by Allan Fish
(France 1976 121m) not on DVD
Aka. Duelle – une quarantaine
The Fairy Godmother
p Stéphane Tchalgadjieff d Jacques Rivette w Eduardo de Gregorio, Marilu Parolini ph William Lubtchansky ed Nicole Lubtchansky m none art Eric Simon
Bulle Ogier (Viva), Juliet Berto (Leni), Jean Babilée (Pierrot), Hermine Karagheuz (Lucie), Nicole Garcia (Jeanne/Elsa), Claire Nadeau (Sylvia Stern),
Imagine if you will that you are in a dream state akin to cine-heaven. Imagine you are being directed around by a guide not dissimilar to the cloaked figure in Sokurov’s Russian Ark and deep within this cinematic Hermitage there is a rather neglected annex marked ‘JR’. Here we enter the world of Jacques Rivette, and it’s not a world we enter in the normal fashion. Next door is the world of Jean Cocteau, accessed by incanting “L’oiseau Chanté avec ses doigts” until you are able to glide through the mirror that forms the seemingly impassable doorway. Your guide hands you some funny looking coloured sweets and, upon sucking on one for a few seconds, the walls part and you enter. It’s a magical world, like an infinite variation of a playhouse, populated by adults. One half expects to see Siouxsie Sioux singing ‘Happy House’ in her inimitable fashion and harlequin costume. Within said annex we come to a door. It’s locked. No-one can go inside. We see Jean-Pierre Léaud outside searching for the Thirteen, Michel Piccoli paints Emmanuelle Béart au naturel in the corner and Sandrine Bonnaire is being prepared behind a screen for her martyrdom.
For a long time now cineastes have believed that Rivette’s Out 1 is his sangrail, the film glimpsed so infrequently and whispered of as a work of art to match any in the twentieth century. His Céline et Julie a few years later would be acclaimed as his magnum opus and still features strongly in best film lists to this day. But can it be true, can it be possible, that it was all just a little game? That it wasn’t either the endless rehearsal of Out 1 or the alternate realities accessed by magical confectionary of Céline that was his film to seek out above all others? Duelle is not listed in virtually any major film book, from film guides to the mighty tomes of the critical elite, it’s disappeared like one of its ethereal protagonists. Maybe Rivette is his own Keyser Soze, and the greatest trick he ever pulled was making you think Duelle didn’t exist. One hesitates to say too much about the plot of Duelle – it can be fatal you know – and I’ll limit myself to saying it’s about the search for the magical Fairy Godmother crystal by two vengeful Gods who want to wreak havoc on the earth all the year round rather than be phantoms a mere 40 days a year. Gods and humans alike seek the stone, and many die, Malory-like, in the attempt.
There are essences of numerous films before and since, and though the majority are from Rivette’s own oeuvre, those who have seen Harry Kumel’s Malpertuis will have the advantage of everyone else. Fans of Antonioni will also find much to appreciate, not least in a final showdown on a grassy park not dissimilar to one immortalised in Blow-Up. The Fairy Godmother stone is both a MacGuffin to end them all and the very meaning of existence itself. Or else it is nothing, for that’s what Duelle is about really; everything and nothing. About the reduction of everything to a state where two plus two is no longer four and all the walls of time and space collapse. The two rival goddesses are Queen Mabs of the mind, trying to extend their existence from one reality to another, and it’s appropriate that they are played – and played is the right word, for all the world’s a magical playground for Rivette – by two of his mainstays, Bulle Ogier and Juliet Berto. Ogier in particular is hard to forget, a Mab in androgynous modern dress, slinking around like a malnourished baroque vampire. It’s impossible to describe for those not in the know, but its effect is symbolised in the new moon, like a cinematic Stonehenge aligned directly to be lit by the rising moon not on a Salstice, but on the first full moon in spring. Even now, writing after seeing it again, one expects to wake up still; there is no Duelle. It doesn’t exist, a dream described like those in the film, aquariums in the night.
To those who made guesses yesterday, I can only say bad luck.
Now, Sam, three points. Yesterday you said you had seen every film in my countdown. ARE YOU QUITE SURE ABOUT THAT?
Secondly you made a statement about betting your entire DVD collection that my choice was something else – and even made Dennis watch it. Start with the Criterions I don’t have, ship the rest over later 🙂
Thirdly, you said how could I prove to you that I wouldn’t change my mind just to make you wrong as you kept accusing me of doing. Simple, the header for the site for the last two months has been that darkened shot of the moon FROM DUELLE. I have advertised openly to everyone the film that would be no 1 (why else keep it up there unchanged for so long a period of time). You just had to have seen it. For those who did guess but didn’t comment on the site, congratulations, you’re a man/woman after my own heart.
BTW – I won’t be doing the same for the 80s poll, that ruse is now blown.
I am lost here.
Allan has always insisted that his countdown is not a favorites list but a supposed list of ‘great’ films. This choice in the absence of any discussion of this film’s cinematic merits or any attempt at comparison is obscure to say the least. Indeed, the review is, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, largely impressionistic and rather exclusive.
Duelle was not released theatrically outside France in the 70s, and only recently become available on DVD in French without subtitles. So its influence on film-making is negligible at best.
Most serious books on films don’t refer to it, and if Rivette is mentioned at all, it is in passing. Rivette is a film-maker’s film-maker and spoken of in hushed tones by cineastes, but does his oeuvre really demand such ovation? Where are the films that speak beyond the arcane and the obscure?
Allan you really have to reign in that hubris. Your coda here smacks of the supercilious. As for the obviousness of the header image, you have been looking at too many ‘Guess the pic’ offerings.
Thanks, Tony, I can always rely on you to make me feel 3 feet tall and want to sacrifice myself on the altar of mediocrity. Your whole piece speaks not of my superciliousness but of your own haughty ignorance of anything that isn’t populist. Don’t blame me for deficits in your education.
The idea of my lists is to pick MY choices, not your’s, Tony, or anyone elses. I write as I see fit off the top of my head and am not writing traditional reviews or attempt to do so. Occasionally they go in such a direction, but not often, my notion is to get over in layman’s terms my passion or otherwise for a film, and they are written in the style of similar books – such as David Thomson’s ‘Have You Seen…’ which you would also disparage as not fitting your criteria for what a review or piece should be.
As for not being mentioned in accepted film books, well a lot of films weren’t until certain critics discovered them and got them back into approbation. One of the reasons they’re not discussed is availability, and unless people speak out and champion them they never will get released. I try and make people want to see the films, that’s what my pieces and book set out to do. The academic post portems for their own sake don’t interest me for a book or a blog, save them for University. I am too miserabilist to have passion about much, but this is one thing I am passionate about, and if I can make a few people aware that there is a lot more out there than blinkered traditiona dictates, then I’ll consider that a job well done before sacrificing myself on that altar.
However, as every comment from you on any selections has been disparaging (until now of the films not the author, I admit), condemning films for lack of morality and suchlike, have you ever considered applying to the old Cardinal Spellman post at the Catholic Legion of Decency where killjoyism was considered a virtue? You’re like the British censor who complained about The Seashell and the Clergyman saying “the film is apparently meaningless, but if there is a meaning it is doubtless objectionable.”
Look, I made a guess and failed. I love Rivette, but am perplexed by the film’s obscurity. I stand by Bogdonovich’s THE LAST PICTURE SHOW as the greatest film of the 1970’s and the one above all others that I could watch eternally.
I never questioned the header, simply because it was thematically appropriate for this site. When you spoke of ‘clues’ I assumed it had to do with the inherent quality/context of the film, and not something ornamental.
I personally am unimpressed with the placement of unseen/obscure films in the top positions, and my own list is informed by long-term adulation. It’s true, I have not seen this film, and while I do love Rivette, I seriously doubt I would find this anywhere near the top of a decade list. I would be curious to hear what Ed Howard thinks of this particular film, as his love for Rivette is singular.
As we know, these lists should be informed by honest appraisals, and not by ‘unlikelihoods’ in the selection process. Taking you at your word, I greatly respect your decision, even though I have my own aesthics/taste/favorites.
For the record, those on this thread who are reading, I had predicted Allan would be choosing A. Zulawski’s Polish film, THE THIRD PART OF THE NIGHT. As of yesterday, after numerous e mail exchanges, Allan seemed to indicate that the Zulawski was the wrong choice, even as I stood by it.
Hey Sam, you prompted me to watch The Last Picture Show again after 35 years, and I now can’t forgive myself for neglecting it for so long. I think as a callow youth of 20, it must have been pearls before swine. What you bring to a film is so important, and ‘looking at life from both sides now’ I more deeply appreciate the greatness of this movie. I now rank it #1 too – not only for the 70s but for all time. So few movies have a soul, and Bogdanovich’s creation is one of them. These are the movies you hold close to your heart and become part of who you are, for they communicate only as the cinema can a sense of validation of your own pain, of the losses, the failures, the mistakes and the hurt we have felt and those we have hurt, the regrets, and the joys, even as time cruelly passes before your very eyes swept away up the deserted street of a dying town. This is the zen of cinema.
Tony, this is beautifully expressed and reasoned, and it’s music to my ears hearing this. It’s a timeless film, that resonates emotionally, and McMurtry’s screenplay reveals universal truths. The filmmaking and the acting are without peer. Thanks so much for making me smile!
An excellent celebration of this film, Tony – interesting, however, that the filmmaker behind such a mournful vision of loss and pain was only 32…and it was only his second film (and, sadly, he doesn’t seem to have done much with this particular set of gifts after the 70s, particularly after the 80s when he had his own very real loss, the murder of an actress who was also his lover). For some reason makes me think – shades of Welles, whom Bogdanovich of course worshipped, of the great Bob Dylan lyric, “Oh, but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now…”
Oh, and until I am convinced otherwise, CELINE ET JULIE VON EN BATEAU is Rivette’s masterpiece. It is neither a warm up for anything else, nor any kind of a conceit. It’s the real thing, one of cinema’s greatest masterpieces, and one of the greatest films of the 70’s as I indicated on my own list, where it landed in the Top 5.
Yes, coming from the fellow who’d never even seen a Rivette until I made him watch Céline, Jeanne la Pucelle and La Belle Noiseuse…LOL
An excellent choice, Allan, one of my own favorites as well — though I’d place its companion piece, Noroit, even higher. These two films are Rivette’s most mystical and magical, and his most haunting. I wrote my own review of this masterpiece some time ago, maybe that will satisfy Tony’s need for more discourse, though I doubt it — he seems determined to just keep making anti-intellectual attacks on films that are perceived to be “difficult” for various reasons. In defense of Allan’s lovely piece (not that it really needs it), Duelle (and Rivette in general) encourages such “impressionistic” responses. His real concern isn’t plot or character, but an examination of mood, and a consideration of his typical themes of femininity/masculinity, the theater and film, performance, creativity, the antagonistic relationships between people, etc. For Rivette, the magic in his films is an expression of his ideas about art and creation.
Thanks, Ed, I knew you’d like it. Sadly, the only copy I saw of Noroit was unsubbed and of poor quality, so that much as though I’d love to have consiudered it, I wouldn’t have been fair to it to have done so.
Just read the last three sentences of Ed’s response here to understand my piece and the film’s power.
But agayou judging without seeing. Actually I know this film is not your cup of tea and that’s why I haven’t mentioned it – EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE HAD IT IN YOUR POSSESSION FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. you are a canonical person who follows the traditions – I nearly put yesterday you like Mirror and Andrei Rublev on the Stalker thread as they’re the traditional choices in US circles, and you proved me right.
But let’s say this, you love Gattaca, right, a film few people loved. Yet you stand by it, and I applaud you for it. Duelle is not an ignored film, it was until recently in the They Shoot Pictures Don’t They list of best films (only dropping out because so few people have seen it), it’s been talked about well by several important critics, and those who’ve seen it and loved it.
Why is availabilityy such a thing for you people. Imagine that Von Stroheim’s Greed didn’;t survive in any format and then the 2¼ hour version we now have turned up – peopel will call it a masterpiece rediscovery. Why will people not see films not so old as just the same, just because they haven’t had chance to see them.
REMEMBER, those of you of a similar right-wing mindset…
This is my
LIST OF THE BEST 100 FILMS OF THE DECADE…
It is not my list of the…
BEST HUNDRED FILMS AS PPROVED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T LOOKED BEYOND THE END OF THEIR NOSES.
Everyone has the right to pick whatever film they like as best film, and they will do so. But if you want conformity, then you don’t want me here, you want another same-old same-old sheep-mentality yes-man who will cow-tow to the majority. Myself, I’d rather die!
But this is why I was so excited about this film going up as I expected just this sort of right-wing aggressive response from the traditionalists. Well, VIVE LA REVOLUTION!!!!
I must say, I’m with Allan. I’m confused that people are dissing this choice without even having seen it. It’s a fantastic film, and though I also love Celine and Julie, Duelle certainly shouldn’t be dismissed just because it’s lesser known. Rivette’s career is packed with masterpieces; it’d be a true tragedy if critics and audiences limit themselves only to those few films of his that have become “accepted” as great.
This is true Ed, I can’t contest you here.
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!! That’s rich! Sam and I sat up for almost an hour and a half wrestling with each other trying to figure out what film would take the top slot. I must say, although I thought the film Sam was predicting was in keeping with the type of films that have floated across the pages of this site rather frequently in the past few weeks. Sam, gave me a screening of the Polish film THE THIRD PART OF THE NIGHT and, upon viewing it, I suspected that while it could be your choice it may not be strong enough. Also, you were breaking your own rules. You stated in your review of DONT LOOK NOW that you thought it was the 70’s masterpiece from the UK. Yet, you had CLOCKWORK and LYNDON higher in placement. This made me realise nothing was what it seemed. I figured it was PERFORMANCE. In any case, great essay and nice surprize!
I#ve known all along it would stir up a hornet’s nest, Dennis, that’s why for two months in phone calls to Sam I have had a smile on my face. I knew that though Ed and others who have seen the film may have suspected it as they may have recognised the header – and that moon is not there for show, it plays an important symbolic part in DUELLE – others would see it as so left field as to be almost in right again.
The entire point not necessarily of the list but of my book, Ed. To cover all the masterworks, well known or acutely otherwise, and not just of the modern era – I’ve done pieces on such films as Stephen Roberts’ THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE, Robert Reinert’s NERVEN and Rowland V.Lee’s BARBED WIRE (how many people have seen these, to name but three?). There are others which I have seen again recently and would be tempted to make room for in the 100 if doing again – Brownlow’s WINSTANLEY, Watkins’ EDVARD MUNCH and Godard’s NUMÉRO DEUX for example – but it’s all about how you see it at the time. my head told me to go with Duelle. I knew how it would be responded to, like a poor innocent fellow in front of the Sanhedrin with Caiaphas and co having me up for stoning for uttering the absolute blasphemy.
If you haven’t seen it, ask yourself why? That’s the real question, and it’s a perfect condemnation of contemporary cinema and its pigeonholing oif films and national cinemas and distancing, even marginalising, of truly original talents. Rivette is, along with Bresson, the greatest iconoclast in French cinema, yet we ignore him. That is no comment on him, it’s a comment on the state of accepted American and to an extent British criticism. Academically they’re the best, but they wear bi-focals and blinkers far too often. Take the hoods off, people, throw the yoke off…explore!!!
Allan, it’s funny how you speak so ‘disparagingly’ of the traditionalists as you call them, when you yourself three years ago had GODFATHER 2 as your #1 film of this decade, with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE as the runner-up. Were YOU then a charter member of the traditionalist fraternity, and have you now resigned your membership after a few surprising choices? I am not condemning this film, and neither do I accept your blanket generalization that this is not my cup of tea. What is my cup of tea? I love Rivette, have feverishly promoted CELINE ET JULIE and a number of others, and once got into a rather vicious battle with you after I had the temerity to heap effusive praise on DON’T TOUCH THE AXE, which placed in my top 10 for the year. You told me it was minor Rivette, and seemed almost resentful that I chose it. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it is you who seem to be implying that I am unable to decipher a challenging Rivette film, to the point that you didn’t recommend it to me as you “knew” I wouldn’t like it. I haven’t seen the film, but my track record with this director is excellent. Was it preferable for you to keep me in the dark until the countdown was completed, knowing full well that there wasn’t another film that I had not seen?
When I told you how great EDVARD MUNCH was weeks back you scoffed at me, saying it was minor Watkins. Do I think you are embracing ‘traditionalist’ thinking my your curt dismissal? Hardly. I don’t make generalizations like that.
I am not passing judgement. I am only speculating here. As always, the proof will be in the pudding.
That final stence is the correct one, Sam, thew proof should always be int he pudding…so is it pudding tonight for you?
Yes, it is indeed pudding tonight. I will not wait a single day more.
Attaboy, I saying only last night I knew what you’d be doing tonight. But seriously, I will be surprised if you like it. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised.
Why will you be surprised? What other Rivettes have I disliked to give you such an expectation? At some point in time I will review OUT 1, but I’d say that was the one Rivette that left me underwhelmed. But Movie Man has made me guilty to feel that way. But no feature length Rivette has left me unimpressed. Perhaps I won’t think it should be #1 of the decade, yes, that’s true. But we will see.
I just don’t think you’ll like it. I’d love to be proved wrong, but I just don’t think you will, I’m kind of expecting an Out 1 sort of response.
My full response will be below, after reading all the comments, but as my name came up here – yikes, Sam, don’t feel too guilty. I feel like the inquisitor or something. But, then again, if it helps you see Out 1 in a new light…guilt on! (Though in all honesty, I think guilt/embarrassment/straining-to-see-something is often counterproductive to appreciation, so maybe it’s best to watch again when you’re in the mood, maybe when something about the film which lingers in your mind intrigues you. That could be the hook. Or not. But I’ll very much look forward to your review – actually even more so if it’s negative as that will give me more to respond to/appreciate.)
Edvard Munch was my own choice for top film of the 70s, followed closely by Noroit (and Numero deux, Godard’s most challenging film, was in there too). I think, until recently, Watkins was in a similar position to Rivette in terms of critical status — he was ignored, his films unavailable, and only the admirable efforts of MOC and Project X have brought his films into the public light. And anyone who’s been able to see films like Edvard Munch or Punishment Park since then has been, naturally, blown away. If Rivette is ever able to enjoy a similar rennaissance here, if ignored films like Duelle, Noroit, Pont du nord, etc. ever get high-profile releases, I suspect the response will be similar: oh, I can’t believe what we were missing!
Also, there’s very little “minor Rivette” even in existence, and none of the films mentioned so far in this thread fit that description. I’d reserve that phrase for somewhat disappointing films like Hurlevent or Merry-Go-Round, and even they are fascinating in their own way, and add to an understanding of Rivette as an artist.
Indeed Ed, I do agree with all you say here in this comment.
Agreed, Ed, it’s down to all of us to promote forgotten films, if the establishment won’t do it, it’s down to anyone who can.
This is pretty much the sort of thing I was hoping for with #1; unseen, perhaps even somewhat unfamiliar, but somehow recognizable. Rivette is one of my favorite directors – I’ve only seen 3 of his films, but that adds up to nearly 20 hours of work, more than that of many filmmakers well into their careers. I will ask my benefactor to provide Duelle in the next package…
I actually DID wonder if a Rivette would be in #1 (I know, 20/20 hindsight but it’s true I swear!) though this particular film did not come to mind – indeed, no particular title did, as I don’t know much about Rivette’s work in the late 70s to late 80s. I didn’t think Allan would do it because, though Celine & Julie and Out 1 were featured on the list, Rivette’s earlier classics, Paris Belongs to Us (which I have seen) and L’Amour fou (which I hadn’t) were not in his 60s top 50, so I did not really think Rivette was one of his favorites. Guess I was wrong!
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Tony’s comment was as offensive as some are making it out to be – yes, it displays traits which he’s held proudly all along, but I think it’s phrased reasonably enough. There IS a bit of (perhaps unintentional) braggadacio in Allan’s delivery which can compromise the genuine desire to introduce people to exciting unseen work – but I have to and enjoy taking Allan’s – and Tony’s – tone as it comes.
Also, a slight caveat: I cringe a bit at the hurling about of “right-wing”/left-wing as terms for aesthetic appreciation. “Reactionary” or “conservative” might serve the same purpose, though even those words are politically loaded. Such terms are appropriate after a fashion, but when brandished as an insult, they tend to cause more trouble than they’re worth. Anyway, I know Tony will take offense at being smeared with that brush as, in the non-movie world, he is an avowed leftie. (Your intention may be to awaken him to a perceived contradiction therein, but I think it may do more infuriating than illuminating. We’ll see.)
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. Great(-looking) pick for #1 and I can’t wait to see it. I will also follow the 80s list, of course, but as that’s just not one of my favorite cinematic decades – nor is it one in which I’ve seen a great many of the more offbeat, or even not very offbeat, critically-acclaimed classics – I’m mostly looking forward to the 90s one after that.
Thanks for the good times, all.
Agreed, MovieMan, not offended by Tony’s remarks, in some ways was smiling at them, I just gave it both barrels back for a change, slightly tongue in cheek but firm. There are contradictions in all of us, I know Tony is a liberal, it’s just that with the movies he sometimes comes down in favour of the sort of hardline morality approach seen in the Königsplatz in 1933 or the Daily Mail to this day.
I also agree the 1980s was by far the weakest decade in film. But my countdown will be up there for what it’s worth starting a week on Monday. For now I am taking a break. Sam will keep the site going with pieces until I return from my welcome sabbatical.
This is another one I will need to secure a copy of. I’ll amit I’m intrigued, but that Number 1 placement is a bit of a shock.
For some reason, this choice in the top spot seems to evoke the series finale of Seinfeld for me.
Well, ultimately I have to agree with Allan. The point is that whether the films have been seen by the readers here or not is not the issue. That Allan has chosen a film that he considers art and is bringing it to the attention of others IS the point. Frankly, and I’ve said this numerous times, Allan’s countdown is great in the sense that he turns those who are not up on what’s out on to things they may have never heard of or might not give a look at unless recommended. I had no problem with his choices. But, then again, I know myself and I know that as new films are introduced and seen that my opinion sometimes changes and films I’ve loved or admired get usurped by something I came to later in life. These lists are always up to reconsideration. 10 years ago I wouldn’t have thought anything would move THE GODFATHER II from my top slot. Now, there are at least 15 films I think are better. I understand this. Good count-down Allan!
i want to see this, as this discussion is fantastic, and i do love the handful of rivettes i’ve seen. you say it’s better then CELINE ET JULIE i really want to see it then…
however if it’s not on dvd, or without subtitles how’s a brotha to see this? and if i can find it, how can I understand what’s being said? is there an english version anywhere? thanks in advance.
Allan, even if you are being obtuse just to be obtuse, i find nothing wrong with that. ease up people– if you’ve never seen it, see it. this wasn’t my number one, but that’s not a diss on me personally.
Jamie: I have this title with English subs. You will be receiving a copy this week.
Jamie, imagine that the DVDs available in the US are the films regarded as THINKING IN THE BOX. To think outside the box, what’s the first step? Multi Region DVD player to get stuff from abroad. Then, if not available anywhere, what next. TV broadcasts. The films may have been shown elsewhere and recorded by diligent film buffs. These are then often uploaded onto torrent sites or sold collector to collector on sites such as http://WWW.NOTAVAILABLEONDVD.COM . These are the sort of places you need to go to to find these things.
The attitude of too many people is to wait for the goods to come to them…sometimes Mohammad must go to the mountain.
If you really are serious about film, it’s basically standard practice. Anything else is simply neglectful.
I have hundreds of films in various languages and ages not available anywhere on DVD. Yet I have them.
You would love Duelle if you love other Rivettes, and you’re too intelligent a guy, who I deeply respect, and you’re doing yourself a disservice. That’s coming from a maniac like me.
so basically there are copies to be had… with subtitles. that’s all i wanted. believe me i’m not the type that waits for region 1’s only (i have a multi-region player and THREE vhs players just in case). but i understand your point.
i see above sam is looking out for me. thanks, guys.
happy scouring.
Jamies, as Kirk Douglas said of Paul Valentine in Out of the Past, SAM COULDN’T FIND A PRAYER IN THE BIBLE. He doesn’t find any of these things, that’s my job.
Allan, what can i say you quoted my (perhaps) favorite American actor.
you’ve knowledge is an irreplaceable tool (hopefully) at my disposal. thanks again.
last night i had a vision that your top pick was going to be ‘in a year with 13 moons’, as I don’t recall seeing that on your 2-100. and after yesterday what are your thoughts (and this is to everyone) of ‘performance’ and ‘radio on’?
Allan, a week is not much of a break! Still, looking forward to the fresh start. Also, speaking up for Jamie – and obviously myself – I have to say that some of us lowly bloggers are not doing so well right now (along many other lowly folks in this economy) and a multi-region player purchase not to mention multi-region DVDs are unfortunately out of the question at the moment. Not trying to play the poorhouse violin here – I’m sure things will rebound (in fact the next month is guaranteed for me personally to better than the last two, which were woeful but enough of the recession/post-post-college blues) but there are times when even Netflix and theatrical new releases – not to mention foreign purchases – simply aren’t feasible. We all love your suggestions, but sometimes you get a bit too pushy about them… Yes, we’d love to climb the mountain but sometimes one simply can’t afford the gear (not to mention find the time, given all the other hills around need climbing…)
Thankfully Moses (Sam) is available to bring the tablets down from Sinai, to mix religious metaphors. And this certainly will be one of the tablets I request in the near future…
Anyway, I’ll be back later with stats just for the hell of it – I like to see which countries get the edge each time. Can’t do it now, but if anyone else wants to count ’em and post ’em in the next hour or two, do oblige. I’d be just as happy (or happier) to read the results as to count them myself.
As for myself, this time I’ve only seen 23 of the titles (including one – Deep End – which I only watched after Allan’s listing). Definitely a drop-off from the 31 (now up to 32 after watching Eros + Massacre) I’d seen from Allan’s 60s list…but then my film-viewing of classics drops off notably post-1970, particularly with non-U.S. films.
I eagerly await the catching up…is the thunder I hear up on Sinai?
i would agree with this economy… i’m young and inbetween jobs. doing freelance to stay afloat.
add in the fact that my literature expense (not to mention painting books) and musical collection i treasure just as much as scouring for films. that’s a lot to stay on top off. but i do try my hardest.
speaking of literature, i just procured a harry crews ‘the gypsy’s curse’ first edition. he’s largely no longer in print, beat that hotshots!
by the way movieman i found my current multi-region on overstock (brand new) for about 36 bucks.
No, that’s Sam getting peeved because, despite my strict instructions, he has mixed up all the parcels I sent him and lost Duelle. World on Wires I have had to send him three times, after he lost the first and a friend took the second and didn’t return it.
Twice I have completely ordered his collection of DVDs and DVDRs in person. I told him categorically not to screw around with it as I wouldn’t do it again, even if I was going to the States again which I won’t be for a long time now. Sadly, as I told him, I have no sympathy.
Aye, Movie Man. Sinai will deliver, I assure you!
A most intriguing choice, Allan. I’m on a Rivette kick and this is one of several of his I have yet to see.
Noiroit and of course Celine and Julie Go Boating are among my favorites of the 1970s, so not having seen this only excites me, as with any film Allan reviews which I have yet to experience. I wish I could break into his home, actually. 🙂
You can’t break in, but if you’re ever across the pond…
The sage speaks! Finally, we have Allan engaging with his readers. Of course he had to be provoked… I was looking forward to Allan’s response. He didn’t disappoint. One quibble though. I am no fascist. His dictates on how a true cineaste should order his life are more in Genghis Khan territory than anything I have ever said. He also made a swathe of other accusations that are also without foundation, but I will let them pass.
My argument restated is that a reviewer who purports to support his placement of a film as #1 must argue his case. This Allan has not done. Yes, his piece is ‘lovely’ and revelatory, but it is no manner an argued piece. Allan is happy to trot out private musings penned for another purpose ‘as is’ without a thought for context.
Allan, doesn’t read his own blog. Let me paraphrase what I said on the Monday Morning Diary July 13 thread:
“I have… been flipping though David Thomson’s Have You Seen…?, which I reviewed on Another Cinema Blog and found wanting, though I did find his piece on Taxi Driver interesting and well- written. Thomson allocates a page for each movie giving him 600-800 words to play with. There are no images. The films are presented alphabetically and cover a wide range, with a strong bias for Hollywood product. The dustcover describes the contents as “including masterpieces, oddities, guilty pleasures, and classics (with just a few disasters)”. The marketing hype tells me the book is “a sweeping collection [presenting] films that Thomson offers in response to the question… ‘What should I see?’ “. Sadly, for me the reviews are too self-consciously quirky and overly striving for knowing irony to be of any real assistance in their stated aim. I suppose you can put it down to dry English wit for it own sake. The short essays are full of arcane references for those cineastes who live for such trivia, and there is nothing wrong with that! But when you only have a page at your disposal, such indulgence costs. And the cost is high. After reading a review, if you have not seen the film, there is at bottom very little to inform your decision of whether to pursue it. If you have seen the movie, more often than not, you are left perplexed by the flippant tone and neglect of important elements. As his bias is obvious I suppose it is to a degree acceptable. Though to my mind, this makes his survey rather limiting. For example, he writes-off the Marx Bros as mere vaudeville, refers to film noir as a “style looking for content”, and barely tolerates Billy Wilder.”
Tony, where as I can appreciate this response, there is also a part of me that wants to see ANY film I haven’t seen. No one (including Allan) needs to flowery (or scholastically) prod me to see a Rivette. Or anything, of this sort. I want this stuff not because what anyone says (Insert ‘the Lively Arts’ by the Damned off the Black Album here; not to mention my favorite guitar solo EVER).
this may not be the gist of your complaint and if I am mistaken I apologize, I’ll let you and Allan continue this.
Jamie, I see where you are coming from, and I have no issue on that score. My concern is that the context of a review is important. Allan is rating one film above all others for a period.
My argument restated is that a reviewer who purports to support his placement of a film as #1 must argue his case.
Allan shouldn’t have to defend the film as if it was on trial. His piece does what a brief capsule review should: communicates the “feel” of the film, a bit of what it’s like and what it’s trying to do. It does a good job of conveying what the experience of watching the film is like: transitioning between dreams and reality, marveling at the magic. The assumption here seems to be that anyone who picks a somewhat obscure film should have to to be prepared to fight off attacks — nobody would be saying this if he had put The Godfather atop the heap. Are Allan’s pieces exhaustive essays about these films, discussing every attribute? No, of course not. There are places for that, and there are places for stuff like Allan’s breezier style. A list is a subjective thing anyway: Duelle is #1 here because that’s the film Allan likes best at this particular moment.
On the other hand, maybe I’m only saying that because I’m familiar with Rivette. The review seems to assume that the readers have at least slight familiarity with him, probably a safe assumption here — are there any frequent visitors here who haven’t at least seen one Rivette film? Maybe you, Tony? I guess the review would be especially baffling to anyone who doesn’t know much about the director in general. But then, there’s probably no real way to write about Rivette for someone who’s never seen one of his films; more even than most art, they need to be experienced for oneself.
excellent review Tony, very well articulated. I browsed through the book in Waterstones and was suprised to find so many films from Wilder and Wyler, directors that he despised. And then for a kicker, I read at the bottom of a begrugding piece on a Wyler film, something that went along the lines of ‘well, he lost his soul after Ben Hur, but we can at least give him ‘Dodsworth’, ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’, ‘The Little Foxes’, ‘Wuthering Heights’, ‘The Heiress’, ect, ect.”
What in tarnation does this guy smoke to make him the gate-keeper.
I’ll just agree to wholeheartedly disagree with the pair of you – Thomson is idiosyncratic, that’s part of what makes him such a great read. A book’s format and content mustn’t be judged by the standards of grouchy pre-determined contrarians who read the book but not by the standards and strengths of the author in question.
As I said earlier, the sort of book Tony and Bobby want they will never see, as they’d have to write it themselves, which they seem to show no willingness to do. The best way to refute and to back up your contrariness is to say “I disagree with that, THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE” and then go out and do it.
Just to clarify the two points…
The quote was from his piece on The Heiress – “Grant Wyler this, Carrie, The Little Foxes, The Letter and The Best Years of Our Lives”
And, on the comment about the gatekeeper, with tongue firmly in cheek, I could just as easily say congratulations on insulting that kettle for being darker than charcoal.
Ed, Allan’s review is fine on it’s own terms, but as I have been saying ad nauseam, rating one film above all others for a period requires a different approach.
If I am baffled it is by the position that my view is somehow misguided.
For the record and even though hardly relevant, I have seen a couple of Rivettes, and as Allan correctly surmises, they didn’t appeal to me. So what?
Btw, who are you to judge the eligibility for commenting at WitD? In any event, your argument is fallacious. Allan’s stated aim is to “remove the blinkers” and on your own admission one needs to remove the blinkers BEFORE reading his review to comprehend it. Catch 22? I rest my case.
To be fair, I think Tony’s point is not that Allan doesn’t have a right to call this his favorite film of the 60s, but that if he’s going to say it’s the best – connotations of objectivity there – he should provide some backup. Personally, I agree that Allan’s capsules are meant to intrigue rather than explain but I understand Tony’s frustration even if I don’t share it. Perhaps there should be some post-film-viewing discussion – Tony has initiated such in the past, and I thought it was a good idea (like his airing of frustrations with Contempt, some of which I share even while – I think – admiring and enjoying the film more than he does). But I personally don’t think it’s necessary for Allan to address such concerns in the pieces themselves.
Also, I don’t think film discussions should be as permanently rigorous as Tony, but rigor does have its place. Perhaps Wonders should introduce a feature (I know, like it doesn’t have enough already!) in which Tony, or anyone really, initiates a formal analysis of a film – either why it works or why, more provocatively, challenging orthodox and/or Wonders views on particular films). I don’t expect subjectivity to always be avoided (nor do I intend to get too involved with my own idea here, as I’ve already got enough distractions) but it could be interesting & informative if initiated in good faith.
Or maybe it’s a bad idea, which would lead to chaos and acrimony and fatigue (kind of like that great Lord of the Rings thread did at times; it admittedly burned me out by the end). But, hey, it’s an idea.
That is an interesting idea Movie Man. I will discuss it with the others here.
I think things like this MovieMan should start slow, such as a ‘scene analysis’. if we want to discuss objective things like film grammar, writing, blocking, direction, ect it seems we should start with small bites that we can digest easier. then after that concepts like art, expression and the such could be tackled.
as such, i’m all in. maybe that could be a weekly feature (or bi-weekly) like sam’s new journal monday series?
just a thought, but between the film fans, writers, readers, and art aficionado’s on this site, it could be fun. actually, maybe I should save this idea for my coming potential blog….
So, not that anyone asked, but here are the stats:
First directors: nine placed more than one film on the list. To wit: Rivette and Coppola tied with 3; then Altman, Bergman, Kubrick, Oshima, Peckinpah, Syberberg, and Tarkovsky with 2.
Top three countries: USA with 12, France with 9 (including 1 co-production), the UK with 7. After that, former Axis powers Germany (West) and Japan with 4. Then there’s Sweden, the USSR, and Italy tied for 3, Spain with 2 (including 1 co-production – the Bunuel film which is the only such co-production on the list), and Czechoslovakia, Greece, and Romania had 1 each.
By region, that’s 34 for Europe – 28 for Western (including Greece & the UK) and 6 for Eastern (including the USSR), 12 for North America, and 4 for Asia.
On the one hand, America had a few more titles on the 70s list than on the 60s list, and had a clear majority this time (whereas in the 60s it tied with France for first place). On the other, no films of its the New Hollywood era cracked the top 10, which was mostly reserved for European offerings – despite the decline of many European movements and auteurs (French New Wave, Czech New Wave, UK kitchen sink realism, whatever you want to call the post-neorealist cinema of Pasolini, Bertolucci, Fellini et al) – the major exception of course being the .
Taken as a block, Europe (particularly Western Europe) definitely dominated this list; there were 13 countries featured on the list this time, as opposed to 16 in the 60s, and gone were the Third World nations which registered in the 60s: Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, India, Iran, Algeria. Meanwhile Japan slipped from 7 to 4. Europe, and to a lesser extent the U.S., filled this vacuum – which can perhaps be explained (aside from matters of personal taste) by noting the decline of revolutionary fervor – both aesthetic and political – worldwide and the settling-in of many national film industries.
My guess is that this trend will continue at least through the 80s but that the 90s will possibly see a resurgence of world cinema on Allan’s lists. I think Europe will continue to show strongly, Asia will bounce back – probably big time though I’m not really sure of Allan’s taste in Eastern cinema beyond Japan, and the U.S. will steadily hold a majority or near-majority on the lists but its titles will not regain the foothold that had in the 40s or 50s. I think it’s quite possible that the 30s may end up the only decade to have an American film on top.
We’ll see; looking forward to finding out…
Great work there Movie Man! I was actually tempted to do it myself, as you had me going before. As I recall Allan’s top film of the 30’s was BRINGING UP BABY, but alas I agree with you that he won’t again have an American film top another decade list. It is rather amazing that the USA still led this decade with 12. Looking ahead to the 80’s, I couldn’t fathom what Allan will choose. Three years ago he compiled an e mail network list and had Leone’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA as his top choice, but I’m not so sure he’ll stay with that. I agree that we will definitely see a resurgence of world cinema on his 90’s list, as on a number of other lists. Asia will be big in the 2000’s methinks.
All this being said…
I’m tres excited for the 80’s, when does it start– a week or two?
Jamie: The 80’s poll starts a week from Monday, so you can certianly begin compiling your list. I have already started with my own. As always the Time-Line is a great help, even if every pick won’t come from that. And of course keep us abreast on your upcoming blog.
being the…West Germans of course. I get too excited on this blog and have a habit of not finishing my sentences as I go onto . Sometimes I return to them, sometimes I don’t.
And in case you’re wondering, the ellipsis above was an intentional joke, for once…
I caught that Movie Man! Ha!
Of course, we still have FOUR decades to go, which will take us well into next spring. We have the upcoming 80’s, the 90’s, the 2000’s, and back to the 20’s. Movie Man will no doubt be in his element with the last one, as I fell I am as well. Jamie, are you big on silent cinema?
I’ve seen the biggies, but overall not really. Silent pictures I like to look at are paintings!
I will add that there are some omissions (or blindspots) in my cinephilia, but for the most part they are all intentional.
Jamie, you’ll probably focus on silent cinema when that poll rolls around, if you aren’t prohibitively busy with your own blog, which would be understandable.
Sam, maybe, maybe not…but I have been moving slowly through a huge list of cinema classics chronologically; I’m in about 1928 now (or was, till I suspended my Netflix queue) and hence have probably seen a higher proportion of the cream of the crop in that era than any other, except (maybe) the 60s.
But then again, there’s a LOT of silent cinema that’s unavailable on R1 DVD so I suspect Allan may surprise me there again as well!
Actually, I don’t know any pre-Passion Dreyer, though The Parson’s Wife is currently on my DVR (and several are available on Netflix). Griffith I have looked into, but only as far as Netflix goes, on which many of his features are unavailable. So I’ve
Also, remember – I did not pen that review of Passion, as I stated right at the opening, it’s comes from a making-of-special, onscreen text on the Criterion disc. But it is a great read…and if you want to credit me for something, I THINK I’m the first person to transcribe it and post it online…
Not quite EVERYTHING, Sam, old boy, there’s quite a few silent classics I have originals of you don’t.
I’ve recently established some sort of “to-see” list for the silent era, due in part to my own project this summer and my own desire to become educated in the silent films. It includes numerous classics but also more obscure offerings (obscure to me, anyway; I can’t speak for anyone else). My hope is I’ll have something to say when the countdown loops back to the silents, but nevertheless I’m excited for the WitD discussion on that era of film.
I have to say, this may have been one of the most interesting and intelligent threads I have seen on this site. It’s memorable as a perfect discussion on legitimacy, opinion, taste and art. I was thrilled to see so many chime in about how they are looking forward to discovering new adventures in world cinema. This thread also has the singular attraction of being one of the few times the star writer has emmerged for some insightful back-and-forth. We should all give Allan and Sam a round of applause. Tony too, for his inspiring help on the site. P.S. Allan, forget that ordering system you created the last time here in the states, most of it’s strewn over the air hockey table and the pinball machines. And, whatever you do, don’t even ask about the snow shovels in the bath-tub! LOL!
OK, let me defend myself, or rather explain the situation. These pieces, people must remember, are not written for this site. They are written for a book which intends to educate, to invoke a passion. If you read the introduction to the book – which one day a few of you will as, after the final decade countdown and my withdrawal from regular contributions on WitD, I will send CD copies of the book to some people – I do state that these pieces are not written in the form of an academic, a scholarly analysis. In some cases they can go that way by natural course, but in general they are written in the style applied to a passionate work about the films in question designed to provoke discussion, but more importantly i see it as a kind of Missionary aid, with the mission to get people interested in films they haven’t seen and, for films they have, see what the films provoke in me. Trying to catch something different, you might say.
Yes, Tony, very similar to Thomson's book as his work and his idiosyncracies, are a major influence on me. It may not be what you want, but maybe what you want should be done by you. I will save serious analysis for University, as that will largely turn off people, not encourage them.
These countdowns merely use my pre-written pieces and except for the odd little instance, they are not modified as I haven't got the time, simple as that. My top 50s are my choice of best film. If the essays of the top choices don't fit your criteria, well I'm sorry but I really don't care, the response from most others on the thread is positive and makes them want to seek the film out, which is MY aim.
Anyway, to explain my case further, I have added my entire introduction as a post on the site to provoke discussion over the weekend. Hopefully it will state my case pretty well.
What no caps? Oh the arrows and slings of outrageous fortune, to be italicized and bolded, yet for who would bear to be capitalized!
Touché, old sport. Let’s just say I was drawing you out as you did me. 🙂
GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!
For Dee Dee, Movie Man, Jamie, Bobby J., and anyone else here who is interested…….I do have DUELLE here and am making copies. So all of you will have it within a week!
Sam, don’t send it to me yet; I will send you an e-mail of a few movies on my must-see list; I believe it’s cheaper for you to send several at once rather than just one (right?). Hold off till I get that e-mail to you…
Yes, with his usual care he tossed it on the floor behind the PC amongst the tossed away pens, socks, dog biscuits and a couple of fallen Doritos.
I will wait at your request Movie Man, but sending a single DVDR copy is less than a dollar, maybe 60 cents, so it’s pennies really.
Would you mind sending me a copy Sam!? I would be so happy.
Anthony, no problem. Send your mailing address to: TheFountain26@aol.com.
I’m hoping to have two more Rivettes – Noroit and Pont du Nord – mentioned by Ed Howard above in the next week from a friend. Once I get them, I’ll send copies to Sam. Then doubtless he will send copies out like a dutiful slave to everyone who visits the site, his brothers, his brothers’ wives, his brothers’ wives friends’, his brothers’ wives shopping friends, the Mayor of Fairview, an anonymous fan in Addis Ababa and some fellow he met down Target the other day called Tony.
Hello! I would love to see this film, as well as other Rivette movies. I can not find it anywhere on the internet. Trust me I am looking my hardest. Could anyone send me some of his films (specifically Duelle)? I will pay whatever costs. Please email me Saintcloudd@mac.com. Thankyou.
I am a K-Mart kind of guy Allan. K-Mart has more mystery and a better class of clientele. I met a bearded Michael Douglas there while late-nite shopping last Summer. He was digging for Oscars in a big hole in the dish-washer section.
Lest I be taken for a free-loader. I have NEVER asked for a DVD from Sam. When he did send me some un-announced I severely admonished him and sent him an Amazon gift card. He now knows better.
I get all my DVDs from GO-LO. Plenty of room on the shelves for populist fare as they don’t stock any of that cineaste rubbish.
The last time I was in Tesco was the Autumn of 1980, so alas (haha) no chance of knocking into you when you rush the bootleg DVD counter, old son…
Oh no, hardly anyone asks it of Sam, he volunteers to slavedom. Mind you, he has Lucille as his slave, so it’s in the family.
Tony, I hate to tell you this, but that wasn’t Michael Douglas you saw at K-Mart…it was me. An honest mistake however, as that was in fact Catherine Zeta-Jones patiently standing by my side as I dug away. Please don’t tell Michael.
😉
Nice, when do you plan on waking up?
Anyone else seen celebs out shopping, Nick Nolte in the 7/11, Michael Caine in Tescos?
OK, I just finished watching DUELLE for the first time. While I am not willing to dismiss it, and would like to watch it a second time soon enough, I neither find it as great as CELINE ET JULIE VON EN BATEAU nor LA BELLE NOISEUSE, nor remotely close to a #1 position of the decade. The major difference between this and CELINE ET JULIE is how one connects emotionally. In both we respond intellectually, but emotionally this one is distancing and seemingly inaccessible. I respect your #1 placement, and likewise I honor Ed Howard’s love for it as well, but for me other Rivettes rank higher. I still need to see NOIRET and L’ARMOUR FOU among others.
Now don’t write back here and say “I knew you wouldn’t like it” because that is a falsehood. I like it; I just don’t consier it one of the supreme 60’s masterworks, as I do CELINE ET JULIE, which made my top five. I enjoyed the sensory imagery including the source for our now permanent site header. Artistically of course, the film is a triumph, like all Rivettes.
No, but I did say that I didn’t expect you to rate it as highly. I knew there would be parts you didn’t like, but knew for the very same reason you explained – LACK OF WHAT YOU WOULD CALL EMOTION – that you wouldn’t rate it as highly. Mind you, I always did wonder how Céline affected you emotionally as on that level they are very similar.
I didn’t hold back on telling you about Duelle just to surprise you on the no 1 placement, but because there was no need to tell you about it for compiling your lists as it was a sure thing it wouldn’t register with you in the same way. I know what doesn’t connect with you to the same degree.
L’Amour Fou you may like more because of the importance of literature (or more accurately theatre) in the piece and because it centres around the disintegration of a marriage, hence the sort of emotion you need is there, but it’s still an eclectic piece.
Interesting review of Duelle by film writer David Ehrenstein here: http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/07/43/duelle.html.
I was fascinated to read:
“Prior to the shooting of Duelle Rivette assembled the cast and screened Val Lewton and Mark Robson’s The Seventh Victim (1943) for them. And indeed there’s a great deal of that 40s thriller about a Greenwich Village satanist cult killing off recalcitrant members in Rivette’s film. But from the very first sight of Nicole Garcia’s Elsa (Or is it Jeanne? Plenty of ambiguity there already) in her Cloris Leachman-styled raincoat confessing ashamedly to Bulle Ogier’s Sun Goddess Viva that she works as a “dancer”, we’re taken back to that celebrated film maudit – beloved of the cinematic cognoscenti while falling short of the ever-exalted goals of its creator Robert Bresson.”