Out 1

What a crazy film!It lasts 12(!) hours and you don't understand who these people are and what are they doing!The main plot is about a bunch of clueless actors trying to bring on scene "Prometheus",but there are lots of sub-plots,like the disappearing of Thomas and a crazy guy looking for Monsieur Warok....what's the meaning of all this???

This is the very La Nouvelle Vague.One of the best films of the New Wave and I dare say one of the first ten ever made! Why? The atmosphere, the story,the actors (actress) are all brilliant. This is the theater, a fairy tale, the life, the film.Paris. Thank you Mr.Rivette.

One has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12-hour long films. It could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence - in fact, even in the world of 'arthouse' cinema, such mammoth running times are extremely rare, for obvious reasons. This is one thing that Hollywood and art cinema share in common: the generally accepted running time of 90-120 minutes, with a minority of movies that dare to approach, but rarely exceed, the three-hour mark.

For this reason, a film like Out 1 (runtime: 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile, and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find.

Originally devised as a TV series by maverick Nouvelle Vague director Jacques Rivette, it raised little interest from the French networks, and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (Peter Watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo- documentary The War Game, although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). Shown a couple of times in 1971, Out 1 has re-emerged at a handful of Rivette retrospectives over the last two decades, and many who have seen it, including esteemed US critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time.

Is it? Well, yes, if you like Rivette. That alone is a big 'if', as Jacques Rivette has never been a commercially successful director. Only two of his films were hits (Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and La Belle Noiseuse (1991), both superb), and many remain difficult to find on DVD today (Out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). Nevertheless, he is greatly respected within the film community, and with good reason - his playfully surreal narratives, sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema's most unique and satisfying film-makers.

Out 1 deals with a theme that re-occurs throughout Rivette's work: the nature of acting, particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. His fascination with acting make Rivette's films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries, as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. Out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives, gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops: two consisting of acting troupes, each trying to devise post-modern theatrical adaptations of Aeschylus plays; the other two individual petty thieves (played by Nouvelle Vague icons Jean-Pierre Léaud and Juliet Berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money; and an overarching plot involving a mysterious Balzac-inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as 'the thirteen'.

As with any Rivette film featuring a 'conspiracy' narrative, the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. As the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down, the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post-1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. For a film made in 1971, these were remarkably prescient themes; another French director in Jean Eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece The Mother and the Whore. But this is not the limit of Out 1's scope.

Comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief, abstract black-and-white still montage of the events of the previous chapter), Out 1 is no less watchable than any quality TV series, and may even be better experienced on a one-episode- at-a-time basis. This is not to say that it doesn't remain challenging even when viewed in segments. Like most Rivette films, it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot, of sorts, and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors' heavily abstracted 'exercises') seem interminably long. These scenes are important, however, not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film, but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. Paradoxically, long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience, and this understanding of pacing has led Rivette, along with more modern directors like Michael Haneke and Béla Tarr, to create films with less commercial running-times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled.

In a film that is in many ways about acting, the acting is fantastic. Many famous Nouvelle Vague faces appear, including the aforementioned Léaud and Berto, the outstanding Michel Lonsdale and Rivette regular Bulle Ogier. Even another legendary director in Eric Rohmer has a great cameo as a Balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. The people and architecture of Paris c. 1971, though, seem to have an equally significant role - the city landscapes, crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze Out 1 in time, a document of a place at a point in history.

After a little more than 720 minutes, the film ends on an impossibly brief, enigmatic note; yet, the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities, intricacy and spontaneity, that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning, or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. For those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer, Out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. For film-makers, film critics and artists of all disciplines, this is something to be cherished.

There's a certain type of moviegoer we can all picture in our minds, or perhaps have even known; maybe we've even been them at one time or another (I know I was, when I was very young). There's a certain type of person who by chance stumbles upon a title in another language, especially one where the imagery seems nonsensical without context, and perplexedly dismisses it out of hand as a "weird foreign film." I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to say that 'Out 1' is a premier example of such a title that will confound and frustrate those who are unprepared. The gargantuan length is one matter; all throughout these thirteen hours (get it? Thirteen?) are scenes that on the face of it are plainly absurd. I mostly refer to any scenes of the theater troupes rehearsing, Thomas' in particular, and pretty much any time Colin is playing his harmonica, but there are definitely others, too. Why, even for those who are most receptive to what this feature has to offer, it's a lot to try to digest. It's almost impossible to watch from start to finish in one sitting; one can readily assume there are bigger artistic themes and ideas underlying the presentation, though what those may be, well, I can't say I'm the one to identify them. And it needs to be said that while there are discrete plot threads running throughout the extraordinary runtime, they are quite loosely stitched together, with beginning and end points that are rather amorphous. There are even times when it all seems a tad uneven, wavering between concrete storytelling and a more meandering sort of exploration. No matter how you slice it, Jacques Rivette and Suzanne Schiffman's towering magnum opus is a movie for a niche audience.

It's also kind of brilliant.

I've watched some movies that were only ninety minutes long, or maybe less, that were so terribly paced or otherwise poorly made that they felt substantially longer. While there's no mistaking the unparalleled span of time that passes in watching 'Out 1,' by and large it all goes down so smoothly that in some fashion, thirteen hours seem to go by surprisingly quickly. There's an incredible duality in its storytelling by which we're given a tale that's complete, coherent, and cohesive, yet which is rendered with a mix of both distinct beats and notions and other thoughts that are left mysterious and secretive, or no more than suggested; the ratio might be an even 75/25, or possibly more like 50/50. While I know this isn't the only work of fiction to have ever done so, the filmmakers' use of parallel narratives is frankly a stroke of genius. There's no distinguishing, here, between primary characters and secondary ones, or lead and supporting actors. No one is given greater or lesser prominence; the length is allowed to bounce back and forth at will between characters and story threads that thusly connect in so loose a form; the viewing experience is kept fresh simply by virtue of such far-flung horizontal movement, let alone its quality or the actual progression of the plot. To that point: it's drawn out to an unbelievable length partly because of the sheer wealth of characters and story, and mostly because of how scenes are allowed to truly manifest, breathe, and resolve of their own accord, contrary to the cinematic convention of cutting a moment off after a certain point so that the plot can move forward. For as admirably well done as the picture is generally, the fact that it really does all feel like a single, unified whole despite that unbelievable length is itself an exceptional feat of film-making and storytelling. Far shorter and less ambitious pieces have gone much more wrong, falling apart at the seams, in the same ways that this so magnificently succeeds. For this alone, I'm honestly so very impressed.

Yes, I'm marginally troubled by the sheer looseness of the narrative, such as it is. But this is otherwise so remarkably well done as to easily make up for the subjective indelicacy. Relatively lax though the connections between threads may be, the overall tapestry that is woven is as absorbing as it is curious, and ultimately quite satisfying. What we're given to know of the characters makes them all fascinating, and there's a striking richness in the scene writing that's wonderfully gratifying, not to mention shrewd creativity and inventiveness. Marked by masterful shot composition in no few cases, the direction also carries delightful playfulness as it dances on the fine line between specific ideas and free-wheeling improvisation - or at least, it definitely feels like it, perhaps on account of how the production was accordingly built on a lot of first takes, or at least takes (at that, many, many long takes) that consciously lack the refinement that would come organically with repetition. Across the board the cast is to be celebrated for acting of natural ease, wholehearted spirit, and outright whimsy, nevermind terrific range, nuance, physicality, and poise. It's readily evident that the actors are having a total blast, and given some of the situations that they're put in, it would be all but impossible not to; I dare not single any one person out, because inevitably I'd have to just list the names of all involved. The exercises we see during theater "rehearsals," alone, are sort of breathtaking in both the obvious joviality and in the commitment of the ensemble. Pierre-William Glenn's cinematography rather carries those same qualities as the acting in its own manner. And please, everyone, a round of applause for editor Nicole Lubtchansky. Yes, her work was made easier at times on account of the substantial use of long shots, but even putting aside the massive quantity of footage to which to give shape, there are plentiful instances of editing here that illustrate the deft, keen eye that Lubtchansky had illustrated again and again in her career, and I've nothing but praise for her contribution.

Rounded out with splendid filming locations, fun production design and art direction, smart props, and superb costume design, hair, and makeup, I can only repeat that 'Out 1' was sharply made in every capacity. Heard sparingly, even Jean-Pierre Drouet's music is an endlessly pleasing element; so often underappreciated in cinema broadly, the sound design and editing are simply grand. I expected as much, sure, yet that these facets are but nice garnishes on an otherwise staggering, monolithic project is very noteworthy, especially because that project is so fabulously successful. In fairness, I think anyone who would dare to take on such an enormous movie must necessarily be very serious about it, and be fully prepared to realize it as fully as possible; you'll thankfully never see Uwe Boll, M. Night Shymalan, or David DeCoteau attempt something of such magnitude. Even though this is fairly early in Rivette's career, and among the first major credits for Schiffman in terms of how she contributed, their skill, intelligence, and vision are absolute and undeniable. And, honestly, such commendations extend to all others on hand, cast and crew alike, if in different ways. Just as the excellence of the craftsmanship comes as much from the earnestness of the participants as from their own amusement in the process of creation, the joy of the viewing experience comes as much from the marvelous vitality of what we see and hear before us as from a giddy disbelief, as spectators, that such a monstrosity could be brought to life. It will appeal to comparatively few, and reasonably so; it won't meet with equal favor in the eyes of all who do watch it. Be that as it may, I was stupendously entertained, and found this to be even better than I had hoped. Supposing that everything the title portends isn't an immediate turn-off, I can only give my very high, hearty recommendation to find this to watch, however one must, and space it out over several nights if need be. 'Out 1' is a smart, fantastic, stunning achievement, and I very happily give it two glad thumbs up.

Here is another film, similar to 1924's la Roue, where narrative structure is not only ignored, but largely obliterated in this 13 hours-long character study, acting study, process study - and film is all the more better for it.

On one hand, Out 1 is minimalist (in settings and surroundings) . On one other hand, however, it is elaborate and sprawling (I am referring, obviously, to its massive run-time.)

Film spends several hours drawing us, in cinema verite fashion, into the characters' meandering, directionless lives, through conversations filmed in mirrors, and stationary cameras in backseats filming conversations during car rides, lengthy sequences of two theatrical troupes rehearsing Classical stories, and, most amusingly, small kids and curious passersby follow cast and crew during filming.

Fiction eventually begins to overtake this pseudo-documentary, as the young man initially referred to in the film's credits as "le jeune sourd-muet" (the young deaf-mute) becomes known as Colin, and his harmonica-playing deaf-mute act is revealed to be just that, an act. He is revealed to be a bit of a conman, a poetic, philosophical con-man (who believes there is a real life secret society known as The Thirteen) much like Frederic is revealed to be a con-woman, stealing correspondence to try to blackmail and extort money from their writers, (and who might have really discovered evidence of the existence of The Thirteen) Neither is who they appear to be- they each have a face to show, and a face to hide. Curiously, despite being prominently featured characters, Colin and Frederic share only one scene together. Even more curious are Pierre and Igor, two major characters in the plot who are never shown at all, either together or by themselves.

Interesting colour composition, especially in episodes 4 and 5; Frederic, in white, on a dark green rug, in front of red tapestry hung on the wall behind her, as she begins to wonder about the mysterious Thirteen she has learned of, as the plot (sort of) kicks in; black suit on deep red sofa against pale white wall, simple composition successfully made chaotic by chess board and chess pieces in front of him. Rooftop conversations overlooking Paris and the Seine river ; the city itself and its buildings and its streets become a character in its own right.

But, is there really anything to the Balzac-inspired Thirteen, are they real and trying to control all of Paris, or is this just a search for some purpose (unravelling this mystery) in their meandering lives?

We, the audience, try to understand the crisscrossing and tangled narratives and characters, much the same as Colin tries to understand the Thirteen. We are trying to unravel a mystery to. But it is almost of no matter if The Thirteen exists or not, just dive into the characters' lives for the duration of its thirteen hours runtime.

This is not plot- or character-driven, it is process- driven. The process of filmmaking,