Jacques Rivette
-
- Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:25 am
Re: Jacques Rivette
What have I done, as soon as I post, this thread is rejuvenated!!
OK, I feel like I should get a bit both into what I have seen so far and the comments on here.
So first of all, here's my "updated" schedule:
Seen so far and rated in order from bes to, uh, "worst":
Le Pond Du Nord - 10
La Religieuse - 10 (more of a Bunuel, though)
Duelle - 9
Celine et Julie vont en Bateau - 9
Paris Belongs to us - 9
Noroit - 9
Out 1: Spectre - 8 (RED! tinted, pretty worn out 35mm print)
Merry Go Round - 8
Still to see:
Out 1: Noli Me Tangre - I saw we germans actually did the DVD of this which almost makes the cinema experience feel less special. But only almost.
Gang of Four - Scary? Occult? That about sells the film for me, thought it sounded so-so in the program.
La Belle Noiseuse - Looking very much forward to this!
Secret Defense - Looking a LOT forward to this! Heard it has ties to american thrillers (Hitchcock)
va Savoir - Haven't seen it yet, remember when it came out and teenage me wrote it off as "boring french cinema"
L'Histoire de Marie et Julien - Very much looking forward!!
Haut Bas Fragile - Still not sure, but you all make it sound interesting.
I didn't see Hurlevant, as the reviews were broadly negative, and there's a nice DVD of it making the rounds. Same with L'Amour par terre, Jeanne D'arc, Ne touchez pas... and 36 Vues. Shame I missed L'Amour Fou, but hey, you can't see everything I guess.
I really wish he'd make another film. Not sure if the comments on his health can be believed (a friend of mine - who might even make the rounds on here - visited an Ogier retrospective in 2012 where Spectre was shown, and Rivette was in attendance and apparently was approached/talked to other visitors), but this retrospective just proved to me how unique and fantastic a director he is.
OK, so a bit on the films I have already seen...
- Pont Du Nord was clearly the best. What a film!! And what a shame Pascale Ogier passed away so young. Even though it didn't have a definite "ending/meaning", I felt as if its the most rewarding of all his films. The atmosphere was striking, the acting flawless!
- La Religieuse... I wanted to see this for about a decade, and wasn't disappointed. Not sure if the film's overall brownish hue was due to the print's bad shape, or if Rivette actually shot it with a brown/reddish lense... Regardless, I thought it was a gorgeous film, miles ahead of the recent remake which was shown at this year's Berlinale. But - as noted above - more of a Bunuel.
- Duelle is so good. I had seen this one before - the strange thing is that, while watching, the film almost seems flawed to me, but once it's over, it all falls in place. It's also my favorite occult film this side of Lynch and Polanski! It just seems utterly convincing in aesthetic and "regulations". It's a shame there's no proper follow-up (Noroit is more of a "sequel in spirit" to me - more on that later)
- Celine et Julie is the second one I knew beforehand. Those films rated 9 are all so close... Either way, I didn't like this when I saw it 2 1/2 years ago (sorry for the following expletive - I billed it "Celine et Julie dicking around Paris"), which was mostly due to a.) me being tired, very tired b.) the DVD looking sub-par and c.) it being my first Rivette. Watching it on the big screen improved it so, so much. My girlfriend, who accompanies me to every screening, said while Pont Du Nord was also her favorite, this was a close second, both now favorite films of hers. I figure Duelle is the "lunar" to this film's "solar" counterpart. I also liked her approach: "It's like when you are a girl, playing with your friend and puppets, making up the stupidest, but funniest stories." That rang a bell for me. Still, I prefer Duelle.
- Paris Belongs to Us was equally impressive! Detour: I like 400 Blows and Le Petit Detective better than Breathless and Jules et Jim. A lot, actually. This one here proved that my (big) problems with these films are not necessarily just my problems - in comparison, they feel flat and even slightly arrogant. Paris... offers such a sparkling cast and narrative, it's impossible not to be drawn into it. The scene where the guitar-tape is finally played was so chilling in its banal climaxing... Can't believe the only other thing the lead did was that (great) cameo in Mon Oncle.
- Noroit was surprisingly entertaining. Even though it seemed confused and at times willfully abstract, I never got lost or bored. I didn't consider it a "clear" sequel to Duelle though. While you COULD read certain things into it, I thought it was all too obscure to really "go there". Yeah, she could be the sun goddess, and Chaplin's character could be the moon goddess or a person who battled the moon goddess, and yeah, the "treasure" could be the diamond, but but but eh eh eh...
Either way, I am surprised how enjoyable it was for a film where I simply had no idea why certain things happened. The last scene, with the color filters and the dancing and all that, was breathtaking!
Now come the hard ones...
- Out 1: Spectre was only available in a VERY red, VERY damaged copy. I have read there are some people who consider this his masterpiece - I'd argue against that. While it has moments of brilliance, you can feel that this is, essentially, a loose improv-session. The plot was... interesting, but I constantly felt as if there was too little, too late. The allusions to terrorism and politics were interesting, but there was so little action here, so little actual input, that the outcome just felt a bit uncooked. The scene with Ogir and the mirror, and the phonecall, for example, was a great scene. But what does any of this amount to? The paranoia and tension of Paris... just wasn't there. The long cut may be more interesting to me.
- Merry Go Round was the one that... kind of divided my girlfriend and me. I thought the first two acts were among Rivette's best, with the third being visually beautiful but... somehow loosing itself in weird, almost soap-opera-esque dimensions. My girlfriend HATED both Schneider and D'allessandro, and could connect neither with them or the plot at all, mostly just being infatuated with the "otherworld" sequences. Both of us were slightly disturbed by the facial hair-and-shirt-taste of late 70s era musicians (their scenes felt as if Rivette tried to carry something from the previous semi-Quadrology to the film, with mixed success). In the end, I liked it a bit better than her (she rated it about 6.5), but we both agree that it indeed is a difficult film for Rivette. I disagree with her, though, in that I think it was ALMOST a masterpiece, but several flaws wore it down quite a bit. The ending still impressed me (as did the dinner scene), and I took a lot away from it (and that comes from somebody who also considers the talent of both Schneider and D'Allessandro as "limited").
So far, so good.
OK, I feel like I should get a bit both into what I have seen so far and the comments on here.
So first of all, here's my "updated" schedule:
Seen so far and rated in order from bes to, uh, "worst":
Le Pond Du Nord - 10
La Religieuse - 10 (more of a Bunuel, though)
Duelle - 9
Celine et Julie vont en Bateau - 9
Paris Belongs to us - 9
Noroit - 9
Out 1: Spectre - 8 (RED! tinted, pretty worn out 35mm print)
Merry Go Round - 8
Still to see:
Out 1: Noli Me Tangre - I saw we germans actually did the DVD of this which almost makes the cinema experience feel less special. But only almost.
Gang of Four - Scary? Occult? That about sells the film for me, thought it sounded so-so in the program.
La Belle Noiseuse - Looking very much forward to this!
Secret Defense - Looking a LOT forward to this! Heard it has ties to american thrillers (Hitchcock)
va Savoir - Haven't seen it yet, remember when it came out and teenage me wrote it off as "boring french cinema"
L'Histoire de Marie et Julien - Very much looking forward!!
Haut Bas Fragile - Still not sure, but you all make it sound interesting.
I didn't see Hurlevant, as the reviews were broadly negative, and there's a nice DVD of it making the rounds. Same with L'Amour par terre, Jeanne D'arc, Ne touchez pas... and 36 Vues. Shame I missed L'Amour Fou, but hey, you can't see everything I guess.
I really wish he'd make another film. Not sure if the comments on his health can be believed (a friend of mine - who might even make the rounds on here - visited an Ogier retrospective in 2012 where Spectre was shown, and Rivette was in attendance and apparently was approached/talked to other visitors), but this retrospective just proved to me how unique and fantastic a director he is.
OK, so a bit on the films I have already seen...
- Pont Du Nord was clearly the best. What a film!! And what a shame Pascale Ogier passed away so young. Even though it didn't have a definite "ending/meaning", I felt as if its the most rewarding of all his films. The atmosphere was striking, the acting flawless!
- La Religieuse... I wanted to see this for about a decade, and wasn't disappointed. Not sure if the film's overall brownish hue was due to the print's bad shape, or if Rivette actually shot it with a brown/reddish lense... Regardless, I thought it was a gorgeous film, miles ahead of the recent remake which was shown at this year's Berlinale. But - as noted above - more of a Bunuel.
- Duelle is so good. I had seen this one before - the strange thing is that, while watching, the film almost seems flawed to me, but once it's over, it all falls in place. It's also my favorite occult film this side of Lynch and Polanski! It just seems utterly convincing in aesthetic and "regulations". It's a shame there's no proper follow-up (Noroit is more of a "sequel in spirit" to me - more on that later)
- Celine et Julie is the second one I knew beforehand. Those films rated 9 are all so close... Either way, I didn't like this when I saw it 2 1/2 years ago (sorry for the following expletive - I billed it "Celine et Julie dicking around Paris"), which was mostly due to a.) me being tired, very tired b.) the DVD looking sub-par and c.) it being my first Rivette. Watching it on the big screen improved it so, so much. My girlfriend, who accompanies me to every screening, said while Pont Du Nord was also her favorite, this was a close second, both now favorite films of hers. I figure Duelle is the "lunar" to this film's "solar" counterpart. I also liked her approach: "It's like when you are a girl, playing with your friend and puppets, making up the stupidest, but funniest stories." That rang a bell for me. Still, I prefer Duelle.
- Paris Belongs to Us was equally impressive! Detour: I like 400 Blows and Le Petit Detective better than Breathless and Jules et Jim. A lot, actually. This one here proved that my (big) problems with these films are not necessarily just my problems - in comparison, they feel flat and even slightly arrogant. Paris... offers such a sparkling cast and narrative, it's impossible not to be drawn into it. The scene where the guitar-tape is finally played was so chilling in its banal climaxing... Can't believe the only other thing the lead did was that (great) cameo in Mon Oncle.
- Noroit was surprisingly entertaining. Even though it seemed confused and at times willfully abstract, I never got lost or bored. I didn't consider it a "clear" sequel to Duelle though. While you COULD read certain things into it, I thought it was all too obscure to really "go there". Yeah, she could be the sun goddess, and Chaplin's character could be the moon goddess or a person who battled the moon goddess, and yeah, the "treasure" could be the diamond, but but but eh eh eh...
Either way, I am surprised how enjoyable it was for a film where I simply had no idea why certain things happened. The last scene, with the color filters and the dancing and all that, was breathtaking!
Now come the hard ones...
- Out 1: Spectre was only available in a VERY red, VERY damaged copy. I have read there are some people who consider this his masterpiece - I'd argue against that. While it has moments of brilliance, you can feel that this is, essentially, a loose improv-session. The plot was... interesting, but I constantly felt as if there was too little, too late. The allusions to terrorism and politics were interesting, but there was so little action here, so little actual input, that the outcome just felt a bit uncooked. The scene with Ogir and the mirror, and the phonecall, for example, was a great scene. But what does any of this amount to? The paranoia and tension of Paris... just wasn't there. The long cut may be more interesting to me.
- Merry Go Round was the one that... kind of divided my girlfriend and me. I thought the first two acts were among Rivette's best, with the third being visually beautiful but... somehow loosing itself in weird, almost soap-opera-esque dimensions. My girlfriend HATED both Schneider and D'allessandro, and could connect neither with them or the plot at all, mostly just being infatuated with the "otherworld" sequences. Both of us were slightly disturbed by the facial hair-and-shirt-taste of late 70s era musicians (their scenes felt as if Rivette tried to carry something from the previous semi-Quadrology to the film, with mixed success). In the end, I liked it a bit better than her (she rated it about 6.5), but we both agree that it indeed is a difficult film for Rivette. I disagree with her, though, in that I think it was ALMOST a masterpiece, but several flaws wore it down quite a bit. The ending still impressed me (as did the dinner scene), and I took a lot away from it (and that comes from somebody who also considers the talent of both Schneider and D'Allessandro as "limited").
So far, so good.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
nolanoe -- It makes me very happy to know that you liked "Pont du Nord" best. ;~}
Thanks for yopur interim report. FWIW, I don't recall the French DVD of Religieuse being particularly "brownish".
Thanks for yopur interim report. FWIW, I don't recall the French DVD of Religieuse being particularly "brownish".
Re: Jacques Rivette
I believe that reddish brown tint is just the print getting very old. I remember the first time I saw Duelle, it was awash in a thick red tint. It wasn't in keeping with the rest of Rivette's work, so I said the print looked old and the colors we're going. Some angry old man turned to me and said "he obviously shot it with a red filter!" I didn't want to argue with this old man in the middle of the screening, so I accepted it. Then I saw the French DVD that looked so beautiful with its colors (especially the aquarium scene - to think of shooting that with a red filter!) that I realized he was just some angry old guy who liked filters more than Jacques Rivette.
-
- Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:25 am
Re: Jacques Rivette
Hahaha, could be your average CriterionForum user right here. ;)
But to be honest, I am unsure with La Religieuse, just because, well... it looked that beautiful. Indeed, the French DVD has a Bluish tint, but I recall various films, among them Pasolini's Edipo-Re, looking vastly different/earth-toned'er when they hit BD. I would like to have some input with that one, but then again, I guess it's the one most likely to end up in HD first (Bunuel and Karina connection).
But to be honest, I am unsure with La Religieuse, just because, well... it looked that beautiful. Indeed, the French DVD has a Bluish tint, but I recall various films, among them Pasolini's Edipo-Re, looking vastly different/earth-toned'er when they hit BD. I would like to have some input with that one, but then again, I guess it's the one most likely to end up in HD first (Bunuel and Karina connection).
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Jacques Rivette
A lot of colour stock fades to magenta over time, especially if cheap stock was used or it hasn't been kept in the best conditions. Red-tinting is par for the course for old distribution prints, and eventually it can eat up the rest of the colour entirely. With or without directorial intent!
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
Sadly, the UK print of Parajanov's Shadows of our Forgotten Ancestors is barely watchable for this reason - and particularly painful if you've previously seen it in a superb French print.
-
- Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:25 am
Re: Jacques Rivette
Yeah, I am aware, and Out 1 was a, umh... good example. It was strange with la Religieuse, though, as it just seemed to... fit. It really felt like an aesthetic choice, especially when bright, colorful flowers appeared on screen and during the second half. Accidental, but beautiful.
Speaking of, I am thrilled to find Le Pont Du Nord has been released on Blu-Ray!!!! :D Where have I been?? Has anybody got any info whether MoC plan further releases?
Speaking of, I am thrilled to find Le Pont Du Nord has been released on Blu-Ray!!!! :D Where have I been?? Has anybody got any info whether MoC plan further releases?
- bainbridgezu
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:54 pm
Re: Jacques Rivette
Does anyone here know if Out 1 is still planned for release in France and the United States, or if the problematic master for the first episode (discussed in previous pages of this thread) has halted the project? The latest info I could find is from June 2011, well before the (relatively minor, considering what we would be getting) issue with the German edition came to light.
-
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:38 am
Re: Jacques Rivette
Thanks Ola T. for the info re cheaper prices for Out at JPC.de. You are absolutely right, and I just placed my order.
-
- Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:16 am
Re: Jacques Rivette
In case you missed it, Stephen Bowie has written an excellent piece on Rivette over at http://www.worldcinemaparadise.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:38 am
Re: Jacques Rivette
Thanks, Stuart. Bowie's article pretty much sums up everything I've ever felt about Rivette. He really does seem to be in a cinematic space all his own. And in a way, yes, it is quite appropriate that he remains the perpetual outsider, a position that mirrors his work with almost ludicrously appropriate irony. Surely his exclusion from the acclaim he has always so richly deserved is the result of a conspiracy, some getting together of dark forces within the cinematic establishment determined to ensure that films can only be made according to the script laid down by Hollywood, one that has been properly worked over by teams of writers and has the requisite number of plot points, a beginning, a middle, an end, and so on. Of course, that's probably not the case, but wouldn't it be wonderful it if was? Rivette has always been the dark star of his own remote, but (for the converted) beguilingly magical universe. Maybe, as he gradually, and tragically, fades from view, his work might suddenly be 'rediscovered', and acclaimed, as so often happens when great artists die. Rivettte, of course, never sought the limelight, and would probably be horrified at the thought. I suspect even his fans would probably prefer that things remain the way they are, shrouded in Rivettian mystery and myth. Personally, while I would like to see greater recognition for Rivette, a part of me secretly dreads it. I want his films to be my own, personal secret, as they seem to have been since I first wandered into the Paris Pullman cinema (how appropriate!) in South Kensington 1976 and found myself completely captivated and upended by Celine & Julie. Every visit to the cinema since then has had to live up to that yardstick, and has (inevitably) always fallen short. That said, it would be nice to see a wider appreciation for his vision of a cinema quite radically different from the popcorn predicability that has so insiduously become the norm (young filmmakers, it doesn't have to be like this!) A DVD release for L'Amour Fou might be a nice start. Then again, maybe not. Maybe things are the way they are meant to be. Slightly off centre, happening in the shadows, discussed, but never seen, with no definite resolution in sight. I have a feeling that's the way Rivette would like it. But I suppose we'll never know.
- foe
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:18 pm
- Location: LDN / LDZ
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
if any of you is knowledgeable - is that dvd release -> http://www.amazon.fr/La-Religieuse-Anna ... se+rivette" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; <- an official one?
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
Why would you think it isn't?
(No subs, alas).
(No subs, alas).
- foe
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:18 pm
- Location: LDN / LDZ
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
"Sous-titres : Anglais" so...Michael Kerpan wrote:Why would you think it isn't?
(No subs, alas).
well, the only guy who's selling it on amazon.uk states that "This product is manufactured on demand when ordered from Amazon.co.uk and therefore doesn't include artwork or casing." at the same time there's only one seller on amazon.fr plus never heard of that studio before.
-
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:23 am
- Location: Florida
Re: Jacques Rivette
Its a Studio Canal product.
- repeat
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:04 am
- Location: high in the Custerdome
Re: Jacques Rivette
Are you guys looking at the same page as I am, because the link that foe posted seems to refer to a 2003 DVD release by Opening / Les Films de ma vie (who put out the Noroit/Duelle double) and not the more recent StudioCanal one. Apparently no subs on the earlier one either.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
The legit releases didn't have subs...foe wrote:"Sous-titres : Anglais" so...
well, the only guy who's selling it on amazon.uk states that "This product is manufactured on demand when ordered from Amazon.co.uk and therefore doesn't include artwork or casing." at the same time there's only one seller on amazon.fr plus never heard of that studio before.
- foe
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:18 pm
- Location: LDN / LDZ
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
well, both amazon.uk/fr state that english subs are provided. was on a verge of buying it. now i'm even more confused.repeat wrote:Are you guys looking at the same page as I am, because the link that foe posted seems to refer to a 2003 DVD release by Opening / Les Films de ma vie (who put out the Noroit/Duelle double) and not the more recent StudioCanal one. Apparently no subs on the earlier one either.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
We have no way of knowing whether this is a bootleg subbed version or not.foe wrote:well, both amazon.uk/fr state that english subs are provided. was on a verge of buying it. now i'm even more confused.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Jacques Rivette
Out 1
I finally watched this leviathan over the weekend and thought I’d report back.
It’s an extremely fascinating film, but I wouldn’t rank it among my favourite Rivettes. To me, it seemed like a loose remake of Paris nous appartient, delivered through a radically different creative process, and it’s the latter that is both the film’s strength and its weakness.
Thematically, the film is about the struggle between order and chaos, and aesthetically that’s exactly what we see, with long quasi-documentary passages of acting troupes improvising or rehearsing, narrative events unfolding in fully inhabited real settings, and identities shimmering and shifting. There’s wonderfully primitive montage in which parallel events are intercut not for any stylistic or narrative reason, but more as a kind of primal, instinctive ‘meanwhile’ – we flip back and forth between unfolding scenes to find not much has changed while we were away. It’s very rare nowadays to see montage quite this affectless (Matthew Barney does the same sort of thing) and I quite like the effect. It’s one of the ways in which Rivette evokes early cinema, with Feuillade being the primary point of reference.
The Feuilladisms, and the loosey-goosey improvisatory narrative structure, are perfected in Celine et Julie vont en bateau, and this film is something of a shambolic anticipation of that masterpiece. It’s not an entirely fair comparison, as I doubt Rivette could have got to Celine et Julie any way but through Out 1.
There are passages in the film that are absolutely extraordinary, and they tend to be weighted towards the end. The long dialogue scene between Colin and Sarah that closes the penultimate episode is one of the most amazing and unexpected sequences I’ve ever seen in a film, and a large part of its impact comes from its placement eleven hours into a film that, to that point, didn’t contain anything like it. (There’s a kind of answer scene at the beginning of the final episode that’s almost as wonderful.)
But there are also sequences that take forever to go nowhere. I found a lot of the improvisations by Thomas’s group incredibly tedious, and the first one, which dominates the first episode, is especially terrible. If you took a class of first-year drama students and said ‘free improvisation!’ to them, it would take them all of ten minutes to arrive at basically the same thing. I’ve seen this so many times before, and it’s always been ghastly. Many of their later improvs are just as callow (the work of Lili’s rival troupe is generally more interesting). I enjoyed hearing Thomas’s actors windily talking about their improvs afterwards, but that doesn’t really offset the hours of dead air these passages add to the film. Another effect of these performance passages is that it gives screentime to a whole bunch of actors who can never really develop their characters. The film is great with character in the rambling interactions that push the plot forwards, or sideways, or backwards, but these workshop sections are all about narrative stasis, and the characters are stifled as well. (We do get to know Thomas, but mostly because of his scenes outside the theatre, interacting with non-actor characters). If you’re undertaking this film, be warned that the first feature-length episode largely consists of this workshop stuff, with maybe five minutes of intriguing plot flashed throughout it. The ratio of bad improv to actual narrative steadily declines as the film progresses, as does the ratio of bad improv to sort-of-tolerable improv, but that first episode might send you screaming to the hills if you’re not forewarned. Rivette manages this dramatic rehearsal / main narrative split much, much better in La Bande des quatre.
All in all, it’s an inspired shaggy dog tale, and there’s a real feeling of excitement as plot threads and characters gradually come together in the late stretches. At the end we’re starting to untangle the real conspiracies from the imagined conspiracies from the invented conspiracies, but at the same time Rivette manages the tricky feat of simultaneously lifting the film into the mystical and fantastic and dragging it down to brutal reality, with
As for the picture quality: the stretching in the first episode is unfortunate, but not really any big deal in the grand scheme of things (in which this film was in danger of being lost forever or at best, hardly seeable). Visually and sonically, this is a rough film, made in a cheap and furtive way, and there’s a bit of damage on the source (and only?) print, but it’s all perfectly watchable. The sound is raw, and the levels can vary drastically from scene to scene, but as the film progresses, Rivette plays against that verité edge by slyly manipulating the soundtrack in interesting ways.
I finally watched this leviathan over the weekend and thought I’d report back.
It’s an extremely fascinating film, but I wouldn’t rank it among my favourite Rivettes. To me, it seemed like a loose remake of Paris nous appartient, delivered through a radically different creative process, and it’s the latter that is both the film’s strength and its weakness.
Thematically, the film is about the struggle between order and chaos, and aesthetically that’s exactly what we see, with long quasi-documentary passages of acting troupes improvising or rehearsing, narrative events unfolding in fully inhabited real settings, and identities shimmering and shifting. There’s wonderfully primitive montage in which parallel events are intercut not for any stylistic or narrative reason, but more as a kind of primal, instinctive ‘meanwhile’ – we flip back and forth between unfolding scenes to find not much has changed while we were away. It’s very rare nowadays to see montage quite this affectless (Matthew Barney does the same sort of thing) and I quite like the effect. It’s one of the ways in which Rivette evokes early cinema, with Feuillade being the primary point of reference.
The Feuilladisms, and the loosey-goosey improvisatory narrative structure, are perfected in Celine et Julie vont en bateau, and this film is something of a shambolic anticipation of that masterpiece. It’s not an entirely fair comparison, as I doubt Rivette could have got to Celine et Julie any way but through Out 1.
There are passages in the film that are absolutely extraordinary, and they tend to be weighted towards the end. The long dialogue scene between Colin and Sarah that closes the penultimate episode is one of the most amazing and unexpected sequences I’ve ever seen in a film, and a large part of its impact comes from its placement eleven hours into a film that, to that point, didn’t contain anything like it. (There’s a kind of answer scene at the beginning of the final episode that’s almost as wonderful.)
But there are also sequences that take forever to go nowhere. I found a lot of the improvisations by Thomas’s group incredibly tedious, and the first one, which dominates the first episode, is especially terrible. If you took a class of first-year drama students and said ‘free improvisation!’ to them, it would take them all of ten minutes to arrive at basically the same thing. I’ve seen this so many times before, and it’s always been ghastly. Many of their later improvs are just as callow (the work of Lili’s rival troupe is generally more interesting). I enjoyed hearing Thomas’s actors windily talking about their improvs afterwards, but that doesn’t really offset the hours of dead air these passages add to the film. Another effect of these performance passages is that it gives screentime to a whole bunch of actors who can never really develop their characters. The film is great with character in the rambling interactions that push the plot forwards, or sideways, or backwards, but these workshop sections are all about narrative stasis, and the characters are stifled as well. (We do get to know Thomas, but mostly because of his scenes outside the theatre, interacting with non-actor characters). If you’re undertaking this film, be warned that the first feature-length episode largely consists of this workshop stuff, with maybe five minutes of intriguing plot flashed throughout it. The ratio of bad improv to actual narrative steadily declines as the film progresses, as does the ratio of bad improv to sort-of-tolerable improv, but that first episode might send you screaming to the hills if you’re not forewarned. Rivette manages this dramatic rehearsal / main narrative split much, much better in La Bande des quatre.
All in all, it’s an inspired shaggy dog tale, and there’s a real feeling of excitement as plot threads and characters gradually come together in the late stretches. At the end we’re starting to untangle the real conspiracies from the imagined conspiracies from the invented conspiracies, but at the same time Rivette manages the tricky feat of simultaneously lifting the film into the mystical and fantastic and dragging it down to brutal reality, with
SpoilerShow
one innocent dead and another on the way to her doom.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Jacques Rivette
See, I kind of like the numbing effect of the long rehearsal scenes. In some sense, they serve to weed out less patient audience members who perhaps don't "deserve" to experience the film's high points, but I think that Rivette is also self-aware about these scenes (closing at least one of them with the troupe discussing how the incredibly long improv session we've just witnessed really wasn't all that good). And yes, I think that some of the fantastic scenes toward the end are all the more precious because of how hard we've had to work to get to them.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Jacques Rivette
I can certainly see the structural point of the bad improv scenes, but that doesn't overrule their badness, and I expect exactly the same purpose would be served if they were less amateurish, since those hypothetical shallow-souls-who-nevertheless-signed-up-to-see-a-thirteen-hour-movie would presumably be turned off by any avant-garde performance material that went on that long. The Lili material has its longeurs, but I found them much more tolerable, and indeed some of Thomas's later improvs are at least a little more toothsome.
Also, I'm not sure we can really take the troupe's reflections on their performances at face value, since they seem to be at least partially dissatisfied (and partially thrilled) with everything they do, regardless of how it might appear to the audience. Also, I'm pretty sure the kind of mass grope 'n' groan session we see in the first episode is much more fun to participate in than it is to watch, or it wouldn't be such a tired default of bad improvisers through the ages.
Also, I'm not sure we can really take the troupe's reflections on their performances at face value, since they seem to be at least partially dissatisfied (and partially thrilled) with everything they do, regardless of how it might appear to the audience. Also, I'm pretty sure the kind of mass grope 'n' groan session we see in the first episode is much more fun to participate in than it is to watch, or it wouldn't be such a tired default of bad improvisers through the ages.
Re: Jacques Rivette
Hey Zedz, I'm curious as to how you broke the film up. Did you watch it all in one day or was it over a few days?
- warren oates
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm
Re: Jacques Rivette
It's interesting to me that zedz dislikes Out 1 for the same sin that tainted his experience of The Act of Killing: bad improv! Though I actually think the improv in Out 1 works really well in the film, for all the reasons swo already listed, but also just as a kind of pure documentary of what a radical experimental theatre rehearsal was really like at the time. And I suppose I object to its description as "bad." I mean, given the constraints of what the troupe is going for -- to tell this kind of mythological story in movement and without words -- the fact that they start out with something a little closer to Begotten than a Pina Bausch routine doesn't seem like that big a strike against them.
Isn't that the classic tension between highfalutin' pretension and insecurity that you see in just about every group of young rebellious artists regardless of the medium? That just seems pretty obviously sociologically accurate.zedz wrote:Also, I'm not sure we can really take the troupe's reflections on their performances at face value, since they seem to be at least partially dissatisfied (and partially thrilled) with everything they do, regardless of how it might appear to the audience. Also, I'm pretty sure the kind of mass grope 'n' groan session we see in the first episode is much more fun to participate in than it is to watch, or it wouldn't be such a tired default of bad improvisers through the ages.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Jacques Rivette
zedz -- have you L'amour fou? Out 1 also has some major stylistic similarities to this.