Own the rights?
23 out of 24 people found the following review useful: a slice of life, 14 December 2000 Author: Fiona-39 from Belfast, N.I
This film, made in the summer of 1960 by the sociologist Edgar Morin and the ethnographer Jean Rouch, aimed to be as 'true as a documentary, but with the content of a fiction film.' Facilitated by improved technology (16mm film, sync sound, light hand held cameras) it pioneered a direct or live aesthetic dubbed 'cinema verite'. It was to film 'true life', but engage on a subjective level, getting people to talk about their experiences and ambitions, and most notably, whether or not they are happy. What emerges is an absolutely overwhelming cinematic experience, a film that is deeply affecting but also that makes you think. The film begins with a market researcher, Marceline, on the street, asking people whether or not they are happy. This sequence seems to me both to confirm the importance of human relationships and point up the dissatisfaction that living in a society about to tip into consumerism engenders. The film then moves to concentrate on a set of characters. Morin was criticised for his structural approach, typing his characters (i.e. a factory worker, a petit bourgeois, a student), but a real sense of the individuals involved shines through, notably in the sequences with Angelo and Landry chatting, and Marceline recounting her experience of deportation during the war. The most revolutionary part of this film is that the makers demonstrate the impossibility of documentary objectivity when they film themselves filming - they show how the truth of the film is constructed. Questions of authenticity abound. At the end of the film, they screen it to the characters involved. Even those filmed are unable to decide whether they were acting ('hamming for the camera') or being themselves. Morin and Rouch conclude they have failed in their aim to offer a slice of life, as the very act of filming something transforms it. Truth is elusive in the attempt to represent the everyday. This film is far from a failure however - watch it and be blown away.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: An experiment of representation... of representation., 8 October 2007 Author: Polaris_DiB from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It has a somewhat simple beginning: Edgar Morin and Jean Rouch chose some characters and follow them around, organizing round-table discussions with them and trying to get a handle of their lives and how they are affected by living in 1960s Paris. The movie itself, however, becomes more complicated as it becomes a more experimental approach to the ever-present documentary conundrum: Truth. As Morin and Rouch play around with different ideas and approaches to making a Truthful picture of "a summer", they have to deal with problems of whether or not they're directing, how to truly show a person's character unchanged by a camera's presence, and all of those issues dealing with the burden of representation and what the subjects desire out of the process of being subjected to the camera's eye.However, there is no truth in media--there is only representation. Is this a problem? Morin and Rouch's documentary is itself a representation of discovering representation, which makes it infinitely self-reflexive and self-aware. Thus, it becomes problematic to truly decide whether or not the documentary is "successful" or not, especially since Morin and Rouch include an denouement where they discuss their impressions themselves. Does this documentary even need the subjects it represents in order to get it's own themes across, or do in fact the subjects deserve a more straight-forward exposition? These questions, not the answers, are the point of this documentary.--PolarisDiB
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Cinéma vérité, 24 April 2007 Author: Edgar Soberón Torchia (estorchia@gmail.com) from Panama
By 1960 the documentary had evolved with new sound equipment and lighter cameras. In a direct line from the ideas of Flaherty and Vertov, Canadian filmmakers as Michel Brault had made significant shorts as "Les raquetteurs" (1959), while in the United States Robert Drew created his seminal work, "Primary" (1960.) All this activity helped the launching of "cinéma vérité" in France, with this film manifesto made by anthropologist Jean Rouch and sociologist Edgar Morin. With a "caméra vivant" (living camera) and the question "Are you happy?", they went out to the streets of Paris to make a survey, showing passages in the life of students, workers and migrants (including Joris Ivens' future wife), with a short escapade to the St. Tropez beach, and a final confrontation of the creators and subjects with the footage and the idea of constructing objective pieces of reality on film. Rouch and American Frederick Wiseman believed in a kind of documentary open to emotional spaces and fantasy (as opposed, for example, to Richard Leacock's more naturalistic approach), and eventually changed the tone of their works, while the movement finally identified with the concept of "direct cinéma", developed by Canadians and American filmmakers.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful: Dugan McShain - Chronicle of a Summer - or - Chronicle of film marketing in 1960's France, 14 February 2006 Author: Hornbull from Seattle, WA
Dugan McShain Anthropological Film Chronicle of a summer Chronique d'un étéFilmmaker Jean Rouch, in coordination with sociologist Edgar Morin, create a story out of seemingly random interviews and anecdotes. Together they create a piece that describes life in Paris circa 1961, they converse with their friends and associates about life, the current war in Algeria, and the mindset of the daily life of Parisians. Using the newly available 16mm camera they set out to do what no one had done before them: try and capture daily life and discuss it. They talk at length about politics, arguing on film, and discuss, both during the film and at the end when the filmmakers show their finished work to the participants and have them dissect it. They give feedback, feelings and talk about the characters, describing what worked and didn't, what felt real and what seemed contrived. The people that they interview are across the board when looked at socioeconomically, intellectually, and racially, providing alternate views about the problems faced, the stories that they needed to tell to the camera and the trials that were associated with their lives.I was, to say the least disappointed with the final product that was shown. As I was watching the film there came a scene where the two filmmakers are discussing their participation and the feat that they had just accomplished with the finished film ready to be shown. It was a very intimate scene where it seemed as if both of the filmmakers were unaware that they were being filmed and as such proceeded to expound on the principles, and the theory of making an anthropological film. It was half way through this conversation that I realized that they staged this discussion not as a candid frank debate but as a 'realistic end cap' to put on their film to add flair and realism. What seemed at first as a novel approach to film-making came off more as a clever marketing ploy, using the audience as a sounding board, and bringing the audience closer to the subject matter of the film through the use of intimacy. The filmmakers opted for participation in the film instead of the typical vein of anonymity. Reflexivity is a device that is used to vary the distance from a subject, giving the idea that the filmmakers, the product and everything that goes along with it a unity in the production. This style is self-serving in that the filmmakers could be seen prompting the subjects and providing a direct line of questions that they could use to form a solid piece. In the court of law this is called 'leading the witness' in order to get the desired answers that you seek, as opposed to the answers that come naturally from a subject matter that is brought up. Rouch gives specific questions that lend themselves to specific answers. "I would argue that most anthropologists implicitly believe content should so dominate form in scientific writing that the form and style of an ethnography appears to "naturally" flow out from the content." - (Ruby, Studies in the anthropology of Visual Communication, Pg 106,Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 1975). In providing specific questions, they do not let the life naturally 'flow' but instead impede it at their own will destroying the illusion that they have created. These filmmakers seem almost like they wish to participate in the very spectacle they wish to show, and cannot distance themselves from the subjects for fear of losing notoriety.Morin and Rouch are extremely open to their subjects, providing valuable insight into their minds, as well as the minds of the people whom they are interviewing. This certainly provides for honesty in front of the camera creating a cushion of comfort for the subjects so that the camera does not seem to interfere as much a simply record. In certain scenes it seemed as if we were an observer regarding these people with a cold unfeeling eye. The argument in the hallway for example. This does not lend itself to a self-conscious conversation. There are moments in the film that do seem very contrived however. There is a scene of a woman walking through the streets of Paris along with her walking we hear her telling the story of her father's internment and her own in a Nazi death camp. This is obviously a scripted scene. It lends itself to disbelief when we see that she is walking, lost in thought. The technique of us hearing those thoughts is vital to this disbelief. The film-making was excellent at times, as I said, giving the sensation of an omniscient- floating eyeball, observing the people at their daily lives. This feeling is ruined however when we are privy to the Rouch's and Morin's conversation on what they feel the outcome of the film represents. It creates a feeling of false voyeurism then, incompatible with the sensitive proximity that we have just watched. The scene in the theater when he shows the characters dissecting each other is especially grating as it lends it self even more to a Dali-esquire surrealism where the characters are watching themselves as we watch them.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Smart Doesn't Mean Understanding Kids, 28 February 2008 Author: weareallamadeus from United States
I see that some people are becoming drowsy during screenings of this film? Actually the previous critique reminds me of a scene in Annie Hall when Annie and Alvy are waiting in the movie line and a man behind them is obnoxiously breaking down the "indulgent" vision of Bergman for an uninterested date and won't shut up because he feels he has an "opinion." Well, maybe we have all been that guy once or twice. But you know, Anthropology is tough; it's not an ethnocentric entity as individuals are. It's a "one way journey" as a professor of mine put it...once you turn off the cultural program (if you can) running your higher functions, you are set adrift onto a sea full of dangers with no life raft. If you survive, you do not view the ocean the same way ever again. Sorry to get metaphorically annoying as if I were qualified to say anything, but this film is not a waste and it should not put one to sleep if one is interested in ethnography. It takes a direct approach of sorts and it is an art form. I have come to see that. There are layers of truth in this work and telling data the filmmakers have taken unique artistic and analytical pains to share with us by abandoning their theoretical life rafts to sink or swim. The film portrays a very different kind of ethnographic subject-Us- the children of Mother Modernity from various walks of life and since a major theme being explored by Rouch is happiness, I think in some small way it applies to many of us; we the individualists. Maybe by reading some of Rouch's articles as a supplement to his film work the viewing experience will become much more invigorating for some. If not, then I guess anthropology isn't going to win this one. I give it a ten for real originality man.
A Moving Ethnography of Human Interraction, 5 March 2009 Author: myxlastxsong from United States
This film is incredibly poignant and essential in understanding the history of documentary film-making. Set in 1960's France during the Algerian War (France's equivalent of Vietnam), the viewer is taken on the journey of the lives of some incredibly interesting young adults. The film begins by reeling interviewees in with the simple question, "Are you happy?" Of course this is only a spring board for the subjects to invite us into their lives. Race relations, holocaust memories, mental illness, and so much more plague our subjects, both creating fear and excitement within the viewer. Not to mention there is a very cool, very unique ending, ala Robert Flaherty. Not to be missed.
Cool film, landmark documentary, 28 December 2006 Author: JB-81 from United States
"Chronicle of A Summer" invented the cinema verité movement, the idea being that by celebrating and revealing the artificial nature of the film-making process, the truth, or more accurately, some truths will emerge. The film is enveloped with a luminous and appealing humanism, and it is a very cool and cinematic portrait of Paris in the beat days. Remember that World War Two was only a decade or so before this and somehow the fog of that war hangs over the film, especially given the backstory of one of the participants, at least this is what I remember..As historic documents go, it is also amazingly compelling today. I find the film much more absorbing than "Salesman" or Drew Associates stuff. Drink espresso instead of a pint before the film, my friend and you'll be fine..JB-81PS If you want to watch paint dry, check out Melville- Although he's pretty great too..
Great Film-making, 14 April 2006 Author: djmanifesto from The Other Side Of The Hood
Film that explores ideas and demands thought and intelligent dialogue. Well ahead of its time, one of the smartest films ever constructed and a perfect example that movies aren't strictly to entertain. The movie starts with the simple question.Are you happy sir?A question that doesn't seem to hold much meaning but evolves into a filmmaker questioning whether authenticity can be captured on film. The film ends brilliantly with the subjects of the film witnessing their on screen portrayals in the screening room and the director Rouch entertaining the success of his documentary. A modern masterpiece. (P.S. English guy bashing french art = wows me trouser's )
7 out of 66 people found the following review useful: Sacre bleau, 12 February 2004 Author: dan2058 from kent, england
I stepped on a box of upturned cocktail sticks once, and would happily do it again if it would get me out of ever having to see this again. The art of watching paint dry seems like a spectator sport in comparison. At the mid point of this movie i seriously considered gauging my eyes out with a rusty spoon but i had been drained of the energy that would enable me to do so. This film was intended to explore 'life' however it made me question whether or not i wanted to keep living mine. On a serious note, in the screening i was in, i spotted 7 people sleeping and half the audience simply walked out. Do not operate heavy machinery while watching or thinking about this so called film, i call it a video that allows real people to experience the monotony of manic depression. Watch Stuart Little instead.
Add another review
