I haven't had much of a chance to post recently because I just relocated, but I had the chance to see Rivette's Out 1 two weekends ago. For those who are unaware, it's over 12 hours long and despite being filmed over 30 years ago, it received it's first US screening late last year. I had no idea how much of an effort the screening would be. There is only one 16mm print in the world and in order to subtitle it, they use some sort of powerpoint-esque program to display the text. The catch: it's manual. This required the hiring of a French professor who spent the bulk of her memorial day weekend clicking through and attempting to keep up with the often overlapping conversations. It was split into 4 sessions- basically 2:30 until after 10pm on a Saturday and Sunday with some short intermissions and an hour long dinner break. The Chicago screening attracted more viewers than almost all of the others (except NY), so the film center was very pleased with the turnout.
I should have a lot to say about it, but it's more difficult than I imagined to come to terms with my mixed feelings about the film and Rivette in general. In many respects it was more of an ordeal than pleasurable viewing and because of that, it's been sort of a turning point in my cinematic life. Basically it takes what it presents (in terms of themes, technique etc.) and extends it so far that it forced me to really reflect on what I want out of film and what sorts of issues really connect with me. As it turns out, I've decided that my ideals are almost the complete inverse of Rivette's. By the latter half of the second day, all I could think about was how I just wanted to go home and watch every Bresson film I could get my hands on.
I hadn't thought about him when I went into the film (or even after watching a few Rivette pictures earlier in the retrospective), but now it strikes me that they're both concerned with presenting "reality" without the standard dramatic/cinematic manipulations, but they do it in almost completely opposite ways. Rivette is concerned with theatre production, improvisation, conspiracy theories (and tangentially the Paris riots) and a sort of cyclical type of repetition (actions, shots, moods, words etc.) that attempts to bring the characters closer to the tedium and coincidence of real life. There's not a sense of audience manipulation or good v bad characters. It is, in some respects, a depiction of reality, but it's like one of the other theatre-goers noted- It's like he takes what could normally be presented in ~2 hours and stretches it to the limit through his longs takes and meandering conversations. It allows much more time to reflect on absorb what you're seeing-- which was definitely beneficial-- if exhausting for me.
This is the complete opposite of (and at least at this point --for me-- inferior to) Bresson's decidedly non-theatrical, compressed films. If almost every bit of Rivette's films could (and often DOES) take place on a stage, the essence of Bresson can't be removed from cinema. He can take what would normally occupy 3 hours of standard movie time (or as he calls it, filmed theatre) and squeeze it into half of that space. Even though he cuts away from a lot of the standard "dramatic" events, it's not minimalism, but rather a type of purity where you only include what it necessary to the characters/scenario. It's the whole concept of not wasting a shot or a second of screen time. For me that's far more admirable than stretching things out. That's not to say that Rivette's techniques aren't worthwhile or inspired. I'm still sort of in shock by how Out 1 has given me a new sense of clarity. I haven't gotten back through all of the Bressons I want to see (which is maybe 9 that are on DVD), but now, even when I've watched a couple of other movies I find myself far less patient with what I perceive as wasted time. That's not to say that I want all fast paced/quick cuts-- that can be even emptier. But I do have a better sense of when shot or anything fails to add to the tone or advance anything on screen. That ability in itself made it worth seeing Rivette's grand opus.
I know I didn't really end up saying much about the content of the film itself, but I think gut reactions are often more interesting to write (and read) about. Has anyone else had a chance to see it? There's also a 4 hour recut version called Out 1: Specre. It plays this weekend, but I'm still undecided about it.
On another topic, I haven't seen it yet, but Regular Lovers did just get a US DVD release. I haven't seen it yet, but I look forward to renting it once I'm back in the mood for a longer film
Also, has anyone had the chance to catch the current Antonioni retrospective? It starts here in Chicago in a couple of weeks. It's maybe 18 features over 6 weeks. Ideally I want to catch them all, but I think I'll focus on seeing the really rare ones. It's hard though. I may never otherwise get to see his Vitti pictures or The Passenger on the big screen. Either way, it'll be great to finally get to see stuff like Identification of a Woman, his early short films and a passable version of Red Desert.
Anyone seen it?
I am defenitely going to watch these movies!
) Could someone please tell me, is it important or better to view them in sequence? Or can I just skip around?
thanks for the reply!
