by Allan Fish
(France 1974 192m) DVD2
Aka. Céline and Julie go Boating
One, two, three, eagle-eye and blockhead
p Barbet Schroeder d Jacques Rivette w Eduardo de Gregorio, Jacques Rivette, Juliet Berto, Dominique Labourier, Bulle Ogier, Marie-France Pisier stories Henry James ph Jacques Renard, Michel Senet ed Nicole Lubtchanksy, Chris Tulio-Altan m Jean-Marie Senia art/cos none
Juliet Berto (Céline), Dominique Labourier (Julie), Bulle Ogier (Camille), Marie-France Pisier (Sophie), Barbet Schroeder (Olivier), Philippe Clevenot (Guliou), Nathalie Asnar (Madlyn), Marie-Thérése Saussure (Poupie), Anne Zamire,
If there is one director of the nouvelle vague who has drawn as much exasperation as admiration, it has to be Jacques Rivette. Many of his films stretch beyond the absolute limit of human endurance. Not just in their length, but in the way he tries to justify that length by the movie itself; even his greatest film La Belle Noiseuse, clocks in at four hours and this – his most famous – at over three. Yet Céline is referred to by many as one of the masterpieces of the cinema, with David Thomson exclaiming it as simply “the most innovative film since Citizen Kane.” So what is it that makes Céline so magical to so many?
In truth it’s that indefinable something that is the magic of Céline in itself. I love the film, but I am also maddened by it, irritated by it, puzzled beyond belief. It’s a film that sometimes you literally have to take a break from and come back to, which makes it perfect for home viewing. There are influences abound, from Jean Cocteau and Marcel Proust to Lewis Carroll and Chytilova’s Daisies (and a touch of Monty Python at their most intellectually baffling). Based very loosely on a couple of tales by Henry James, and with a script virtually entirely improvised by its actors and director, it’s a film in a million.
Julie is a librarian who suddenly chases after Céline, a young magician, after she drops a scarf in the street. After chasing her over Paris in a seemingly never-ending game of catch-up, the two finally come face to face in a café, from which meeting they become firm friends and move in together to Julie’s flat. They talk endlessly of stories and Céline supplies many of them, with her wonderful capacity for utter nonsense and fabrication. However, one such story, concerning a bizarre, recurring melodrama in a seemingly abandoned mansion, Céline claims is both true and features her. In it, two women try and seduce a widower, who refuses their advances so as to keep a promise to his dying wife not to marry whilst their sick daughter still lived. Céline is the child’s nanny cum nurse and tries to shield her from attempted murder by one of the two women.
There is undoubtedly an insane quality to Rivette’s film that would alienate many, with two central characters who are, not to put too fine a point on it, totally bonkers. Whether this is down to the hallucinogenic quality of the sweets they originally use to transport themselves as viewers of this melodrama is not clear, but Céline in particular is one of life’s truly mad. Just to recall her tale of her being a guest to a pigmy ruler in the African jungle who hunts Bengali (!!!) tigers is a more than satisfactory exhibit A for the prosecution. Not that Julie, with her endless giggling and hairdo by Janet Frame, is any contender for the emotionally stable diagnosis either. They are literally in their own world, whether sitting like hysterical schoolgirls on that trunk or dressed like extras from Les Vampires as they break in to the local library. Individual scenes and touches recall other movies, and appropriately look forward to others. In truth, it’s incomprehensible even after several viewings, but provides fresh pleasures on each occasion. It’s like a drug-induced assault on both our senses and our intellectual preconceptions about the cinema. It really does leave you with a feeling that anything is possible in front of the camera. More over, in that immortal final scene on the lake (essences of Don’t Look Now abound), though it may not explain the title, it does justify it. With Céline he justified not only himself, but the cinema itself, and its limitless potential. No film-maker can ask or hope for more…or so you’d thought, but…
How Celine et Julie vont en Bateau made the Top 100:
Roderick Heath No. 2
Steve Mullen (Weeping Sam) No. 9
Frank Aida No. 22
Jon Warner No. 57
This is what I love about Wonders: a comedy countdown with Broadway Danny Rose, One Froggy Evening, and Celine and Julie Go Boating back to back to back. Was there a short list that people chose from? Because I’m surprised so many people’s minds would gravitate to this film when thinking ‘comedy’ but it is very funny, without the darkness that would make it impossible for me to characterize Paris Belongs to Us or Out 1 as comedies, despite many hilarious moments (Godard’s cameo in the former and Eric Rohmer’s in the latter immediately come to mind – I wonder if/how many films of those two will make the cut; particularly I wonder what films of Godard, beyond A Woman is a Woman people would consider ‘comedies’).
Great point Joel! Talk about diversity with these last three choices, each making convincing claim to the comedy genre. Even without the comedy moniker this is a screen masterpiece and my own favorite Rivette. Typically, a concise, expert piece hre by Allan.
Joel good question….I wanted to include at least one film on my list that was completely surreal and irreverent to the point of being silly. It was either this one or Daisies that I settled on.
I’d love to see Daisies on here too but I don’t think I will. That one’s definitely a comedy – so many of the Czechoslovakian New Wave films were.
Fabulous stuff Allan and this is a film I would defend tooth and nail that it is a comedy. There is so much irreverence, humor, and joy on display in this film that I can’t keep from laughing and enjoying myself when watching it. Good reference point of Chytilova’s Daisies, another film I almost included on my list. This is my favorite Rivette film, although some of his stuff is not quite as available as I would like it to be. Part of the comedy for as well is the seemingly coincidental and sometimes haphazard approach of Rivette here. His filmmaking technique in and of itself is actually funny. The way he jumps from one moment to the next and the way the girls find themselves in these situations. It’s just funny juxtaposition sometimes.
You can see my opinion; and that was before the new print toured, and I got to see it twice more one fine weekend (that puts it in my top ten overall, I think)…. It is a thrilling film, and most definitely a comedy – it is very funny, and it is structured, rally, around its gags – physical gags, verbal gags, not to mention situational, character jokes. And a very amusing parody of high melodrama (though obviously, a loving parody). It’s one of those films I real wish didn’t have to end – actually, most of Rivette’s films are like that – maybe one of the reasons I love him so much is that not only do I wish his films didn’t have to end, but as often as not, they don’t! not for a while anyway. (And heck, you could run this one on a loop, if you wanted to.)
Great comment here Weeping Sam. That’s an amazing number of times for this film, and I salute you for that.
It’s brilliant and yet, I probably prefer two other Rivettes from the decade.
Unfortunately, the others are even harder to see. I suspect C&J would remain my favorite – but even among what I’ve seen, there are a couple of his films in the 70s that would give it a run.
Oh boy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4mLYttC_SI&feature=relmfu
Check it out, guys, while it lasts.