on Éric Rohmer's La Collectionneuse

Éric Rohmer, another former Cahiers du cinéma editor, made a significant mark on the French New Wave with his literary and deeply philosophical films. Although Rohmer's first film, Le signe du lion (1959), attracted very little critical attention, Rohmer's Contes moraux (Six Moral Tales), released over a period of nine years (1963-1972) established Rohmer as one of the prominent New Wave filmmakers. What made Éric Rohmer unique among the other New Wave filmmakers was his classical, literary filmmaking style, which stood out among the more rebellious and revolutionary styles of his contemporaries. With his Contes moraux, Rohmer attempted modernize the ideas of the great French authors of the classical period (most notably Pascal) through these psychologically and sociologically enlightened films (Singerman, 314).



The fourth of Éric Rohmer's moral tales was titled La Collectionneuse, but was released in 1967, before the third installment, Ma nuit chez Maud (1969). Rohmer chose to release La Collectionneuse first because he was set on Jean-Louis Trintignant for the lead in Ma nuit chez Maud, who was unavailable at the time, and thought it better to wait two years than to cast another actor. Like the other films in the series, La Collectionneuse follows the the theme of "a man attracted to a woman at the very moment that he is going to enter into a serious relationship with another woman," outlined by Rohmer in "Lettre à un critirue" (Singerman, 314). As mentioned in the Singerman text, Rohmer's moral tales were much more focused on the character's thoughts and desires than on their actions, and La Collectionneuse is no exception. Throughout the film, the actions (or attempted inactions) of main character Adrien throughout his vacation take a back seat to his philosophical, internal, and at times seemingly omniscient, narration.



As mentioned above, a great deal of Rohmer's work is focused on the ideas and writings of French intellectual Blaise Pascal, a Jansenist. Rohmer's Jansenust beliefs are infused into La Collectionneuse, such as the ideas of predestination, innate human depravity, and the necessity of divine grace. The most obvious Jansenism in the film is predestination. An example is the scene wherein Daniel advises Adrien, who wishes to use his vacation to do "absolutely, positively, nothing," that a man meets with a greater deal of difficulty if he fights against his destiny. The Jansenist theme of human depravity seems to be manifested in the character of Sam, the art collector in his lust for valuable material possessions and his desire for Haydée, the young and chaotic seductress. Haydée's character is an exemplar of the theme of human necessity of divine grace, in that her "search" for something unique leads her to be labeled by Daniel to be a "collector."

In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed La Collectionneuse (along with Ma nuit chez Maud), and the timeless philosophical, existentialist dilemmas that are created by the themes of lust and desire. There are several "collectors" in the film: Sam is a collector of material goods; Haydée is a collector of sexual experiences; and Daniel, a self-proclaimed "barbarian," is a collector of pleasures. Ultimately, however, none of the "collectors'" desires are ever genuinely satisfied at any point, despite their distinct success in collecting their subjects.

on Jean-Luc Godard's À bout de souffle

After the decline of the Golden Age of cinema in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the world of French film was waiting for the next great masters of the medium to step forward and redefine the elements that make up a great film. Enter François Truffaut, Alain Resnais, Jean-Luc Godard, and the New Wave. According to Alan Singerman, “between 1958 and 1962, at least ninety-seven young French filmmakers made their first feature film before the ‘revolution’ ran its course” (229). The New Wave marked a paradigm shift in every facet of the filmmaking process, from narrative structure to production methods.

Jean-Luc Godard’s first feature film, À bout de souffle (1960), is arguably the most significant film released during this revolutionary period, and is revered as the quintessential model for New Wave cinema. The film was an exercise in unorthodoxy; its postmodern narrative was vague, but enthralling, and Godard’s imaginative production techniques (the use of handheld cameras, studio-produced sound, off-screen dialogue, and jump cuts) instantly revolutionized the aesthetics of film. As Singerman commented, “[À bout de souffle] quickly became the ‘manifesto’ of the ‘New Wave,’ representing both the revolt of the new filmmakers against the narrow classicism of the cinematographic establishment in France and a declaration of new principles” (273).

Godard co-wrote À bout de souffle with friend, colleague from Cahiers du cinema, and fellow New Wave guru, François Truffaut, and filmed it with director of photography Raoul Coutard, whom he would work with again several more times throughout his continuing career. In producing the film, Godard worked very quickly, even by contemporary industry standards, and efficiently, with a very small budget and crew. Working with Coutard, Godard managed to think of more efficient and affordable ways to capture shots that would previously have taken much more time, manpower, and money to create, and with a more raw sense of reality. Filming scenes from À bout de souffle like the ones where the camera leads Michel as he walks toward it would have been an absolute nightmare by Golden Age production methods. A track would likely have to have been built to ensure the steadiness of a large camera while they moved it backwards, and the scene would likely have been shot in a studio with a set, which means lighting guys, sound guys, technical guys, special effects guys, etc. Godard and Coutard found a better way. Instead of building a track for a dolly, Coutard simply sat in the wheelchair while Godard pushed and pulled him. This technique was revolutionary, and has been used in countless other films, including The French Connection, the Academy Award winner for Best Picture in 1972.

À bout de souffle immediately met with a great deal of critical acclaim thanks to an extensive advertising and merchandising campaign, but more importantly because of its catering to the lifestyle of the youth generation. Godard showed us throughout his illustrious career that the paramount characteristic of the great auteur filmmaker is originality and uniqueness of vision. I would describe À bout de souffle as an “original indie film”, in that the revolt of young and independent filmmakers against the preexisting conventions of big budget, mass-market cinema in France during the New Wave period resembles the fairly recent American fixation with independent film, as though the American indie fixation is a resonance of the French New Wave. I find this very interesting, especially considering the fact that Godard paid a great deal of homage to American filmmaking style throughout À bout de souffle. In return, just about every American filmmaker has borrowed something from Godard, whether it be his narrative style, his production technique, his editing innovations, or even his entire film itself. 

on Jean Renoir's La Règle du jeu

Jean Renoir's 1939 masterpiece, La Règle du jeu was a groundbreaking cinematic achievement on numerous levels, and a glorious, expertly-written satire that exposes the facade of French high society "etiquette" shortly before being engulfed by World War II. The film's setting, characters, and plot were not only modern, innovative, and quite relevant, but also shockingly controversial at the time of the film's release, mere months before the outbreak of the war. Unfortunately for Renoir, this controversy (as it often does in the film industry) translated into harsh criticism from the political right-wing upon the film's release in Paris on July 7, 1939, and within two months the film was even banned by the government.

As Alan Singerman commented, "It's hardly surprising that the French public of 1939, accustomed to chauvinistic themes in the popular films of the time and anguished by the Nazi threat, was not willing to countenance a satirical portrait of their social elite which was basically negative" (100). After the war, however, the film was restored, and it finally began to collect the praise it deserved, and has since been considered by most to be one of the greatest films of all time. One cannot help but pity Renoir, being so far ahead of his time that he had to wait 33 years for his masterpiece to be fully appreciated, being named the second best film of all time in 1972. In the realm of film, the subject of intermarital sexual affairs is more taboo the farther back in time a film was made.

The riotous controversy that surrounded La Règle du jeu is reminiscent, in my opinion, of the cultural shockwave caused by the 1967 release of The Graduate in the United States, which was also considered appalling after its release, and contained mildly similar subjects concerning society, sex, and love. The case of La Règle du jeu, of course, was much more intense for the time period. The sexual promiscuity exhibited in La Règle du jeu would scarcely offend the average moviegoer from the 21st century, but in 1939, to imply this sort of behavior of the French elite was considered to be overtly unpatriotic. This sort of behavior is practically glorified on American television today, on shows like Desperate Housewives.

Although Renoir infused La Règle du jeu with a myriad of thematic oppositions (high society v. low society, hunter v. prey, antiquity v. modernity), the universality of mankind is arguably the most important message to be drawn from the Renoir's film. The similar love triangles occurring both upstairs and downstairs in the castle are a reflection of this truth. No matter how much the elite strive to elevate themselves above and beyond typical society, they are inexorably just as human as the dead-broke rabbit poachers of the world.

Some of the characters value their reputations above everything else, while others value love above all, but everyone is subject to their innate human weaknesses; Robert has been having an affair with Geneviève, Christine is willing to run away with anyone who she believes loves her more than her husband, Andrè is naive and foolish, Marceau is devious, and Schumacher is jealous and rash. When Andrè is killed, however, and all the chips are down, everyone hides behind the “rules of the game” that were so easily broken so shortly before. I thought this film, as I mentioned above, was far ahead of its time. Having studied both Modernist and Postmodernist literature, it is clear that Jean Renoir was a visionary, whose dramatic structure and overall state of mind was decades ahead of the curve.