Entries tagged with “Michel Hazanavicius”.

The French invented cinema and the Americans turned it into a big industry. If Hollywood loves making films about Hollywood, why should not make the French also films about the French cinema? Especially if we are talking about a director () who already made a very successful film about Hollywood (“The Artist“). Here is his daring approach to a genre which is surprisingly new for the French cinema – movies about movies. “Le Redoubtable” is a daring endeavor because the subject is one year in the life of one of the most controversial film directors in the history – ., a complex artist and personality who is also still with us, making films and even commenting on films made about him.


source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5687334

source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5687334


The year is also not any other year, but 1968, one of the milestones in the history of the 20th century, a crossroad also in the history of France. The revolts of the students that peaked in May of that year had several sources of inspiration – anarchist and Maoist ideloogies among them, but also works of philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre and, yes, movies, among which ‘s “La Chinoise“. The French director had gained fame in the decade before with some of the best known films of the French ‘Nouvelle Vague’. Some had ideological content, some other ‘just’ revolutionized (together with films by and a few other) the language of cinema. “La Chinoise” had marked the final of that period and the start of another, a much more politically oriented stage in his creation. It also marked the beginning of the relationship soon to turn into marriage with . (the second for Godard, after he had married and divorced Anna Karina). The implication of Godard in politics and the rocky marriage with Anne are the principal topics of “Le Redoubtable“. The Godard in the film does not come very clean from this historical re-evaluation on screen which is based on the novel-memoirs of his ex-wife. He appears as a ‘gauchist’ intellectual who sides with the revolt and hates police, but his behavior and way of life belong to the class he despises. His ideology seems more anarchist and quite remote from realities.  He fails to understand the totalitarian ways of his idols Mao and Che and is stupefied when “La Chinoise” is rejected by the Chinese embassy as ‘reactionary art’ and he is refused a promotion trip to China. His joining of the May 1968 revolts leads to confusing speeches in the meeting halls at Sorbonne, including an outrageous rant paralleling Jews and Nazis. He is, as many other before him, a victim of a revolution in march that devours its idols. Eventually he makes the right choice understanding that an artist can better serve the revolution by means of art, and for a while he looks better holding a camera on the streets of Paris in 1968, or founding the Djiga Vertov collective of politically active filmmakers. This may lead to another impasse, an artistic one, but that will not be part of the story in this film.


(video source TIFF Trailers)

I liked the film. uses a technique that he already successfully applied in “The Artist” – talking about a past period in the history of the cinema with the cinematographic tools specific to that era. He even added more nuances, as different episodes are filmed in different styles adapted to the content. We see the scenes with Paris on barricades filmed with ‘Nouvelle Vague’ hand-held camera. A trip by car in which a crowded mix of film-makers and actors get a speech from their driver about the simple taste in cinema of the masses, so remote from their experiences, is filmed in a static car, like in an American movie of the 30s or 40s. At the peak of the domestic crisis the unbearable soundtrack covers the voices of the disputing lovers.   created a Godard who oscillates between his (well deserved) ego and surprising moments of lack of confidence, who thinks in an ideological and doctrinaire manner but knows little about the people the ideology is supposed to serve, who models his life and art to politics and has little understanding or patience for his own adulating audiences. The relationship with Anne () is almost permanently one-directional, a crisis in building from the very first moments. Both actors do fine jobs, and they are placed in an environment that brings brilliantly to life the period for those spectators who lived it as well as for those who did not.

Focusing on politics and the stormy marriage between Jean-Luc and Anne, “Le Redoubtable” tells less about the cinema that he made – and 1968 was actually a very prolific year, as were the coming 3 or 4 years, although much of what he did was documentary of collective work within the Djiga Vertov group. The one scene that show him at work is filmed one year later, and hints to the fact that, at least for the coming period that was to last about another decade, Godard made a choice. Between art and revolution, he explicitly chose revolution. The final judgment about this period may have not been pronounced, and this film could be part of a re-opening of the discussions and more important – seeing again his films. Godard is Godard, and he never seems to accept to rest.

The Artist is a good and entertaining film, and it may deserve the handful of Oscar prizes that it received. I missed it in the theaters, then I bought the DVD when I was in Paris, and it’s only now that I got to see it. My conclusion is that it’s good, but slightly over-hyped and something is missing for it to be the great film some people talk about.


source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/


Let me start with what I liked most.  It’s a film about cinema and specifically about Hollywood and it may be or it may be not surprising that it’s been written and directed by a Frenchman and the star is another great French actor. After all it’s the French who are the most respectful to the tradition of the great American cinema, and this is not something new, this lasts for more than half a century. While the American themselves criticize and change all the time the face of Hollywood (and it’s good that they do it), the French seem to be permanently fascinated by the legends of the American cinema and the silent movies is the one picked to be the subject of The Artist, or better said the death of the silent cinema and the fate of its stars. The story of George Valentine (Jean Dujardin), the star of silent cinema in 1927, who refuses to acknowledge the revolution of the ‘talkies’ in 1929 and finds himself rejected and abandoned by almost everybody in 1931 is well and simply written and filmed with elegance by director Michel Hazanavicius. Dujardin gets fine replicas from Berenice Bejo as the growing star of the new era and James Cromwell as the faithful driver of the falling star. The two and the cute dog, who would have deserved an Oscar for canine performance if there was one, never abandon the hero, they actually all love him and cause us to love him despite perceived character problem. Eventually even the shark-producer acted by John Goodman will give to George Valentine a second chance in life.


(video source trailers)


So yes – it’s a well written story, a respectful reverence to a crucial period in the evolution of cinema and its heroes, an interesting format which makes the story different. Why is it ‘good’ and not ‘great’? It is good because the film could not have been possible in a different formula – the silent film that describes the transition of the world of cinema from silent to talking movies. It is not great because the formula is too obvious in a few places (when the film less creates emotions and more tries to show how smart it is) and because the ending contains a ‘deus ex machina’ type of solution that goes in the contrary direction than the whole film. But maybe I am wrong. If more great silent films will follow I definitely will prove to be wrong. I would be happy to be wrong in this case.