Change Your Image
WoodyFan1987
Reviews
L'argent de poche (1976)
A Wonderful Picture
(I'd like to apologize ahead of time for the hyperbolae.)
Looking at other users' comments I feel redundant adding my two cents to the already long list of satisfied customers.
"Small Change" is beautiful, one of Truffaut's best, and watching it was among the most satisfying film experiences of my life.
This is stunning cinema. "Small Change" is a mature "400 Blows" and is certainly Truffaut's best movie about kids maybe even the definitive childhood film yet made.
As I watched "Small Change" I lost a good deal of respect for Steven Spielberg's shallow attempts (E.T., Tears of the Sun, et. al.) to reproduce the kind of youthful energy, spirit and heart that Truffaut captures in this film.
Astounding stuff. Couldn't recommend it higher.
Jules et Jim (1962)
Problematic, But Worth Your Time
Jules et Jim is a difficult film, there's no question about that. I'd say the only thing that kept me watching was my love of Truffaut his ingenuity in cinematography, dialogue and just the whole tone of the film. That he could keep such melodramatic (if not drab) stuff somewhat entertaining is a testament to his mastery of the medium. I loved the blending of historical film into the narrative; I don't know if he was the first person to do this I highly doubt it but he certainly did it well in this picture.
Jules et Jim is a study of capriciousness. Catherine a woman to whom monogamy seems like a foreign concept is, to paraphrase the film, `not particularly intelligent, beautiful or kind, but she's treated like a queen.' Why Jules and Jim love her so, I don't know. They seem like strong enough characters to be without such a difficult woman, but I guess that question is at the center of the film.
For some reason, Jules et Jim reminded me of L'Avventura by Antonioni maybe because it was also a hard movie to enter and because the characters were so inaccessible. There are certainly elements of the neo-realism in this film, (one need look no further than the extensive use of mist and the forest scenes that closely resemble the dream sequences of Fellini, De Sica, et. al.)
Overall, I would say this picture is worthwhile, although there are certainly better, more accessible and mature Truffaut films out there.
Les quatre cents coups (1959)
Brilliant Stuff Everywhere you Look
I was a big Truffaut fan before I saw The 400 Blows but it wasn't till then that he really converted me. This is easily one of the most moving films I have ever seen. Technically brilliant, well acted and stunning on all accounts, Blows is a tearjerker in the best sense of the word.
Two scenes that really stuck out in my mind. Obviously the incredible ending (don't worry I'm not ruining anything). Who ever thought that watching someone run for five minutes could be so enthralling (or so fulfilling)? Also the scene with the other boys slowing trailing off until there were only four or five left. There's brilliant stuff everywhere you look in this film.
I recommend The 400 Blows to anyone who appreciates good movies, because this one has something for everybody.
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Not Impressed
I wasn't all that impressed by the Hollywood version of Strangers on a Train. Admittedly, there were moments of brilliance (the tennis scenes and the opening scene were both flawless) and Chandler's screenplay was witty and clever. But Farely Granger (who I see as a 1950s equivalent to Keanu Reeves) did not hold his own against the formidable Robert Walker, whose performance in Strangers is on par only with Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter.
Maybe I'm not a Hitchcock fan, but I thought that the ending was cheap and unrealistic, the kind of mush that infects nearly every Hollywood thriller nowadays. Some of the motifs and image systems were interesting but this clearly isn't a film with any technical ambition. There's no doubt that Strangers is a classic, but between Granger's sub-par performance and the over-the-top ending I'm inclined to give this film a B.
The Third Man - Carol Reed's brilliant thriller made only a few years earlier - differs in plot but is head-and-shoulders over Strangers and offers great acting (Welles and Cotton) to boot.
Being There (1979)
How can a nothing become something?
I've just finished watching Being There and I must say it was one of the most emotionally draining (film) experiences of my life, on par only with A Clockwork Orange and perhaps L'Avventura. While I felt that film rang a little long, and that its best parts were in the beginning, from a technical standpoint the film was flawless. The Satie theme was perfectly blended into an eclectic score, the camera work was poetic but objective enough not to intrude and the acting was superb. Peter Sellars gave one of his best performances as the dim-witted but well meaning Chance and Shirley MacLaine did a great job opposite him. But now down to the meat-and-potatoes of the film.
It was difficult for me to watch not because Chance was so pathetic, no, it was everyone around him; the dolts who bought into the myth and who took the accidental charlatan to be authentic. Chance might be one of the most honest characters ever portrayed on film (without Jimmy Stewart's `aw shucks' persona of course) but it's everyone around him who irritated me and made viewing this film for the first time a difficult task. Like The Seventh Seal every type of person is portrayed in this film: nihilists, cynics, innocents and others who `go with the flow.' And I guess the question that Kosinski left us to painstakingly ruminate, is, which one of these is Chance? As the ending would suggest, Chance was a prophet or someone endowed with divine powers. Chance is the ultimate anti-martyr; his martyrdom comes in the form of success, not self-sacrifice.
Like A Clockwork Orange and more prominently, Taxi Driver, Being There chronicles the ascendance of an accidental hero. We are only left to wonder about the kind of destruction (or salvation?) that will come when Chancey Gardner (a man whose existence is based entirely on conjecture and the projections of those around him) is elected president, as the ending suggests. Like an innocent Jay Gatsby, Chance is a character who has no idea of his destructive abilities; the fact that people begin to take him seriously threatens the existence of the institutions in which he is involved. Yet the question remains, is he so destructive? We would think that since he was a fraud, no good could come out of his faux position, but as the movie progresses we see that he is but a figurehead, a puppet clandestinely controlled by fat cats, albeit the same fat cats who would be controlling the country anyways. Chance is just a new face, someone to whom the clueless population, someone who likes to watch TV.
The only voice of reason in the film is Louise, and for her, he serves as nothing but an illustration of subjugation. I guess the biggest question of the film, and the one that I can't even begin to fathom, is how can such a nothing become something? This film's answer is simple: Chance.