Jacques Rivette is the most enigmatic director of the Nouvelle Vague. His movie Paris Nous Appartient was the first completed work of the Wave, although it was overtaken in release, and overshadowed by several movies that became instantly famous, among them Truffaut's Les quatre cents coups and Godard's A Bout de Souffle. My first experience with Rivette was many, many years ago in the VHS era. Browsing tapes in my neighborhood shop, I discovered two sets of two tapes each. Both sets were labelled as Rivette's La Belle Noiseuse, but the stickers indicated different movies. They turned out to be almost equal; same scenes in both versions but different takes. I found the experiment fascinating: the change of takes did influence the story in subtle ways, but the trick did not justify the double viewing of a 4 hour movie.
Out 1 is 13 hours long. It was completed in 1971. Its original title added noli me tangere = don't touch me, which apparently meant the director wanted it to be shown without cuts (in spite of this there was a cut version Out 1: Spectrum, 4 hours long). The complete version was shown in festivals and specialized venues all over the world, and was rejected by French television as a miniseries. It has lately been available in this form in the streaming services.
This is a movie difficult to describe, to say the least. It contains several parallel plots that intersect at times and subplots that appear and disappear. One of the plots. involving secret societies, is not unlike that of Paris Nous Appartient. Another plot involves several theater troupes rehearsing. Another is on a supposed deaf-mute carrying out a well rehearsed scam day by day. I don't think the plots mesh convincingly, There is a lot of repetition: a scene involving Jean-Pierre Léaud and envelopes is shown an extraordinary number of times. Why? The title Out 1 may be due to the fact that many scenes were filmed in one take, even when actors flubbed their lines or the crew made obvious mistakes (spontaneity? alienation effect? lack of budget?). In some scenes involving the theater groups it seems the camera was turned on and simply registered what happened, its footage unedited (registered what: reality or reality with camera running?) However, the movie has some fascinating moments. In one, Eric Rohmer delivers a compelling lecture on Balzac and secret societies. In another Jacques Doniol-Valcroze shows his prowess in conversation. And in yet another, the funniest, repetition woks: Léaud, with his usual Chaplinesque dignity is forcibly ejected from a building in take after take. I don't think these moments, few and far between, justify 13 hours of one's time.
Out 1 is 13 hours long. It was completed in 1971. Its original title added noli me tangere = don't touch me, which apparently meant the director wanted it to be shown without cuts (in spite of this there was a cut version Out 1: Spectrum, 4 hours long). The complete version was shown in festivals and specialized venues all over the world, and was rejected by French television as a miniseries. It has lately been available in this form in the streaming services.
This is a movie difficult to describe, to say the least. It contains several parallel plots that intersect at times and subplots that appear and disappear. One of the plots. involving secret societies, is not unlike that of Paris Nous Appartient. Another plot involves several theater troupes rehearsing. Another is on a supposed deaf-mute carrying out a well rehearsed scam day by day. I don't think the plots mesh convincingly, There is a lot of repetition: a scene involving Jean-Pierre Léaud and envelopes is shown an extraordinary number of times. Why? The title Out 1 may be due to the fact that many scenes were filmed in one take, even when actors flubbed their lines or the crew made obvious mistakes (spontaneity? alienation effect? lack of budget?). In some scenes involving the theater groups it seems the camera was turned on and simply registered what happened, its footage unedited (registered what: reality or reality with camera running?) However, the movie has some fascinating moments. In one, Eric Rohmer delivers a compelling lecture on Balzac and secret societies. In another Jacques Doniol-Valcroze shows his prowess in conversation. And in yet another, the funniest, repetition woks: Léaud, with his usual Chaplinesque dignity is forcibly ejected from a building in take after take. I don't think these moments, few and far between, justify 13 hours of one's time.