With Godard
AWOL at Cannes this week — our favorite comment on the matter coming from critic @
CobbleHillis, “[Godard] couldn’t come to Cannes because his head was stuck up his ass. His ego in installation form. Walked out [of ‘Socialisme’]” — we thought it might be a good time to run this relevant review.
Fewer names resonate with film lovers more than Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut. The two are arguably the most famous of the most talked about new wave, chances are even if you have a passing interest in foreign films you’ve at least heard of “Breathless” or “The 400 Blows.” The two rose together as prominent film critics writing for the respected editorial “Cashiers du Cinema,” and soon after wowed Cannes and the rest of the world with their debut features. The relationship between the two was rather fascinating, which is what the documentary “Two in the Wave” casts light on. Directed by Emmanuele Laurent, the film goes through the history of the two from their start together to their ultimate fall out during Truffaut’s “Day for Night.” There is also a slight focus on Jean-Pierre Leaud, most famously Antoine Doinel in Truffaut’s films “The 400 Blows,” “Bed & Board” and so on. Cast frequently by both, Leaud looked up to both and struggled away from favoritism, remaining neutral during their most heated moments.
Those who love the directors will find much fun in seeing their story recounted, but it’s only afterwards realized that the film is very flawed and empty. Much of the focus is on their lives together. In fact, the press statement claims that because Truffaut had died, no present-time Godard interviews were used because Truffaut would not be able to give his piece of mind on a subject. That’s an interesting premise, but if we are to watch a film on the relationship between Truffaut and Godard, then the film cannot end right at the most interesting point in their relationship.
After “Day for Night” premiered, Godard wrote an angry letter to Truffaut, bashing it. Truffaut retorted, and the two forever had fallen out. “Day for Night” was released in 1973, eleven years before Truffaut passed away. That’s over a decade of a tense relationship unexplored. Are we to think that because they don’t talk to each other, they don’t have opinions on one another? If this film is about their relationship, why does the film end when their friendship ends? Like it or not, a relationship will continue between two human beings, especially if they were once close. Maybe the film-makers were never best of friends, but their bond was undeniable and to quit following them because they were bitter at one another is nothing but a missed opportunity. Leaud’s piece had potential, but no sooner does the film pick up the story of him trying to be neutral than it ends his presence in the film at all, showing brief clips of his career through the years. What was the excuse for not filming a new interview with him?
There’s also an odd choice in the narrative where the film occasionally follows Isild Le Besco (“The Good Heart“) around, sitting in a park, researching, etc. Though this isn’t shown very often (and is practically absent in the latter half), it’s still confusing as to why this was included. We know this documentary must have been researched. Why do we need to see it? The beginning of the film is very newspaper-clipping heavy, and although it has narration, it could be considered a bit dull. However, chances are that anyone going to see this film are well acquainted with Truffaut and Godard and have no problem sitting and watching headlines for a few minutes at a time. The cuts to Le Besco are forgettable and unnecessarily mysterious.
The most unfortunate thing about this film is that there is not much to say. The film will not have audience appeal outside of the people who will go to see anything by or about the French new-wave kings, and those cinephiles will find no new insight or information from it. Of course there is enjoyment in seeing a film where the main focus is two great directors, heavily showcasing their personalities and their histories together, but there’s no reason for a movie like this to be so downright empty and minimal. Its only positive quality is its subject matter, and it’s not enough to warrant a watch. [D]
