his films of the time.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#27 Post by tojoed » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:11 pm

kaujot wrote:I've been googling pretty much all morning, and I can't find a copy of the letter anywhere. Does anyone know where there's a copy on the internets?


I don't know if it's available on-line, but you can get a very nice copy of Francois Truffaut's letters from this guy. :D

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#28 Post by GringoTex » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:14 pm

tojoed wrote:
kaujot wrote:I've been googling pretty much all morning, and I can't find a copy of the letter anywhere. Does anyone know where there's a copy on the internets?

I don't know if it's available on-line, but you can get a very nice copy of Francois Truffaut's letters from this guy. :D
I'll scan and post tonight.

User avatar
Florinaldo
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#29 Post by Florinaldo » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:26 pm

This movie is another one that illustrates how Truffaut came to make exactly the kind of films he was decrying while at Cahiers: well-made film, formally classical, produced in the "quality" tradition of French cinema. With rather shallow scripts to boot, amounting to sentimental tripe in many cases.

The quality of the actors he was able to attract to his productions usually masks this and creates the illusion that there is more substane to them than there really is.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#30 Post by GringoTex » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:25 pm

Florinaldo wrote:This movie is another one that illustrates how Truffaut came to make exactly the kind of films he was decrying while at Cahiers: well-made film, formally classical, produced in the "quality" tradition of French cinema. With rather shallow scripts to boot, amounting to sentimental tripe in many cases.

The quality of the actors he was able to attract to his productions usually masks this and creates the illusion that there is more substane to them than there really is.
First, Truffaut never ever decried formally classical cinema. Second, your assessment is an old, tired one (the traditional one, if you will) that fails to take into account his "dark" masterpieces: Two English Girls, Story of Adele H., The Green Room, and A Woman Next Door.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#31 Post by Jeff » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:52 pm

I'm terribly out of my depth in this discussion, but I believe that Florinaldo is referring to Truffaut's famous screed against "Tradition of Quality" cinema, from the January 1954 Cahiers du cinéma. The article, "Une Certaine tendance du cinéma française" is available here in French and here in English. I know that this is pretty obvious, but it seems germane to the discussion.

User avatar
FerdinandGriffon
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#32 Post by FerdinandGriffon » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:26 pm

To begin, I'm pretty sure that the letters used to be available on the blog that Jeff has already linked to:
http://jdcopp.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But I sure as hell can't find 'em.
cinemartin wrote:I could see if you didn't like Day For Night for any original reason, but to say "I don't like Day For Night because of what Godard said" is a weak statement. Did you see Day For Night before reading the letters? Or has blind worship for an idol polluted all judgement?
Cinemartin, I never said that "I don't like Day For Night because of what Godard said", indeed, that would be silly. In fact, I went quite thoroughly into my reasons for disliking the film. Simply in the interest of being honest and open, I noted that i had read the letters before seeing the film, but as I think i said before, I nonetheless went in wanting to like it in spite of Godard's criticisms, and came out with a feeling of disgust far stronger than could simply be attributed to the aforementioned criticisms of Godard's. Naturally, some of my views align with Godard's, others veer off into other directions. If you'd like more, than I'll add a few to the list:
1. Flat, dull, bland cinematography.
2. Criminal underuse of great actors. Baye and Leaud, two performers who I am usually entranced by, were only irritating here.
3. The actual sex and drama is purely of the soap opera, daytime TV variety.
4. The film within the film is an absurdly beautiful fictional device, one only has to look at Guido's scaffolding spaceship, Godard/Lang's painted Greeks and buxom mermaids, Von trier's Fifth Obstruction, to know this. Truffaut squanders his on a dime a dozen melodrama.

ByMarkClark.com: I do like Stolen Kisses and Bed and Board, though more for Leaud's incredible performance as Antoine Doinel than Truffaut's only passable directing.
GringoTex wrote:
FerdinandGriffon wrote:If you haven't read the letter, it was actually full of very justified, if harsh, criticisms of Day for Night. It wasn't actually until Truffaut's response that the argument descended irretrievably into personal attacks...
Why would I comment on the letter if I hadn't read it? Godard claimed the film is a lie because it shows two characters other than Truffaut's fucking Bisset, when in real life it was Truffaut who was fucking Bisset. That's it. That's the criticism. The whole thing was a personal attack.
Yes and no. Godard was attacking how Truffaut portrayed himself and filmmaking, so of course it's personal. But the important distinction to make is that he was criticizing Truffaut not for fucking Bisset, but for not showing himself fucking Bisset in the film, which is a professional criticism. You've to admit that while Leaud comes out of Day for Night looking like an immature brat, and Baye appears to be a bit of a slut, Truffaut emerges as a teddy bear. Don't you just want to hug him!
GringoTex wrote:
FerdinandGriffon wrote:And while you may call Godard a "socially stunted dick" for being able to separate his filmmaking from his personal life, I'd call Truffaut a "morally-stunted dick" for being able to separate his filmmaking from his personal life in such a dishonest, self-denying way.
You assume we're supposed to be praise the film "Meet Pamela" and it's makers. You missed the point of the movie.
I don't know if we're supposed to praise them. I think we're supposed to find them funny, charming, a little short-sighted perhaps, but interesting people to have a few drinks, maybe go to bed with.
Also, pray tell, what is the point of this movie? The romance of movies? Or is it just a cinematic strawberry daiquiri?

User avatar
Tom Hagen
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#33 Post by Tom Hagen » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:55 am

FerdinandGriffon wrote:4. The film within the film is an absurdly beautiful fictional device, one only has to look at Guido's scaffolding spaceship, Godard/Lang's painted Greeks and buxom mermaids,
Uh, the films being made in 8 1/2 and Contempt are a debacle and a fiasco, respectively. The scaffolding is a physical monument to Guido's detachment and those mermaids are purposely designed to look exceedingly artificial and phony.

User avatar
FerdinandGriffon
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#34 Post by FerdinandGriffon » Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:09 am

Yes, Tom, the films themselves are meant to be debacles, but the scaffolding is one of the most beautiful images of 8 1/2 (not of Guido's film), and the statues/mermaids that so hilariously enamor Prokosch are some of the funniest, most iconic images from Contempt. The film within a film sequences of Day for Night are just dull. Even as satires of melodramas they have nothing to offer.

cinemartin

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#35 Post by cinemartin » Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

I guess I just don't understand what Truffaut or the character he played fucking Bisset has to do with anything. If he was portrayed as fucking Bisset, he would not come off looking like a Teddy Bear? What's wrong with him fucking Bisset? In his letter back to Godard, Truffaut accuses him of throwing himself on one of the actresses in Les Carabiniers. Does that make that movie any less "true"? Woody Allen was "fucking" Mia Farrow, but at the end of Hannah and Her Sisters, the character he plays ends up with the character Diane Wiest plays, not Mia Farrow's character. I guess that movie's bullshit too. I mean to get off topic, but I just think that's weak criticism. I appreciate your other comments concerning the acting, cinematography,etc, I just don't agree with them.

User avatar
Dr. Snaut
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#36 Post by Dr. Snaut » Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:55 pm

I would really like to hear what people on this board thought about the film, not what Godard thought about the film.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#37 Post by domino harvey » Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:02 pm

That the last thing anyone wants to talk about in the Last Metro thread is the Last Metro says a lot about what we all think of that Truffaut film, at least.

User avatar
justeleblanc
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Connecticut

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#38 Post by justeleblanc » Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:36 pm

The film is pretty bland. It's not worth going into its faults -- the script and direction are pretty ghastly -- rather, it's way more interesting to psychoanalyze why people would actually say they like this film. Is it it's mix of WWII and forbidden romance that audiences like so much? Or is it simplicity in a foreign language that Americans love?

Day for Night is a better movie.

User avatar
bradass
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:03 pm

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#39 Post by bradass » Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:03 pm

Why does a Blu-ray release make me want to watch the ghastly Canadian DVD again? I found it disarming; simple but subtly powerful. More details when I re-view the film! Glad to finally see some late Truffaut released, as his later work has long deserved reconsideration.

User avatar
Florinaldo
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#40 Post by Florinaldo » Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:38 pm

Thanks to Jeff for directing GringoTex to an example of Truffaut's criticism he very likely was not aware of. This is probably the most famous one, but I remember reading several other texts of his that did take aim at this tradition of "quality French cinema".

As for my view being the "traditional" one as GringoTex puts it: "tradition" can sometimes be correct. But in my post I was clearly referring to the classical French cinema which the Nouvelle Vague directors despised and probably wanted to sweep away. I don't think I said Truffaut was against "formally classical cinema" as a whole; and I don't believe either that he has been accused of that systematically, as GringoTex seems to imply. Therefore, how could such a view be the "traditional" one?

It would have been foolish anyway to say that Truffaut was against classical cinema, considering his admiration for directors such as Hithchock.

I still maintain that the latter half, at least, of his career marked a descent into cliché, both in plot and technique. With a few exceptions like La Chambre Verte and Adèle H. for example, and not solely because they are darker; but I would say however that Les Deux Anglaises does fit the bill of my general assessment.

All in all, Truffaut always seemed to me to be the most disappointing director of the Nouvelle Vague. Even Godard with his numerous missteps and failed experimentations seems on the whole to have followed a more satysfying course. Even Chabrol never managed to fall so unabashedly into trivial melodrama.

All that being said, Le Dernier Métro can certainly be enjoyed for the actors' performances (although Depardieu brings less energy to his role than he usually does) and for the depiction of life in Paris under the Occupation.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#41 Post by zedz » Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:14 pm

Florinaldo wrote:Thanks to Jeff for directing GringoTex to an example of Truffaut's criticism he very likely was not aware of. This is probably the most famous one, but I remember reading several other texts of his that did take aim at this tradition of "quality French cinema".
I doubt GringoTex was unaware of this celebrated piece by Truffaut. I assumed that he took issue with the comparison because that original piece, and Truffaut's definition of "tradition of quality" was much more specific - and specifically political - than more general and/or contemporary understandings of 'classical French cinema'. It zeroed in on Aurenche / Bost and mudspattered a circle of filmmakers arrayed around them, but certainly didn't include such 'classical' directors as Renoir or Ophuls.

So I think you're actually on the same page here:
It would have been foolish anyway to say that Truffaut was against classical cinema, considering his admiration for directors such as Hithchock.
That said, I think that The Last Metro is a particularly drab, by-the-numbers 'prestige' project (wasn't it acclaimed in some French list as the 'greatest French film of the last 20 years' or something equally ridiculous?) and personally agree with you in terms of the following assessment - but even his early 'classics' seem overrated to me:
I still maintain that the latter half, at least, of his career marked a descent into cliché, both in plot and technique. With a few exceptions like La Chambre Verte and Adèle H. for example, and not solely because they are darker; but I would say however that Les Deux Anglaises does fit the bill of my general assessment.

All in all, Truffaut always seemed to me to be the most disappointing director of the Nouvelle Vague. Even Godard with his numerous missteps and failed experimentations seems on the whole to have followed a more satysfying course. Even Chabrol never managed to fall so unabashedly into trivial melodrama.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#42 Post by GringoTex » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:10 pm

It's en vogue to pick on Truffaut today for his lack of "modernity," but in 1962 it was Truffaut, even moreso than Godard, being heralded as the modern flag bearer of cinema for 400 Blows, Shoot the Pianist, and Jules et Jim. And then in the middle of the worship, he stopped. Godard needed to be a great artist; Rivette needed to be a great critic; Chabrol needed to be a great Hitchcock; Resnais needed to be a great philosopher. But Truffaut was the lone proletariat in the bunch and he never wanted more than that.

Fast forward to 1970: Truffaut is filming beneath the radar a dark and star-less Doinel drama; Godard is playing footsies with Jane Fonda, Yves Montand, and the Rolling Stones. Godard = middle class

User avatar
FerdinandGriffon
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#43 Post by FerdinandGriffon » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:11 am

I would hardly call Bed and Board dark, and Fonda, Montand etc. were about as far left as actors got at the time. You're also ignoring the Black Panthers and the factory workers that end up totally eclipsing the movie stars in the films you're alluding to. In Tout va Bien, the stars are held hostage in a sausage factory by unionists, who then proceed to deliver the long monologues about their working conditions that make up the majority of the first act. Godard may have used movie stars to gain financial backing, but the way he used them in the film itself was entirely subversive.
While Godard was shooting Ici et Alleurs in Palestine, Truffaut was still making films about the contents of his pants.

User avatar
Tom Hagen
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#44 Post by Tom Hagen » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:22 am

Gringo's analysis of Truffaut as the maker of films as an end in itself is well taken; Martin Scorsese and Kent Jones make similarly excellent points in their respective appreciations of Truffaut. Scorsese's appreciation is poignant on some level for me because he represents an present-day American version of what Truffaut was in his time and place: an encyclopedic, passionate ambassador for the history of movies and, occasionally, a testament to the greatness of what a true film artist can accomplish through the sheer force of his love for the medium.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#45 Post by exte » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:17 pm

Would you know anything about their doc on Kazan?

User avatar
Florinaldo
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#46 Post by Florinaldo » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:36 pm

GringoTex wrote:It's en vogue to pick on Truffaut today for his lack of "modernity," but in 1962 it was Truffaut, even moreso than Godard, being heralded as the modern flag bearer of cinema for 400 Blows, Shoot the Pianist, and Jules et Jim.
Actually, opinions in this vein started to appear long ago, at least in some parts of France's film criticism community, well before Truffaut's death. I also remember Henri Jeanson making a comment to that effect in his autobiography, but of course in this case there might have been some retaliation going on for reviews Truffaut had published of some of the movies Jeanson had scripted.

It may also be difficult for "modern" audiences to grasp the initial wind of freshness delivered by those films when they came out. I recall a screening of Jules et Jim in a film class I was auditing 20 years ago, where the reaction from many, and not only from the younger students, amounted to "where is the New Wave in THAT?". Arguments describing the state of French cinema before Truffaut et al. and to the effect that what was so innovative at the time had long since been assimilated into film language and audience expectations were not deemed convincing by all attending.

Les 400 Coups went over much better and I suppose Tirez sur le Pianiste might also have done so, if it had been part of the program. Although a love of classic American film noir may be a prerequisite to fully appreciate that one, but several specimens of this genre had already been shown to the class.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#47 Post by tojoed » Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:47 pm

Okay, let's be positive. The Last Metro has a lovely score by Georges Delerue. In fact, I can't think of a score by him that isn't.

User avatar
nick
grace thought I was a failure
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:42 am
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#48 Post by nick » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:39 am

Tojoed: Thanks for bringing that up. I've actually never seen the film but I've had the soundtrack on vinyl for a couple of years and it's one of my favorite scores to listen to.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#49 Post by tojoed » Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:40 pm

nick wrote:Tojoed: Thanks for bringing that up. I've actually never seen the film but I've had the soundtrack on vinyl for a couple of years and it's one of my favorite scores to listen to.
Indeed. I have a CD of his called " Music from the Films of Francois Truffaut" and it's a reminder of how much Delerue contributed to the pleasure of those films.

By the way, have you noticed that we aren't talking about the film? Perhaps this thread should be called " The Last Metro - The Film No-one Was Waiting For".

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 462 The Last Metro

#50 Post by tojoed » Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:37 am

For Kaujot, and anyone else who's interested, here's Godard's letter to Truffaut:

Yesterday I saw La Nuit americaine. Probably no one else will call you a liar, so I will. It's no more an insult than 'fascist', it's a criticism, and it's the absence of criticism that I complain of in the films of Chabrol, Ferreri, Verneuil, Delannoy, Renoir, etc. You say: films are trains that pass in the night, but who takes the train, in what class, and who is driving it with an 'informer' from the management standing at his side? Directors like those I mention make film-trains as well. And if you aren't referring to the Trans-Europ, then maybe it's a local train or else the one from Munich to Dachau, whose station naturally we aren't shown in Lelouch's film-train. Liar, because the shot of you and Jacqueline Bisset the other evening at Chez Francis is not in your film, and one can't help wondering why the director is the only one who doesn't screw in La Nuit americaine. At the moment I'm filming something that will be called Un simple film, it will show in a simplistic manner (in your manner, in Verneuil's and Chabrol's, etc.) those who also make films, and just how these 'whos' make them. How your trainee continuity-girl numbers each shot, how the guy from Eclair carries his equipment, how the old man from Publidecor paints Maria Schneider's backside in Last Tango, how Rassam's switchboard operator telephones and how Malle's accountant balances the books, and in each case we'll be comparing sound with image, the sound of the boom with the sound of Deneuve that it records, Leaud's number on the sequence of images with the social security number of the unpaid trainee, the sex life of the old guy from Publidecor with that of Brando, the accountant's own day-to-day budget with the budget of La Grosse Bouffe, etc. Because of the problems of Malle and Rassam who produce expensive movies (like you), the money that was reserved for me has been swallowed up by the Ferreri (that's what I mean, no one prevents you from taking the train, but you prevent others) and I'm stuck. The film costs about 20 million and is produced by Anouchka and TVAB Films (the company owned by Gorin and me). Could you enter into co-production with us for 10 million? for 5 million? Considering La Nuit americaine, you ought to help me, so that the public doesn't get the idea we all make films like you. You aren't a liar, like Pompidou, like me, you speak your own truth. In exchange, if you like, I can sign over my rights to La Chinoise, Le Gai Savoir and Masculin-Feminin.
If you want to talk it over, fine,

Jean-Luc

Post Reply