Truffaut shorts

Well? What sorts of claims can you make about these films? I don't want to suggest things here so that you feel free(r) to make claims on your own and not to merely expand on mine.

400 BLOWS

Oh yeah. Using the camera to tell story: opening scene's flowing camera allowing action to happen rather than be constructed. Using framing devices to tell about character: as when Antoine is in the jail cell after they bring in the prostitutes; the film's final shot. Using editing to divulge more psychology than words can do on their own: scene with the unseen psychologist in the detention center.

Truffaut's 400 Blows truly does work along with Astruc's maxim that the camera (and its other mechanics) can be a pen.

Oh yeah.

le beau Serge

You can post something here about le beau Serge.

And, for next Monday, you can watch, on your own, any other film by Chabrol (not just those listed on the syllabus). Cool, eh?

HIROSHIMA

Here's a place for you to respond to the film for tomorrow's class.

LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD

Feel free to post about the film here. I 'may' do so myself tonight.

Vadim and BB

As we come to Roger Vadim we find a filmmaker once again in stark contrast to those around him (or her). Varda stands out from Melville, who stands out from...Vadim, it takes no time to figure, remains apart from both of these folks and, it should be noted, from others associated with the FNW. Except, that is, in his quality of freedom, his overt enjoyment of subject/story. We will see a similar love when we meet Truffaut. We cannot underestimate the influence Vadim had in terms of a sensualism (as a form of freedom) heretofore missing from dominant French cinema (a similar claim can be made about American cinema as well: though filmed in an alluring way, Ingrid Bergman probably wouldn't be called sensual, in a cinematic sense, it seems).

Remember a time before Coors Light commercials for twins or Brittany Spears or Gone in Sixty Seconds in which sexuality (or its cousin sensuality) wasn't a center piece (rightly or not) of commercialized entertainment, back to a time of Roger Vadim and his cinematic body, Brigitte Bardot. In 1956, Bardot came as a role model for many girls tired of the misleading puritanism forwarded in dominant culture/society (by the cinema du papa, for example, in its formula of beauty equals guilt, a still prevalent phenomenon today, one might argue).

How might one respond today to BB in terms of philosophical or political engagements?

Bob le Flambeur

Notice the title: it's in French, so the film, like the rest this semester, is in French (as in, in the original language, not dubbed).

More importantly... About Melville I will claim that he is quite an artisanal filmmaker, paying attention to aesthetic qualities even while filming outside the studio system on a small budget. Heavily influenced by American B-films, he uses the art of film in a way to investigate the human condition. We watch characters in Melville's films doing things, things that are real life; and, his camera spends the necessary time watching these actions: brushing teeth, getting dressed, practicing breaking into a safe, etc. In a real way, as we will see in a few clips, Melville's cinematography explores environments (and the people who inhabit those spaces).

For further viewing, check out le Samurai, le cercle rouge, and un flic.