Felicie and Charles have a serious if whirlwind holiday romance. Due to a mix-up on addresses they lose contact, and five years later at Christmas-time Felicie is living with her mother in ... See full summary »
Frédéric van den Driessche,
A bicycle race is held every year in a pass of the Alps called Parpaillon. With the energy of a skillful cyclist perhaps as a great tribute to François, the mailman played by Tati in The ... See full synopsis »
A young woman is going to Paris by bus, but when she steps out of her house she discovers that her garden and the whole village is flooded with water. With a boat and a bike she succeeds to... See full summary »
If you want a life in film, you need to immerse yourself in a bunch of films. The first threshold of discovery is knowing what to collect in terms of experience. Surely there are important films and filmmakers to touch. Beyond that you need saturation in some pockets.
I suppose for some folks that saturation will be in Hollywood Noir or French New Wave. One of my immersive pockets is early thirties mysteries, and I've avoided most of the French players of the period when they thought they were important. But from time to time, some small thing comes out of hiding and surprises you doesn't it?
This is one of those for me. I will describe the content a bit though I hate to do it. But you will probably not see it.
Two girls meet accidentally at the station as they come from their oppositely remote small villages. It seems they have patterned themselves against the same model as they are identical in every respect that they can be. They become roommates and go to collage, eventually studying film because it is easy. What follows are episodes, all reflective in some way on the nature of film, either explicitly or as a matter of how life is patterned by film. Eric Rohmer plays a role.
What sets this apart from other new wave projects of the era is that it sits in its deep selfreference without taking itself seriously.
As it happens, the identities of these girls drift apart in terms of appearance, manner, values and place in film. Its no less consequential than others of its ilk, but seems more fun in being consciously trivial.
One episode, for instance has our girls doing a survey of the three best filmmakers. One Frenchman answers: Welles, Hitchcock and Jerry Lewis. Another querent gives the same answer for who are the three worst filmmakers. The joke is that he is a ten year old boy. Worse, pulls out a list with ALL filmmakers ranked in order and he tells precisely that those three are numbers 281, 282, and 283!
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
13 of 19 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this