by Shubhajit Lahiri
Francois Truffaut, along with his iconic contemporaries Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol, Jacques Rivette et al, was one of the founding members of the revolutionary French Nouvelle Vague movement. And whenever we mention the name of the former Cashiers Du Cinema critic and renowned French auteur, we either associate him with his first and most famous film, 400 Blows, or his third feature Jules et Jim. But it was his second work – the immensely endearing Shoot the Piano Player – sandwiched between the two universally acclaimed classics, that not only was one of the most defining movies of the New Wave movement, but is also considered by many to be Truffaut’s greatest masterpiece.
Charles Aznavour, a legendary singer/songwriter in real life, gave a terrific performance as Charlie, a once-famous artiste, but now a washed out piano player at a run-down place in Paris. He goes through the motions without any palpable attachment to the world around him. But then, one not-so-fine day, his brother turns up at his place and informs him that two gangsters are after him, and asks him to help him escape. Meanwhile, he slowly finds himself falling for his sweet and captivating co-worker Lena (Marie Dubois). Thus starts a tale of love on the run as the two gangsters start chasing them in order to get hold of Charlie’s brother.
The movie has a strong flashback narrative too. While the present tells us who Charlie is, the past tells us how Edouard Saroyan, a renowned piano maestro, has ended up becoming an unknown honky-tonk player at a bar where nobody cares for his keyboard play. We learn about Charlie’s first love affair, his marriage, how he climbs the ladder to fame, and how his wife’s infidelity (though for Charlie’s sake) makes him loose his attachment with all the niceties of life and love, and turns him into a loner and a morally detached existentialist.
Like most Nouvelle Vague movies, Shoot the Piano Player, was less concerned about its plot per se, and more about the idiomatic, thematic, stylistic and the mise en scene aspects. Loosely based on David Goodis’ pulp thriller Down There, the movie comprised of a free-flowing blend of the landmark techniques of the iconic movement, like jump cuts, unrelated montages, ad-libs, improvised screenplay, dialogues that at times have no bearing with the scene under consideration, to name a few. Arguably the most audacious and experimental work in Truffaut’s career, it was a loving homage to and a fascinating pastiche of American genre movies, especially but not limited to, film noirs, gangster films and B-movies.
The story of a washed out protagonist trying to escape his past, comical shady thugs, and love on the run might seem straightforward, but the array of memorable dialogues, brilliant comical interludes, moments of heart-touching delight and humanism, unabashed self parody, understated commentaries on human interactions and the place of art in our lives, and marvelous turns by the various players, made this quirky, irreverent, darkly comical, delectably humorous, subtly melancholic, deftly layered, and bittersweet film a wonderful cinematic achievement and a delightful film to watch.
It was extremely unfortunate that upon its release people failed to realize and appreciate its iconoclasm and artistic value. It was a failure at the box office and people apparently forgot that it was ever made. This broke Truffaut’s heart, and he never made a movie as experimental or avant-garde as this one (only the brilliant La Nuit Americaine came close in terms of being so fluent in its irreverence and audacious in its approach). However, over the years, its greatness has been established, and its place in the pantheon of influential films preserved for posterity. A good work of art, as they say, is never really lost.
“The story of a washed out protagonist trying to escape his past, comical shady thugs, and love on the run might seem straightforward, but the array of memorable dialogues, brilliant comical interludes, moments of heart-touching delight and humanism, unabashed self parody, understated commentaries on human interactions and the place of art in our lives, and marvelous turns by the various players, made this quirky, irreverent, darkly comical, delectably humorous, subtly melancholic, deftly layered, and bittersweet film a wonderful cinematic achievement and a delightful film to watch.”
A killer sentence Shubhajit! This is further proof of your on-line propensity for superlative capsule reviews that get right down to the bottom of why a film qualifies as art through a cogent and engaging discussion that brings the film forcefully into focus. I do know the film failed to affect audience like THE FOUR HUNDRED BLOWS and only began to develop a reputation in the 80′s when Andrew Sarris championed it in a very big way. The film is an effective melting pot for elements of comedy and tragedy and it’s underlying mood is one of melancholia. It’s largely a nihilistic film, but the existential underpinning is quite evident. This is Truffaut’s most New Wavish film, perhaps even more so than JULES AND JIM, and for me it’s one of the four essential Truffauts with 400 LOWS, JULES AND JIM and TWO ENGLISH GIRLS, and it may well be the most stylish of the lot. I saw this for the first time in the mid 70′s at a Manhattan revival house as part of a triple feature with the aforementioned 400 BLOWS and JULES AND JIM and remember being very impressed! I thought Georges Delerue, master composer of the French New Wave contributed a brilliant score.
Again, utterly magnificent review here!
Thanks a lot Sam for the kind appreciation. I was just trying to do my bit to keep up with the stream of fascinating write-ups from various authors that this site boasts of
As you most aptly remarked, this most certainly was the most “New Wavish” of all his films, if one is allowed to use that epithet. Its a shame that a lot of film lovers stll don’t take its name in that same breath as 400 Blows and Jules et Jim (I’m not very fond of the latter film, need to revisit it sometime though).
I have only vague recollections of this movie which I saw 30 odd years ago, and your homage makes me want to revisit a movie which while it has a noir reputation as well, philosophically is more in the tradition of poetic realism. Yet Truffaut’s flip script loses the earnest doom of Allégret and perhaps inherits the dark humor of a Monicelli. The white expanses of snow in the final chapters have an evil aspect which contrasts markedly with the redemptive nature of the white landscape in Ray’s On Dangerous Ground.
Tonally and stylistically, I too didn’t find the film very “noirish”, so to speak, despite it essentially being a post-noir and the largely fatalistic central storyline. It would be interesting to hear about your reactions to this film, Tony, watching it after a gap of so many years.
The film’s producer Pierre Braunberger in a plaintive telegram at the time of the film’s release to Truffaut – who had become depressed and lost interest in the film after a mixed reaction from the cast and friends at a preview – asked him (unsuccessfully) to get to Paris from the provinces to promote the film: “… I am looking for the best way of presenting it. It’s not easy: should it be called ‘a comic film noir,’an eccentric film noir, a ‘drama of love and humor’, a ‘burlesque tragedy’, a ‘film where the good guys are sometimes bad and the bad guys are sometimes likable’? You’re much more qualified than me for this kind of game. So pull yourself together and help me. I am really counting on you…”
Personally I like eccentric film noir.
Ah, a genre populated with Seijun Suzuki and Jim Jarmusch The Limits of Control…
I also think Melville’s Le Doulos is funny in an archetypal kind of way….as if the film is very self-aware that it’s a noir.
Just to expand on my comments on whiteness. I read Melville’s Moby Dick not long after I saw Shoot the Piano Player. Chapter 42 where Ishmael discusses whiteness struck me at the time as a possible reason for Truffaut’s use of snow in his mis en scene:
“But not yet have we solved the incantation of this whiteness, and learned why it appeals with such power to the soul; and more strange and far more portentous- why, as we have seen, it is at once the most meaning symbol of spiritual things, nay, the very veil of the Christian’s Deity; and yet should be as it is, the intensifying agent in things the most appalling to mankind. Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way? Or is it, that as in essence whiteness is not so much a color as the visible absence of color; and at the same time the concrete of all colors; is it for these reasons that there is such a dumb blankness, full of meaning, in a wide landscape of snows- a colorless, all-color of atheism from which we shrink? And when we consider that other theory of the natural philosophers, that all other earthly hues- every stately or lovely emblazoning- the sweet tinges of sunset skies and woods; yea, and the gilded velvets of butterflies, and the butterfly cheeks of young girls; all these are but subtile deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without; so that all deified Nature absolutely paints like the harlot, whose allurements cover nothing but the charnel-house within; and when we proceed further, and consider that the mystical cosmetic which produces every one of her hues, the great principle of light, for ever remains white or colorless in itself, and if operating without medium upon matter, would touch all objects, even tulips and roses, with its own blank tinge- pondering all this, the palsied universe lies before us a leper; and like wilful travellers in Lapland, who refuse to wear colored and coloring glasses upon their eyes, so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?”
That Chapter 42 called, ‘The Whiteness of the Whale’ is by my estimation the key to understanding the book and one of the greatest segments in the history of literature. It’s a tour de force of style, concept, and philosophical thought. Just Wow. Nice connection.
Can you believe I meet people all the time who have never read Moby Dick?
Jamie, Moby Dick is my favorite book of all time. Nice.
Actually I’ve only read it once as well. But I rarely ever re-read books. Like I can’t remember ever re-reading something. Maybe that’s just me.
It’s weird Jon, the title of ‘favorite book’ is one I’ve never been able to wrestle with properly. I have short hand picks if asked in a bar, so I could answer something like, “I own more copies (5) of Percy’s The Moviegoer than any other book” or “I read No Longer Human and A Season in Hellall the time”, etc. Not sure why this is as I’d have no problem offering personal takes on films, paintings, or rock albums, etc.
I do have a favorite novel as well.
Hugo’s ‘Les Miserables’
Stunning passage. Reading MOBY DICK in an undergraduate class called “Poe, Hawthorne and Melville” was one of the greatest experiences of my life, and I agree with Jamie completely. Great reference here Tony!
I’ve sadly only read Moby Dick once in its entirety (I should do it again…), but I’ve read chapter 42, I don’t know, 30 times? A copy rests near my bed and it’s read before slumber pretty regularly.
Interesting. Puts me in mind of the exceptional snowy whiteness in the film considered the bleakest of the spaghetti western genre, Corbucci’s Great Silence. You can read a lot more into Melville, starting with just that excerpt. It’s what keeps Moby-Dick relevant and a classic.
Oh, and while I never thought of the Truffaut as a laugh riot, it’s a fine film and Shubhajit makes a fine case for it.
This is a truly great film, and vies with 400 Blows for being my favorite Truffaut. It didn’t occur to me to vote for it as a comedy, though I don’t know why – it’s plenty witty, a neat – eccentricizing, let’s call it – of the noir, a great delight to watch (and still moving)… I like it very much.
Shubhajit,
Great essay here on a film you have a great grasp of. I myself consider this to be my favorite Truffaut film, even though it is somewhat a departure for him in his oeuvre. I never really though thought of this as a comedy, even though I can certainly see how many would consider it such. This gets me thinking of the other New Wave films that could qualify as comedies. I think Godard’s films could qualify. Breathless makes me laugh actually. So does Masculin Feminin. Pierrot Le Fou. I still don’t think I would vote for them necessarily just because I don’t think their main aim is comedy.
Looks like we don’t the list for who voted for this film.
I gave the breakdown for this film to Sam, Jon. Only 2 out of 32 people voted for STPP.
Gotcha. Must have placed pretty high on those lists to make it on the list then.
I guess you could say that lol.
Jon (and Maurizio), I purposely left off the tabulation for this film, as this was the most glaring example of how the loss of a ballot or two AFTER the tabulation process will make it appear in public that there was an error in adding numbers, when in fact that is not at all the case. Tomorrow with Allan’s essay for No. 96 I will resume posting and will continue all the way to No. 1 without another miss. Suffice to say that Shubhajit himself, who had this film extremely high on his list was the primary reason the film placed in the Top 100.
OH I see Sam. This makes sense to me.
Thanks Jon for the kind words. Yes, it did place quite high in my list, though it flummoxes me to think that just 2 people were enough to get it included in the final countdown – not that I’m not glad that it did make it
Well, to be honest, preparing a list for comedies was an incredibly difficult task, precisely for the reasons being discussed with respect to this film. Yes, I agree that the main aim for Truffaut here wasn’t comedy, but the comic elements played such a vital role in it. The same is the case for a number of films, and I face considerable dilemma over quite a few films. The most difficult part was in terms of selected satires that are otherwise serious films, so to speak. Some of the black comedies too posed similar challenges. I guess that’s what makes comedies such a rich & dynamic genre.
Kindly ignore the appalling typos.
Actually I understand your dilemmas. I faced several as well, such as many surrealist type films, which are funny, yes, but hard to evaluate on a comedic level for me. Perhaps my biggest dilemma was with Chytilova’s Daisies. Which has funny elements to me, but I almost viewed it as a disservice to the film to call it a comedy if you know what I mean.
My favorite Truffaut, but I also don’t consider a comedy so I didn’t include it on my list. But it’s given Mr. Lahiri an opportunity to pen a nice concise piece, and it is a very witty film (especially the opening bedroom sequences), so I’m very happy it was included.
Oh, and you’ll prompted me to watch it again either tonight or tomorrow. It’s been about 2 or 3 years since which is way to long.
I actually have to side with Jamie Uhler on this one. I loved this essay and, certainly, Shub has brought to the front all of the things that make this film one of my favorite Truffaut works as well…
However, I NEVER saw this one as a comedy and am hard pressed to think of a moment or a sequence that would make one think it is. That’s small potatoes when the piece is as good as this one though…
Wonderful, insightful review!!!!!!!
I have always seen this as a comedy and applaud it’s selection on this countdown. Mr. Lahiri has done a marvelous job with his fascinating economical treatment. But I understand that everyone will take this film differently. My own favorite Francois Truffaut film is “The 400 Blows”.
Yeah, PETER, I agree that some read comedy in it and I wouldn’t dare step wrong and say that it wasn’t. I guess I just see it differently. Then again, I don’t see Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN as a comedy either while I often thought a show like THE SOPRANOS was and a film like FARGO was too.
As for my favorite Truffaut film??? Tough choice. I am immediately struck by the brilliance of the directors early works such as this film, 400 BLOWS and JULES ET JIM, however I was always caught by the iinocence and the truth of his look at the lives of children in his unsung masterwork SMALL CHANGE.
But, then there is THE WILD CHILD, THE LAST METRO, THE BRIDE WORE BLACK, TWO ENGLISH GIRLS… The list goes on and on…
I actually misspoke a bit. While ‘Shoot the Piano Player’ may be my favorite still, ‘The Soft Skin’ and his Love at 20 entry, the 32 minute ‘Antoine and Colette’ are also right there (I only saw ‘Soft Skin’ about a year ago for the first time, and then bought the R2 so it hasn’t fully sunk in, but I adore it). Objectively I don’t care much for ’400 Blows’, and think ‘Two English Girls’ is the more objective pick for masterpiece. His biggest disappointment is ‘The Bride Wore Black’, which on paper as a Hitchcockian murder thriller sounds wonderful but the film is pretty poor. Especially for a filmmaker considered a ‘master’.
Thanks a lot Jamie, Dennis & Peter for the appreciation. As I mentioned earlier, I agree that this isn’t an out & out “comedy film” in the generally accepted sense of the term. But, that said, the comic elements form an integral & vital component of this film – be it the light-hearted parody or the whimsical humour or the quirky style & tone or the delectable & cheeky reversal of generic conventions – and hence feel that it does deserve a place in this countdown.
While I agree that this isn’t a comedy to my eyes, I still believe that the wild “new-wavesque” style of it is what makes it funny to so many people, there’s the classic scene with that delicious song about “la tete du destin”, featuring a sing-along! Then there are some manipulations of the speed in which the film goes that also have some comedic effects, and a jump cut will never not be funny (some may disagree here, but I don’t care).
The film itself is great, it’s one of my favorites of the first wave of the French New Wave, one that plays with the tropes and genres of the musical and the film noir. It sports many great characterizations as well as amazing set pieces, specially the final fifteen minutes or so of the film are superb. Truffaut here doesn’t make his best film, but he sure comes close to it.
As far as Truffaut comedies go, I listed “Day for Night”, let’s see if it gets a spot on this master list (I won’t spoil it).
Superfine appraisal of a film by a director who just has too many cute tricks up his sleeve for me, maybe the least consequential of the French New Wave directors. A minority view, for sure.
He’s easily the least of the major French New Wavers for me too. Way to sentimental as he aged, to the point that he started pallin’ around with Spielberg.
He did to these eyes make three masterful films:
The 400 Blows
Jules and Jim
Two English Girls
and I like Shoot the Piano Player, The Last Metro, The Soft Skin, The Wild Child and Small Change.
Gifted, but minor auteur who, to my eyes, made two good films, ‘The 400 Blows’ and ‘Jules and Jim’. Most of the others, like the slavish Hitchcock imitation ‘The Bride Wore Black’, I can live without. His Cahiers pal Godard eventually turned on Truffaut over ‘Day for Night’, which he derided as ‘bourgeois’, a lie, a falsification of the way movies are made. The two never spoke again.
Everyone, have a great weekend, and onward and upward with the Comedy Countdown.
Maybe I saw it at a specific time (I was doing my short film) so I loved “Day for Night” and I think it’s one of the best movies about movies ever made.
Agreed completely. When I first saw it, it seemed extremely minor but after shooting a short with a small crew and tight schedule suddenly it came alive for me. It’s a filmmaker’s film which might not be a recipe for greatness but at least explains some of its reputation.
As for Truffaut generally, I guess I’m not the only one underwhelmed. With the exception of the impact left by his first three films (400 Blows and Jules and Jim, especially the latter, are hit-and-miss for me; on some viewings they leave me totally cold) he’s always seemed to me a capable filmmaker but nowhere near as visionary as Godard, Rivette, or even (in his low-key way) Rohmer. I think Truffaut’s greatest impact may have been symbolic than anything else, as a writer/intellectual, young and in love with movies, who put his money where his mouth was and became a filmmaker.
That said, there’s a ton of his later films I haven’t seen, although the ones I have don’t seem in any way revolutionary or unconventional (whereas the first 3, whatever else one thinks of them, certainly are).
I think Piano might be my favorite too though I’d have to see it again to be sure; it was only once and yrs ago at that.
I found Day for Night boring when it came out, but I suspect it’s just me. Truffaut peaked with Jules e Jim I think, and for me the straight-from-the-heart The 400 Blows was his best. Interesting too that of the French New Wavers, his L’histoire d’Adèle H. (1975) was the only film that got close to appealing to a wider audience – a luscious 20yo Isabelle Adjani helped.
Tony, it is not just you. I also found DAY FOR NIGHT a bore in the theatre and later on video tape. I also believe THE 400 BLOWS is Truffaut’s masterpiece, though I’d say TWO ENGLISH GIRLS pushes very close. Then JULES AND JIM. I also did like THE STORY OF ADELE H. and forgot to mention it.
I do well understand though that Jaimie would appreciate DAY FOR NIGHT for all sorts of reasons. Fair enough.