French New Wave Mini-List Discussion + Suggestions

[knives]

More in the morning , but I took Belmondo's failure to be a deliberate criticism of that sort of character and really enjoyed the film as a look at what is wrong with that sort of character even as it doesn't offer much direct criticism. The film is plainly playing with the talented improviser archetype and how that just can't succeed long term. Right from the second scene he is just improvising how to get revenge without any clear destination for success. It does work for a while, but the film in my opinion wisely realizes he can't sustain that. Finally with the Americans his improvisation goes wrong albeit due to the flaw of his backup. From there he comes up with idea after idea with some succeeding but most not. That's why I liked the Reed aping ending so much. Everyone here is genuinely awful except for one character who is no longer part of the picture. In contrast to Cotton Belmondo seems to realize this has all been for nought, but also doesn't know how to validate himself. There is nothing to improvise so he ceases to be while Xavier is still stuck where he was unchangable.

[tenia]

Looking at some of the directors in the original list, and some of the movies discussed here, I didn't realise that was a New Wave project !
Of course, I don’t know all of their movies so could miss a link on a given movie (I’ve read here how De Broca can be tied in to the New Wave in very factual way) but it’s probably the first time I’m finding these directors in a New Wave dedicated list. I'm thus not surprised some movies chronicled here are said as "having zero markers of the New Wave". I’m also surprised but not really by the lack of love for what are some of the most beloved French comedies (The tall blonde man with one black shoe or Les tontons flingueurs, for instance).

De Broca, Verneuil (except probably L’affaire d’une nuit), Robert, Oury & Lautner movies at least won't be anything in which anybody here will find some New Wave elements in.

I doubt it will be the case for the Enrico and Molinaro too, and IIRC, de la Patellière was strongly defined as making "Cinéma de papa" only, Granier-Deferre was one of the very few AGAINST the New Wave, Jean Girault was doing popular comedies, etc.

As for De Broca, even outside a New Wave look, there is a lot of his movies I didn’t like so much, though there are a few I would recommend (all should be considered non-NV) :
I like a lot Le cavaleur, because Rochefort does an awesome job in it but also because I liked the bittersweet tone of the movie as a whole.
L’amant de cinq jours is a tad long but still nice overall.
Le magnifique has quite a strong run, only lacking a better conclusion.
L’africain was a nice surprise. It’s certainly no masterpiece but it’s entertaining and competent.
I was also quite surprised by Le bossu, one of his latest movies, which felt way better than the original one.

As a devout Huppertini I watched 'Eaux profondes' and couldn't wait to finish it to relist it for sale on Amazon. Apparently 'Péril' is in the same mould of nymphomaniac hysterics taking on their moribund vengeful hubbies. Bon courage.

I discovered Deville by watching Péril and had to stop after roughly 40 minutes because I just disliked it so much.

[domino harvey]

More in the morning , but I took Belmondo's failure to be a deliberate criticism of that sort of character and really enjoyed the film as a look at what is wrong with that sort of character even as it doesn't offer much direct criticism. The film is plainly playing with the talented improviser archetype and how that just can't succeed long term. Right from the second scene he is just improvising how to get revenge without any clear destination for success. It does work for a while, but the film in my opinion wisely realizes he can't sustain that. Finally with the Americans his improvisation goes wrong albeit due to the flaw of his backup. From there he comes up with idea after idea with some succeeding but most not. That's why I liked the Reed aping ending so much. Everyone here is genuinely awful except for one character who is no longer part of the picture. In contrast to Cotton Belmondo seems to realize this has all been for nought, but also doesn't know how to validate himself. There is nothing to improvise so he ceases to be while Xavier is still stuck where he was unchangable.

I don't know, I see where you're coming from and certainly agree with your conclusions as far as Belmondo's worthlessness as an improv-er, but I'm unconvinced the film agrees with us. I also see no responsibility or awareness from Belmondo about anything he does wrong-- he even blames his pal for his own behavior in the final shootout. I also think the film is just broadly dumb in a lot of ways, like

SpoilerShow

Why would the trustee not tell someone that Belmondo and then his pal has a shiv? Is it because there's a no snitching culture in-play? If so, why doesn't the film give us even one easy line to explain this? It's just lazy. Why does the pal insist on hopping on a mine during his lunch break? If it's inner turmoil, perhaps indicating it through anything other than close-ups of a sweaty brow while working? And that finale with the pal robbing a rich dude is just stupid, and not in a believable, "Here's a dumb guy making a poor decision," but audience insultingly stupid-- no character has ever been this dumb. I'm reminded of Kim Morgan's comments on one of those Video Nasties comps that the antagonists of the film in question were so stupid that if the protagonist hadn't taken them out, they probably would have died thirty minutes later on their own!

+++++

tenia, I appreciate your and Nabob's continued perspective into the more "popular" French films and directors who exist apart from the New Wave as we think of it now. Apart from every other defense I've made of these inclusions, I would also add that just because certain directors were once caught up in the label doesn't mean the label means the same thing to us now looking back at it as it once did

[knives]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Certainly I'm getting my enjoyment on my own terms rather than what may be the intended terms, but I figure as long as I acknowledge that I'm not falling into some Zizek arrogance. The movie at least offers the opportunity for this view which is more than what a lot of dumb protagonist films can say.

SpoilerShow

That said I assumed, with regards to your spoiler, the trustee just didn't want it to get out that he was torturing the guy. The ending with Nevada is indeed several levels of stupidity too far and I could only pose a thematic rather than narrative defense of it.

[domino harvey]

Two great discoveries from a new-to-me director I am eager to explore further:

Le monte-charge (Marcel Bluwal 1962)
We finally solve the mystery of what happened to Lea Massari in L’avventura— she got picked up by Robert Hossein in a French movie theatre! What happens next and why (or perhaps more correctly, how) in this Christmas-set tale is best left discovered from the film. While it’s hard to discuss in detail when the film's pleasures are best revealed by going in blind, I can safely say that for much of the running time this film made me so uncomfortable in how it relayed an unexpected situation with unerring tension, gave no obvious markers for what would happen next for the totality of the first two acts, and then utterly delighted me in revealing a logical and brilliant explanation for everything that came before. This is an incredible movie, a wonderful noir that develops and maintains a consistent level of dread throughout. Hossein deserves special credit for his performance here— he takes a role that could so easily be misplayed and turns it into a subtle portrayal of a not great guy in a not great situation who maintains the precise right amount of audience sympathy/empathy once things move beyond Le notti bianche territory. And of course Hossein had quite a career behind the camera during this time directing film noirs in addition to starring in them! Not that I’ve really seen that many films yet since the project started, but this is handily the best so far. Highly recommended. (No commercial English-subbed release, available with English subs via back channels)

Carambolages (Marcel Bluwal 1963)
And here Bluwal completely pivots in tone and effect from Le monte-Charge and delivers a terrific, fast-paced comedy in which Jean-Claude Brialy schemes and murders his way up a corporate ladder. I notably did not enjoy the other two Michel Audiard-scripted films I watched recently, but I am happy to give this a seal of approval— though there are two significant plusses present here that distinguish it from the Lautner and Verneuil failures. One, Jean-Claude Brialy, Louis de Funès, and Michel Serrault are soooooo much funnier and more talented at doing this kind of exaggerated comic schtick than any of the actors in the Lautner or Verneuil films. These are broad, BROAD, BBBBBRRRROOOOAAAADDD perfs— but completely suited to the tone and material. Two, Bluwal is a delightfully intelligent and intuitive director. Seeing him deftly handle the drama of Le monte-charge and then just as winningly make a quick-paced slapstick-y comedy like this shows me Bluwal is a director I already can’t pigeonhole other than to recognize that I want to see everything else he's made. I’ve suffered through enough fast-paced failures of comedy in my lifetime to recognize how hard a movie like this is to pull off, and Bluwal succeeds with gusto. I mean, anyone who can give the world this picture of Brialy is doing something right:

SpoilerShow

Loved the fun and unexpected cameo from a heavy hitter at the end too!

Highly recommended. (No commercial English-subbed release, available with English subs via back channels)

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Two great discoveries from a new-to-me director I am eager to explore further:

At the risk of becoming the thread party-pooper I think you'll find that's your lot. There is a prodigious output for sure but it's all TV work, amongst which there number many prestige stage adaptations / live theatre productions. There is one film 'Le plus beau pays du monde' from later life dealing with the persecution of a french homosexual actor by the Nazis but dates from decades after the scope of this list. He was directing well into his eighties and I believe is still going strong.

[tenia]

tenia, I appreciate your and Nabob's continued perspective into the more "popular" French films and directors who exist apart from the New Wave as we think of it now. Apart from every other defense I've made of these inclusions, I would also add that just because certain directors were once caught up in the label doesn't mean the label means the same thing to us now looking back at it as it once did

Thanks for the precision, domino.

However, I'm under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that some of the directors in this list have been caught up in the label but never delivered any movie related to it and that this might not be a question of evolution of the label over the years.

To take again Verneuil's example, I doubt that the main takes on his movies & the New Wave have shifted with time. he was actually vocal AGAINST the new wave at the time while Les cahiers was conspicuously snobbing him. Same would go for Oury and Molinaro, notably, who almost exclusively directed popular comedies, which is why I'm surprised to see names like these in the list. If you ask a French cinephile, he'd probably tell you spontaneously they really were "Cinema de papa", not NV.

My main point is just that : I'm not surprised you don't find any markers for NV in some of the movies you watched, because I don't think they ever were remotely related to it, now or ever. But it'd be a shame if some people here ended up not liking them because they were looking at them from a perspective they never were supposed to be watched from.

(just my 2 cents, of course)

At the risk of becoming the thread party-pooper I think you'll find that's your lot. There is a prodigious output for sure but it's all TV work, amongst which there number many prestige stage adaptations / live theatre productions.

I know Bluwal by name, but yes, he indeed only ever directed 3 movies and that's it.
He doesn't seem to have directed anything since 2013 though.

[domino harvey]

The problem is that some early markers were ludicrously broad: Are you under forty and making French films? Great, you're part of the New Wave. It soon came to be known primarily for the qualities exhibited by its more well-known figures (Young Turks, Left Bank), but you can see the struggle in these initial attempts to qualify a movement-- especially when done so before it arguably even really started or at least became widespread / over-emulated / over-produced

I should also be clear that I'm happy to discover a great film from this exploration regardless of whether it's New Wave (as I end up defining it) or not (though an amazing Lautner film, should one exist, would probably not figure in my ballot either way), but the negative examples I've encountered so far are bad films for me regardless of New Wave bonafides

[zedz]

I'm treating those director lists with several grains of salt, so even if I discovered an out and out masterpiece, I wouldn't vote for it unless it seemed to me a New Wave film. For instance, Melville doesn't belong to the movement, so I'm not going to be voting for any of his 60s films, even though I like a number of them more than most of the films that will make my list.

[swo17]

Leon Morin seems like the closest he ever came to the New Wave sensibility, and it's also my favorite film of his, so that one's somewhat tempting...

[Rayon Vert]

I won't submit a list because there are too many top film directors here that I haven't even begun scraping. But I'll post some rewatches of the usual suspects I was planning to do.

Week End (Godard 67). As a road movie with a "return to nature" theme, it reminds one a bit of Pierrot le Fou. But otherwise this is a continuation of the Brechtian theatre sketch-style of La Chinoise, though even less unified as a narrative. A morally bankrupt bourgeois couple, completely representative of their civilization (our current, modern civilization), on their travel outside Paris encounter the consequences of that world: complete degradation and horror of humans unto humans. Godard intends to make manifest the dark barbarism at the corrupt heart of this civilization and bring to absurdist light its horrifying implications. If it’s a wildly creative and, indeed, simply “wilder” film, as well as frequently fascinating, at other times the vignettes are less successful, making for a more uneven experience than the superior La Chinoise. Still a stunning and generally fun film though - apart from those scenes with animals actually getting killed.

The red, white and blue of the French flag are constantly in play here, as in many (all?) of the Godard color films of the 60s - but there's a striking and recurrent use of yellow that I don't know what to think about.

[domino harvey]

Isn't there a lot of yellow because these are the existent color of the public works/services Godard utilizes (the garbage truck, the phone booth)? Perhaps I'm not remembering some more striking examples apart from these structures/devices

++++

Dom Juan ou le Festin de pierre (Marcel Bluwal 1965)
Michel Piccoli is the titular Moliere protagonist who lives out his last days in unrepentant debauchery as his valet Claude Brasseur fruitlessly tries to get his boss to repent. This is one of the warned-against TV movies from Bluwal and while it lacks almost completely the visual style of the earlier Bluwals I previously watched, I was again taken at how efficiently Bluwal is able to relay speed on-screen. Very little visual dynamism occurs in the film, as sterile real-life backdrops take the place of stages and sets (reminiscent of Oklahoma!), but the main draw is the rapid-fire wordplay and the able performances from Piccoli and Brasseur. This is quite enjoyable for all its obvious limitations and while it lacks the prowess of Bluwal’s earlier work, it is still much better than the label "TV movie" would suggest. (No commercial English-subbed release, available with English subs via back channels)

L’arme à gauche (Claude Sautet 1965)
Lino Ventura’s boat captain finds himself in the middle of a bizarre noir plot involving a stranded boat, a sandbar, and lots of weapons bound for South American revolutionaries. I liked Sautet’s Classe tous risques (1960) not at all, so while not much of a movie, this is still a marginal improvement over that one for at least having a compelling premise. The film has minor points awarded for its strange “crisis,” but the film never exploits the situation for either thrills or novelty like it should. One could see this being a great 75 minute programmer from Fox in the forties with twice as much contrivance (in for a penny, in for a drowned), but here it falls flat— especially when it takes like half the movie to even get to the only point of interest. The most interesting thing to come out of watching this was reading Leo Gordon’s Wikipedia entry afterwards. Nothing in this or Classe makes me want to ever see another Sautet movie, but I understand some of his later films are allegedly of interest, so I guess I won’t close that door yet. (No commercial English-subbed release, available with English subs via back channels)

[alacal2]

Rayon Vert I'd ask you to reconsider not posting a list as I don't really understand your reasoning. Firstly, Domino makes it clear that whilst Forum members are encouraged to explore new titles they are welcome to stick to the Young Turks etc. I take that as a positive gesture to be as inclusive as possible in line with the Deetz Nutz thread. Secondly, I felt pretty intimidated not only by the list of possible directors but also Domino's (and others) takes on the films under discussion. And the fact that a lot of these films have been exhaustively analysed, critiqued etc.

However, I decided to jump in for a number of reasons. I'm probably one of the world's biggest living examples of suckers who fell for the video industry's mantra "OWN it on DVD etc". I own too many DVDs that I don't watch but simply possess. This List gives me the opportunity to own them in a far more meaningful way.

I can guarantee that I've seen far fewer of these films than you ever have. So it will be a chance to reduce my kevyip, re-engage with some 'classics' and perhaps be amazed by stuff I should have watched years ago.(I still don't understand all this reference to "backchannels")

Finally, I've always been self-conscious about discussing films and cinema. So this is a bit of therapy (not that I'm suggesting this applies to you). I'm a 69 year old living in a God-knows-where part of the French countryside with two rescue dogs. What the fuck is there to be intimidated about?!

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

I felt pretty intimidated not only by the list of possible directors but also Domino's (and others) takes on the films under discussion. And the fact that a lot of these films have been exhaustively analysed, critiqued etc.

Al, I think the level of intimidation felt is principally predicated on the sheer enormity of the prescribed reference list based on the 1958 document which Dom readily admits has all the validity of the Zinoviev letter or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As Tenia noted some of the directors listed were actively opposed to the Nouvelle Vague and yet perhaps confusingly someone like Autant-Lara (not listed) one of the most apoplectic nay-sayers ends up in a series of portfolio films sharing the bill with Godard and Chabrol. Admittedly Dom in his intro says that we are free to poo-poo, discard or investigate the list but I would have preferred if the scope of this project would have been a vote for not only the recognised canon but importantly directors who people consider were actively influenced by the stance and objectives of the NV. This of course could lead to a similar agonising about what constitutes the NV as per the Film Noir project.
I suspect this is what Dom wanted to avoid by laying down the rules and so this post, Ouroboros like, ends up devouring itself.
But WTF I had a couple of minutes spare to sound off.
BTW Al at the age of 69 just be grateful that exploring back-channels are not solely the province of proctologists.

[alacal2]

If you keep using long words you're not going to help my levels of self esteem! On the upside, you'll well and truly piss off Jacob Rees-Mogg should he ever join the Forum!

[domino harvey]

The Cinema '58 listing only contains forty directors, some of which would be widely considered New Wave. The brunt of the volume of names comes from Cahiers' listing, many of which do have more compelling evidence to support their inclusion-- so, sorry, the expansion of the canon is inherently going to bring in more possibilities. I haven't vetted many of these directors personally, and as a result I decided to rely on what I consider to be a reasonable and logical standard in the interim. I'm not telling people what to discuss, but at this point I don't believe anyone has weighed in to say they're voting for Oury or whoever anyways, so much of the continued debate seems like a rhetorical exercise. Define the movement as you wish, just make sure the director of any film you vote for is listed in the first post. Please submit a list so long as you can cobble together a minimum of ten films selected with some personal sense of the movement or key directors/figures (as you see them), and please participate in discussion regardless of whether you intend to vote or not

[Rayon Vert]

Rayon Vert I'd ask you to reconsider not posting a list as I don't really understand your reasoning. Firstly, Domino makes it clear that whilst Forum members are encouraged to explore new titles they are welcome to stick to the Young Turks etc. I take that as a positive gesture to be as inclusive as possible in line with the Deetz Nutz thread. Secondly, I felt pretty intimidated not only by the list of possible directors but also Domino's (and others) takes on the films under discussion. And the fact that a lot of these films have been exhaustively analysed, critiqued etc.

However, I decided to jump in for a number of reasons. I'm probably one of the world's biggest living examples of suckers who fell for the video industry's mantra "OWN it on DVD etc". I own too many DVDs that I don't watch but simply possess. This List gives me the opportunity to own them in a far more meaningful way.

I can guarantee that I've seen far fewer of these films than you ever have. So it will be a chance to reduce my kevyip, re-engage with some 'classics' and perhaps be amazed by stuff I should have watched years ago.(I still don't understand all this reference to "backchannels")

Finally, I've always been self-conscious about discussing films and cinema. So this is a bit of therapy (not that I'm suggesting this applies to you). I'm a 69 year old living in a God-knows-where part of the French countryside with two rescue dogs. What the fuck is there to be intimidated about?!

OK, I'll reconsider. But let me point out I haven't seen Chabrol and any of the Left Bank directors (except Resnais' Hiroshima and Night and Fog), or Malle (saw a few films decades ago), Franju, Rouch, etc. And I've seen almost all of the Melvilles but wouldn't include his films because I disagree that he belongs to the movement. I also wouldn't want to just pick a few unseen titles here and there from the major directors, because I really want to go through their oeuvre systematically and with informative context, and need the time to do so. (I was about to start Varda a while back but now have put that off.)

I can always gather a list from the 4 Turks I've seen but I feel it would give undue weight to them. What about me putting together a list and sharing it publicly but it not being included in the final tally? I'd be very OK with that. (Or maybe just my top 5 or 3 can be counted, whatever.) And since I'm devoting this year to rewatches anyway, I'll do the Young Turk ones I haven't already and do the write-ups here.

p.s. I've always understood backchannels to refer to some Swedish buccaneers. (I could be wrong.)

[alacal2]

Ah. Good. Slightly more understandable now! Sharing is probably the most important.

[domino harvey]

Back channels are dedicated invite-only resource sites where circulating copies of rare films (taken from TV screenings, VHSes, &c) are available and subtitle tracks are frequently created by members for releases otherwise lacking English subs. The one many of us on the forum use (though it isn't affiliated with the board) closed down invites some time ago, so unfortunately you're kind of stuck outside for now if you aren't already a member

[Michael Kerpan]

Dom Juan ou le Festin de pierre (Marcel Bluwal 1965) is available to Boston Public Library cardholders through an online streaming resource called Theater on Video (alas, no subs). Maybe other libraries might have this same service available.

[domino harvey]

The dialog is so fast in the film that unless you are super-fluent or know the play by heart, I wouldn't recommend it without subs-- even the English subs are often on screen for less than a second because the dialog moves so quickly, so I'd say speed reading is also a requirement!

[tenia]

Leon Morin seems like the closest he ever came to the New Wave sensibility, and it's also my favorite film of his, so that one's somewhat tempting...

Le silence de la mer and its shooting on location might be even closer.

[swo17]

Except that it came out 10 years too early.

[knives]

Une Vie
Even after seeing this I still have no clue what Godard was yammering about, but also I don't care as this is exactly the sort of soapy exercise in substance I needed to recover from my losing bout with JDV. It's no shock later on Astruc would direct an adaptation of The Pit and the Pendulum as this film has a feel and look remarkably similar to Corman's Poe adaptations. The story is told in a trashy manner, the setting is antiquated in its concerns (though I'm noticing that is more common for the new wave with radical modernity really only popping up in a handful of films before '63), and the acting is stiff. Yet Astruc basically with help only from cinematographer Renoir makes this so alive and weird thanks to a perfect sense of mis-en-scene. Whereas JDV gave the sense he never saw a film before even with the creakings of a low budget this films gives the sense that Astruc didn't need to see any films beforehand with an amazing rediscovery of film technique from its earliest days. The movie is almost like a Maurice Tourneur in colour and with benshi. Maybe that doesn't make for the greatest of films, but man does it make for a top experience.

Brigitte and Brigitte
I knew I had a new love right at Chabrol's utterly bizarre cameo. This is like a Daisies for the French set and probably the most mature (?) take on politics and youth I've seen from the New Wave (for example I actually now know the names of some politicians of the time though that took a lot of research to get the brunt of that gag). Mostly though it is just really hilarious. I can't remember the last time I was so in awe of jokes purely for the humour they espouse. It's also nice that about half the jokes are self deprecating like with that absurd to the point of dumb brilliance Edward Ludwig joke. I could literally just list gags such as the soundtrack pretending the students are white collar workers and that should be review enough, but I'll resist the urge and merely say this is an essential picture. It's also so nakedly transparent a film in a way even Godard never did using its lack of budget to enhance the bizarre tone of the piece and add some comedy. I don't, for example, think the racist speech would work as well at a real restaurant.

[domino harvey]

Even after seeing this I still have no clue what Godard was yammering about

I love that this is the review that gets anthologized in the New Wave reader given the complete unavailability of it on home video in any region-- and yet you don't really need to see the film to understand Godard's perspective because (as is often the case) he saw a different film than most of us (and having seen it, I agree: good film regardless)

And glad Brigitte et Brigitte has snagged another fan. An interesting note: the film is so short in part due to it originally screening with a short Moullet doc (filmed years prior) on the two villages the Brigittes hail from, but as far as I know that film is no longer circulating