Weekend (1967)

Weekend (1967)

Comments 5 comments

“Are you in a film or reality?”

Synopsis:
A homicidal bourgeois couple (Mireille Darc and Jean Yanne) taking a road trip to the country encounter increasingly violent and surreal scenarios.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bourgeois Society
  • Cannibalism
  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Revolutionaries
  • Road Trip
  • Satires and Spoofs

Response to Peary’s Review:
In what he describes as “one of Jean-Luc Godard’s most astonishing films,” Peary notes that Godard “mixes Bunuel and Mao, slapstick and polemics” in a tale of a “bickering bourgeois couple… who both have secret lovers and plan to kill their spouses [and] drive into the country for a weekend visit with Darc’s mother,” and find that “on every road are crashed cars, Godard’s symbols for bourgeois materialism.”

In what is “meant to represent bourgeois hell, fires devour the wrecked autos, dead bodies line the roads, and irritating leftwingers of all types come up to our insensitive traveler to spout their radical philosophies;” eventually the annoying couple’s “madcap adventure” includes kidnapping and cannibalism.

Peary notes that while “Godard includes moments of political discourse, as well as references to favorite films (Johnny Guitar, The Searchers, Gosta Berling, etc.) and quips about the relation of art to reality,” his “main goal was to make his arrogant, cruel bourgeois couple literally go through hell.” He points out that “in the film’s most famous scene [DP] Raoul Coutard pans his camera left to right for 10 minutes as our couple drives around a traffic jam that’s as ridiculous as the ones Laurel and Hardy used to get stuck in, but just when we’re most amused we see the horrendous accident and dead bodies (the first we’ve come across) that caused the jam and are shocked out of our smiles.”

Peary argues that while the “film was most impressive when it was released,” “today the humor still has punch and the visuals are startling” — however, he finds “that the picture peters out once the guerrillas turn up.”

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find that this culmination of Godard’s initial narrative output — before his formal turn to radical revolutionary politics — remains as challenging to sit through as many of his other ’60s titles. It’s not easy to watch, nor was it meant to be — so it’s difficult to judge the film on anything other than Godard’s integrity to his own vision (which one could argue — may have to argue — is spot on). It’s likely that all film fanatics will want to have seen Weekend at least once (Peary refers to it as “essential Godard”), but be forewarned that it’s pretty relentless.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • The legendary “long pan” traffic jam
  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, once, but only for its historical relevance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

2 or 3 Things I Know About Her (1967)

2 or 3 Things I Know About Her (1967)

Comments 0 Comment

“What I say with words is never what I’m really saying.”

Synopsis:
An urban housewife (Marina Vlady) with two young kids turns to prostitution to support her family’s middle-class budget.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • French Films
  • Housewives
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos

Review:
Continuing with the theme of prostitution as a metaphor for modern capitalist existence — as shown in his earlier Vivre Sa Vie (1962) — Jean-Luc Godard’s 13th feature-length film remains generally critically lauded, and is included in the book 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. In her essay for Criterion, Amy Taubin describes it as “the greatest film by the greatest post-1950s filmmaker,” arguing it presents “as a machine that morphs the colliding meanings of words and objects with dazzling speed, and generates an astonishing array of metaphors, paradoxes, digressions, and, above all, dialectical relationships, between idea and action, word and image, sound and picture, interior and exterior, microcosm and macrocosm.”

DVD Savant offers a more measured analysis, referring to it as “an attractive slide-show lecture and poetry recital” which “minimizes the contribution of conventional acting” (!!) and is simultaneously “engaging, titillating and frequently frustrating.”

I’m more in alignment with Savant’s assessment. Having just finished watching and reviewing the two films Godard made before (or alongside) this one — Masculin-Feminin (1966) and Made in U.S.A. (1966) — it’s easy to see this cinematic essay as both a culmination of his continuing obsessions, and a clear marker of his shift into more overtly political films. Its lack of likable characters is a challenge, as is the fact that Godard was feeding lines to his actors (he was apparently angry at Vlady for refusing to marry him in real life, though he had just met Anne Wiazemsky and was moving on).

Of note stylistically-speaking is Godard’s frequent juxtaposition of red, white, and blue within the frame:



… his typically avant-garde use of sound and music; and, of course, an ongoing emphasis on pop culture, advertising, and consumerism.

Note: The film’s most devastating scene shows Vlady emotionlessly dropping off her crying young daughter at a daycare (which also functions as an armed brothel):

… then walking outside to become part of the anonymous masses. Ouch.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you’re interested in the idea of cinema-as-collage. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Made in U.S.A. (1966)

Made in U.S.A. (1966)

Comments 1 comment

“You just throw words around. Do something with them!”

Synopsis:
A private eye (Anna Karina) investigates the mysterious death of her former lover, found in the apartment of a writer (David Goodis).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Jean-Pierre Léaud Films

Review:
Shot simultaneously with 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her (1967), this semi-improvised, genre-adjacent quickie by Jean-Luc Godard was nominally based on a novel called The Jugger by Richard Stark (a.k.a. Donald E. Westlake), but in reality does its own thing at every turn, intentionally messing with the audience’s sense of narrative or linear logic; indeed, as Jonathan Hoberman describes it in his illuminating essay for the Criterion Collection, it “represents Godard’s most sustained derangement of narrative convention.” Hoberman adds that it is “at least nominally, a political noir in the tradition of Godard’s second film, Le Petit Soldat (1960) [while] at the same time, it resembles Band of Outsiders (1964) in being a thriller about people who are acting as if they’re living in a movie.” Also useful is Hoberman’s explanation that:

“Part of Godard’s inspiration was Howard Hawks’ The Big Sleep (1946), whose mystery plot is infamously complicated and ultimately unsolvable, and in typical Godardian fashion he reworks it to the nth degree, not just gender-recasting the Bogart role with Karina (who in voice-over says she feels like Bogart in a Disney film), but taking the idea of an inscrutable plot and stringing it out to its logical ends.”

Perhaps most notable are the film’s endless references to filmmakers, writers, actors, and political figures of the time — starting with an homage to Nicholas Ray and Sam Fuller in an opening slide:

… and including characters with names like Richard Widmark, [Doris] Mizoguchi, and Donald Siegel, as well as mentioning the disappearance of Moroccan revolutionary Medhi Ben Barka. (All of this is explained in a 20-minute visual-essay supplement and a short documentary entitled “On the Cusp,” both included on the DVD.)

While this was all likely fascinating once upon a time to Godard enthusiasts, the irony is that a film made in reference to American pop culture was only shown here once (at a NY film festival in 1967) before it finally (re-)premiered in 2009, after Westlake’s passing. Godard enthusiasts will obviously want to check this one out, but it’s skippable by all others.

Note: Watch for a cameo by Marianne Faithfull singing The Rolling Stones’ “As Tears Go By” a capella in a cafe.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Colorful sets, costumes, and cinematography

Must See?
No. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Masculin-Feminin (1966)

Masculin-Feminin (1966)

Comments 1 comment

“Don’t you think you’re the center of the world?”

Synopsis:
A young Parisian (Jean-Pierre Léaud) newly out of military service pursues an aspiring singer (Chantal Goya) while also bedding her roommates, Catherine (Catherine-Isabelle Duport) and Elisabeth (Marlène Jobert).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Jean-Pierre Léaud Films
  • Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to Jean-Luc Godard’s eleventh feature-length film as “one of most memorable films of the sixties, about the ‘Children of Marx and Coca-Cola’.” He argues that it “captures the sense of an exciting, confusing, often frustrating era when young people in France and America were simultaneously learning leftist politics and having their first sexual affairs” — and he notes that “being involved in politics was so much fun because it brought together many people with similar viewpoints whose blood was already pumping and adrenaline already flowing.”

While this film continues to be almost universally lauded — with a Metacritic score of 93, and inclusion in the book 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die — its appeal eludes me. These boring, self-absorbed young individuals are as aimless on screen as they appear to be in their own lives, and I don’t understand the desire to watch them interact for an hour and 43 minutes.

They sit around in coffeeshops, pursue and/or sleep with one another, interview each other about sex and politics, spray-paint political slogans, go to the movies, do laundry, smoke, and I suppose act very much like young people at a certain time in their lives — exploring who they are, who they like, and what they want to do. But there’s not a whole lot in the narrative to hold onto or wait to see unfolding; while Peary refers to the “depressing ending” as a “surprise”, I simply find it pointless.

Note: I was amused to read the following on IMDb’s Trivia page:

The film within a film sequence which parodies the work of Ingmar Bergman was shot at the Scandic Hotel Continental, Stockholm. Ingmar Bergman, not being a fan of Jean-Luc Godard found out about the film, went to go and see it and called it “a classic case of Godard: mind-numbingly boring.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Willy Kurant’s cinematography

Must See?
Nope; while many disagree, I think this one is only for Godard completists.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Married Woman, A (1964)

Married Woman, A (1964)

Comments 1 comment

“I love you, and maybe love is complicated.”

Synopsis:
A self-absorbed young woman (Macha Méril) drifts between an affair with an actor (Bernard Noël), and married life with her pilot-husband (Philippe Leroy) and his son (Christophe Bourseiller).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • French Films
  • Infidelity
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Marital Problems

Review:
Despite there being very little substance to this stylized look at a shallow marriage threatened by infidelity, this film (Godard’s eighth feature) premiered to great acclaim and ended up as one of his most financially successful pictures. Méril — perhaps best recognized as the blonde psychic who is brutally murdered on stage near the beginning of Dario Argento’s Deep Red (1975) — plays Charlotte, a beautiful but vapid woman who is overly concerned with her appearance and sexual appeal, as echoed in the media-saturated landscape she moves within.

She bounces back and forth between lovemaking sessions with her lover, Robert (Noël) — who is eager to have a child with her — and her husband, Pierre (Leroy), who’s had her followed by a private investigator; many of these scenes are comprised of various body parts, emphasizing the physicality and truncated nature of Charlotte’s daily existence.

Indeed, Charlotte’s life is so empty that she spends her time discussing tidying up the cupboards, measuring her bust, and wandering through department stores; occasionally we hear her inner musings, which consists of statements like, “The most important thing for me is to understand what’s happening to me.”

Yes, that’s pretty much what you get with this tiresome flick, which is visually pleasing (Raoul Coutard’s cinematography is top-notch as always) but otherwise a bore.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re a Godard completist. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

War Hunt (1962)

War Hunt (1962)

Comments 1 comment

“Better get some rest; this war is going on for awhile.”

Synopsis:
A new soldier (Robert Redford) sent to the frontlines of the Korean War is disturbed by the behavior of a rule-breaking private (John Saxon) who heads out at night to gather information, and spends much of his time with an orphaned boy (Tommy Matsuda).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • John Saxon Films
  • Korean War
  • Orphans
  • Robert Redford Films
  • Soldiers

Review:
This low-budget Korean war-time flick by brothers Denis and Terry Sanders is primarily notable these days as Robert Redford’s big screen debut as an earnest soldier puzzled by what he sees going on in his platoon:

… particularly with Saxon, who puts on blackface for night-time excursions, fails to follow strict military protocol, and basically seems one step away from a mental breakdown.

There isn’t much to the storyline other than waiting to see what will happen with Saxon (especially once a ceasefire is called), and we’re not sure what to make of the role of the young orphan, whose well-being Saxon is obsessively concerned with.

However, it’s all finely filmed by DP Ted McCord, the low budget is put to good use, and the ensemble cast works well together.

Note: Watch for Tom Skerritt in his film debut as a young sergeant.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Robert Redford as Private Roy Loomis
  • John Saxon as Private Raymond Endore
  • Ted D. McCord’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one time look. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

36 Hours (1964)

36 Hours (1964)

Comments 1 comment

“When things are going along too smoothly, you can’t help but be a bit suspicious.”

Synopsis:
In May of 1944, an American military intelligence officer (James Garner) is poisoned, kidnapped, and brought to a secret German site designed to look like a U.S. hospital, where an army doctor (Rod Taylor), a concentration camp survivor (Eva Marie Saint), and a German officer (Werner Peters) attempt to convince him that he has amnesia and the war is over, in order to get him to share plans for D-Day.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Amnesia
  • Eva Marie Saint Films
  • James Garner Films
  • Rod Taylor Films
  • World War II

Review:
This clever suspense thriller — based on a short story by Roald Dahl — features a premise so intriguing it’s hard not to be drawn in nearly right away: what kind of powerful intelligence might one obtain upon successfully convincing an enemy that years have passed and the war is now over? In this film, we’re told that getting to that stage with Garner’s character has taken months of careful planning by dozens of players who can’t risk making a single mistake (i.e., accidentally speaking German).

And the ruse works — at first:

… until suddenly Garner suspects something’s up, and the house of cards comes tumbling down. The tension from there lies in how Garner will handle this news, how his capturers will receive what he’s forced to tell him (is he lying?), and whether the other sympathetic players in the narrative (Taylor and Saint) will turn out to be allies or enemies.

The final half-hour turns into an escape plot that drags the storyline out unnecessarily, but this flick remains worth a look simply for its thought-provoking premise.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • James Garner as Jeff Pike
  • Rod Taylor as Major Gerber
  • Philip Lathrop’s cinematography

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a one-time look. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Seven Days in May (1964)

Seven Days in May (1964)

Comments 2 comments

“Senator, we’re talking about the survival of the United States.”

Synopsis:
When a military aide (Kirk Douglas) learns that his superior (Burt Lancaster) has plans to overthrow the government given concerns over nuclear disarmament, he tells the president (Fredric March) and is soon embroiled in efforts to gather evidence of the impending coup.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ava Gardner Films
  • Burt Lancaster Films
  • Cold War
  • Edmond O’Brien Films
  • Fredric March Films
  • George Macready Films
  • Hugh Marlowe Films
  • John Frankenheimer Films
  • Kirk Douglas Films
  • Martin Balsam Films
  • Military
  • Political Conspiracy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of “John Frankenheimer’s taut political thriller” — scripted by Rod Sterling, and based on Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II’s novel of the same name — is primarily focused on the fact that it was “surely… not a favorite at Reagan’s White House.” He notes that “if it were made today [in 1986] it would be a lot flashier and more gimmicky — and probably March and Douglas would be made into the villains.”

Freakiest of all is Burt Lancaster’s “sinister portrayal as a rightwing extremist, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who plans a military coup.” The relevance to current politics, albeit through a different lens of concern, couldn’t be starker: when a group of individuals is convinced they’re right and the well-being of their nation is at risk, we know they will stop at nothing.

As Peary writes, this is a “smart, well-acted, suspenseful film”, bolstered by Frankenheimer’s innovative use of camera angles:

… Ellsworth Fredericks’ stark cinematography, and strong performances by the leads and many of the supporting players — including Martin Balsam as a loyal advisor:

… and Edmond O’Brien’s Oscar-nominated role as an alcoholic Southern senator (and one of March’s oldest friends).

Unfortunately, Ava Gardner’s role as a boozy mistress to Lancaster feels gratuitous, though she’s essential to the plot.

This political thriller would make an excellent double-bill with Fail Safe (1964) if viewers can handle the pressure (though perhaps Dr. Strangelove would be needed as a darkly comedic chaser).

Note: Watch for John Houseman in his uncredited screen debut as a key player in O’Brien’s hunt for evidence.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fredric March as the President
  • Burt Lancaster as General Scott
  • Kirk Douglas as Col. Casey
  • Edmond O’Brien as Senator Clark
  • Ellsworth Fredericks’ cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful — and relevant — good show.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Fail Safe (1964)

Fail Safe (1964)

Comments 0 Comment

“In a nuclear war, everyone loses.”

Synopsis:
When a group of U.S. bombers are accidentally sent to destroy Moscow, the president (Henry Fonda) enlists help from a translator (Larry Hagman) in reaching the Soviet Prime Minister and attempting to prevent a nuclear disaster.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cold War
  • Henry Fonda Films
  • Nuclear Threat
  • Sidney Lumet Films
  • Walter Matthau Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this “very tense, grim drama, seriously directed by Sidney Lumet” — based on a 1962 novel of the same name by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler — as “Dr. Strangelove without the humor.” This story about “U.S. planes carrying nuclear bombs [who] are accidentally given the go-ahead to fly a bombing mission deep into Russia” “points out that there would be hawks in our government who’d insist that the U.S. should go through with a full-scale nuclear attack if such a mistake occurred rather than wait for the Russian retaliation.” What’s “most interesting is how we end up rooting for our own planes to be shot down, although the innocent men inside believe they’re just following orders.”

I was very pleasantly surprised to see how well this “serious counterpart” to Dr. Strangelove (both produced by Columbia Pictures) has stood up. Fonda effectively embodies the measured president we all wish we had; and Hagman is quietly nuanced in one of his earliest film roles. Meanwhile, Lumet’s direction (with support from George Hirschfeld as DP, Walter Bernstein’s script, and Ralph Rosenblum’s editing) is spot-on in terms of creating and maintaining tension across the various inter-connected spheres of the storyline (primarily the president’s office, the War Room, and the pilots’ cockpit).

This film is a literal nailbiter in terms of what will come next, with nothing less than the fate of our planet in the balance. You have every right to go into a viewing of it with trepidation — and come out feeling even more.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Henry Fonda as the President
  • Larry Hagman as Buck
  • George Hirschfeld’s cinematography
  • Walter Bernstein’s screenplay
  • Ralph Rosenblum’s editing

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful Cold War thriller.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

View From the Bridge, A (1962)

View From the Bridge, A (1962)

Comments 0 Comment

“This guy’s looking for his break; that’s all he’s looking for.”

Synopsis:
An over protective Italian-American (Raf Vallone) living in Brooklyn with his wife (Maureen Stapleton) and grown niece (Carol Lawrence) is distressed to learn that Catherine (Lawrence) has fallen for a young immigrant (Jean Sorel) who has come to the country illegally with his cousin (Raymond Pellegrin).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Arthur Miller Adaptations
  • Immigrants and Immigration
  • Play Adaptations
  • Sidney Lumet Films
  • Waterfront

Review:
The same year Long Day’s Journey Into Night (1962) was released, Sidney Lumet also directed this adaptation of Arthur Miller’s play of the same name — though to much lower critical acclaim. (Indeed, as of 2021, this film still hasn’t been released to video.) It’s a unique story in terms of its focus on immigrant status as a leverage point, with Vallone’s obsessive love for his niece getting in the way of doing the right and decent thing for his countrymen.

While Vallone himself is unaware of it, he harbors semi-incestuous feelings for Lawrence — and handsome Sorel bears the brunt of his anger. (In a “daring” scene for the time, he accuses Sorel of being homosexual by kissing him on the lips.)

However, arguably the most impacted by Vallone’s irrational hatred is Pellegrin, who is keeping his kids back at home alive by sending money he’s earned in America, and whose immigration status may be jeopardized by Vallone.

Meanwhile, Vallone’s wife (Stapleton) tries to intervene, but mostly simply watches events unfolding with horror. This tragedy of obsession, loyalty, responsibility, and revenge plays out in a way that hints at heartbreak from the get-go — which turns out to be accurate.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • A powerful drama of inter-familial tensions
  • Good use of location shooting in Brooklyn

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you can find a copy. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: