MovieChat Forums > L'Atalante (1947) Discussion > One of my most underwhelming film experi...

One of my most underwhelming film experiences

posted 15 years ago by paulmaher35
24 replies | jump to latest

I watched Jean Vigo's L'Atalante last night for the first time and was left completely underwhelmed by it.

I liked its offbeat tone and it's the sort of film that if I knew nothing about it and caught it late on tv one night I would enjoy but one of the greatest films ever? I could never make that jump.

There are plenty of films out there that would not be personal favourites of mine but I can fully see why people would rate them as highly as they do. Fellini's 8 1/2, the searchers and touch of evil immediately spring to mind. But I just found L'Atalante so lacking.

I felt I knew nothing about the characters and I didnt really care about them as much as I should have. The crazy sea captain is given a very prominent role and although I found him hugely amusing it felt to me like he was there for little more than comic relief. He seemed somewhat inconsequential to the main story and given his screen time (coupled with a few other pretty redundant scenes within the film) it just seemed wasteful given the film is so short.

I never felt like I got a good idea of the relationship between the two main characters which meant the abuse/separation and subsequent reconciliation did not have as much impact as it should have. I just never really felt the love was there.

Given the lack of plot and character development (imo) I would at least expect the film to be interesting stylistically or at least look good (or at least unique) but I found the editing clunky and the cinematography was very staid to me. It just felt bland and didnt really serve the story or its themes and issues.

I have noticed many reviews refer to the poetic style of the film. I dont fully understand what this means but perhaps this films is a poem to other highly rated films novels? perhaps it has to be approached differently than other films. If I expect a novel and get a poem chances are I will be disappointed. For this reason I am definitely going to give it another shot, have another look but I was deifnitely left cold by the film on first viewing.

Just wondering what are other peoples thoughts on this film? Im sure some people on here are huge fans of the movie and I am most interested in hearing from such people and what they got from the film.

[–] remurmur 15 years ago

I know exactly how you feel. I was left completely baffled how the film is even considered good, let alone one of the best films ever. The only thing from the film I found interesting was Jules character quirk of owning a lot of cats.

I think it's partially due to my complete disgust with French cinema in general, dispite my repeated attempts to enjoy it. (Jean-Pierre Jeunet's films have proven to be my sole exception.) But I can't even begin to pinpoint what's supposed to make L'Atalante interesting to anyone.

[–] bluesy 9 years ago

Complete disgust with French cinema in general? LOL, there are so many great french movies since the silent ones till today, you obviously have dubious taste in cinema. That's like saying i have complete disgust with american movies in general :)))

"Cinema is the most beautiful fraud in the world."

[–] timlin-4 15 years ago

It's a good film, but since it's from 1934 the plot is going to be somewhat lame, the characters somewhat stereotypical, and the technical aspects somewhat primitive. I too don't understand the film's reputation, unless the people who love so much are in their 90s.

[–] Don_Farshido 15 years ago

I'm in my twenties, precisely twenty-two, and this is by far my favourite movie of all time and by far cinema's most accomplished attempt at poetry and music. It would take too long to explain its magic, since it's rather unexplicable, especially when people won't let go of stereotypical criteria and evaluations. I'm astounded at the word "primitive" when refering to its "technichal" aspects - what kind of technical aspects are missing? I tend to call such people somewhat blind and soulless. What this film captures with the camera can not be categorized in such terms. Either one sees and feels it or one doesn't. Many of my favourite films I had to rewatch a couple of times, to really see and feel what they are about. People these days are all too fast in calling something overrated which they know nothing about.

[–] starrynight05 9 years ago

Cinema's most accomplished attempt at poetry and music? Please. It's a good film, and you're right to defend it, but don't go over the top. It is poetic and beautiful, but there will always be people who don't appreciate that side of cinema, or who do appreciate it, but simply don't find it in this particular film (cinema is, after all, subjective by nature, like any art form). That being said, to say it's the most accomplished exercise in cinematic poetry ever is way over the top. Firstly, because you haven't seen every film ever made, so you can't make that statement. No one can. Secondly, poetry, like cinema, is subjective, so what's poetic to you and what's poetic to someone else can be two very different things. For that reason, it would be absurd to call any film the most poetic film ever made. All you can reasonably say is that the poetry of "L'atalante" resonated with you more than any other film you've ever seen. That's a reasonable statement. Anything beyond that is certainly not.

My advice: love the movies you love, and let people who disagree with you disagree with you. Don't allow someone else's contempt for a film you love force you into overstated attempts at aggrandizing the film you love. At most, remind people that their inability to find anything of value in "L'atalante" does not mean that there is nothing of value to be found, but don't resort to exaggerated and inflated statements about the film.

[–] starrynight05 9 years ago

I can think of so many films from the '30s (and before) whose plots and characters are immensely more interesting, profound, and often complex than the bulk of films released today. Lubitsch, Renoir, Carné, Lang, Ford, Murnau, et ceterea. I don't mean to be rude, but to suggest that there is anything inherently inferior about older cinema (beyond the technology, which often produced far richer images than almost anything created by today's digital realism) demonstrates a massive ignorance on the part of any viewer. I personally think "L'atalante" is somewhat overrated, but it's a very good film. The people who love it so much aren't in their 90s; they're simply people who have different tastes in cinema than you do. That doesn't make you right and them wrong any more than it makes them right and you wrong. Pointing out the subjective nature of cinema shouldn't be necessary -- it should be obvious -- but your comment necessitates it.

[–] daniel_poeira 15 years ago

"The Best (Whatever) Of All Time" is a very stupid title to give to anything in the first place. Cinema is very complex and very subjective, you can only say something is the most ... of all time if you can MEASURE it - say, the longest film, the most expensive, etc.

Maybe if someone said this is "one of the best french films of the 1930s" you would be more likely to agree.

[–] Don_Farshido 15 years ago

Don't be so square. It's rather stupid to point out to everybody that cinema is subjective, since that should be clear to everybody who starts watching films and thinking about them in the first place, besides it gets a kind of smartass-slogan to fight any kind of hearty and valuable discussion. If someone says "I cannot see how anybody can like this" (I don't mean the original poster), it would be no less a subjective point of view transfused into a wider context than if I say that L'Atalante is beyond everything else and belongs to a very special category in cinema history.

Another (to use your own deeply complex vocabulary) quite stupid mistake you made resides in your last sentence: If I say something is "one of the best", I am measuring it. I am saying it is better than something else. Comparative is permitted, superlative is forbidden? So it seems to be a matter of preciseness: If I distinguish between two films qualitatively, there certainly are certain characteristics which I can measure them with, but if I single out one film, I would measure too accurately? So it always has to be abstract, boring, banal? "This is one of the best films of that genre...", "This is one of the best films of that time...", "One might say that this film may be among the better films among... but OF COURSE IT'S ONLY SUBJECTIVE!". This kind of approach is so lifeless, heartless and soulless that it's rather ridiculous if it's really art what we discuss here.

So, much ado about nothing: Don't attack me for something I'm not guilty of, but give me your point of view, which should be SUBJECTIVE but at the same time valuable as a means for argument and discourse.

[–] darkkie 13 years ago

I believe that watching this film (and many others) is like looking at a painting. It may or may not evoke powerful or beautiful feelings. I do suggest you watch it again though. Many of these critically acclaimed films do get richer with multiple viewings. By the way, I didn't like this film all that much the first viewing but now I realize how great it is.

[–] stg303 13 years ago

It's a great movie. The plot is very simple, really, but I had no trouble with the character development (though it's possible that I saw a different version than you). For 1934, the cinematography was very good, in my opinion, and parts were quite dreamy. I felt strongly for the wife in the movie, personally, having wondered what I'd gotten myself into in situations before, and trying to make the best of it until everything blows up and I have to get out. Jules was a good comic counterbalance to the unravelling in the story, so it didn't become too dark. Of course, the happy ending had to come. We ARE speaking of a romance movie here!

It's hard to explain to someone why a good piece of art is a good piece of art. It gets a bit pedantic explaining it in terms of various elements; the piece of art is rather a blend of the different elements. And you can praise or criticise anything based on the elements. Where things get subjective is the person's relationship to the piece of art.

For probably the last 30 years, the physical copies of this movie have been billed with the line, "May be the greatest film ever made." This line, in itself, stirs controversy. Everyone has their favourites, and everyone is disparate. Considering this, people start making comparisons against their favourites. "It doesn't have x element that Fellini is offering," "It's lacking y element from 'Touch of Evil.'" Most of the time, it's not even an active comparison. I actually think the movie should be sold WITHOUT that line on the box. Maybe the phrase will go away, and people will make up their own minds.

Looking at the movies you mention here, "L'Atalante" is nothing like any of them. So my thought is, probably this simply isn't anything you expected it to be. Hopefully by this point, you've freed your mind enough of the topic of this movie, to the point where you can watch it again. If you do, let everyone know what you think of it. You might love it; you might hate it. No one's to judge you one way or the other.

[–] escalation746 13 years ago

I am sorry you did not enjoy L'Atalante, but so it goes; not every film is made for every person and not everyone is open to the magic of a particular screening. Perhaps your cat died earlier in the day. Perhaps the love of your life had just left you. Perhaps, through some indiscretion, you've lost the important piece of paper that means you are no longer qualified for your job. Perhaps you are not capable of dreaming, since your day-to-day work has, by sad necessity, made of you an automaton. Perhaps there is no music in your life.

But wait, hold on. If any of these was the case then you would love L'Atalante, because it is precisely these subjects -- and many more (passion, love, women's emancipation, class struggle, technology) -- that the film addresses. And all presented with consummate skill in lighting, framing, acting, tempo and mood. Yet you disparage the technical abilities on display and seem oblivious to the nature of the characters and plot points. Maybe you also missed the fact that this film is 80 years old?

I watched Jean Vigo's L'Atalante last night for the first time and was overwhelmed by its humanity, beauty and sense of purpose. It was obviously directed by some sort of a genius.

[–] Projectedlight 12 years ago

I watched Jean Vigo's L'Atalante last night for the first time and was overwhelmed by its humanity, beauty and sense of purpose. It was obviously directed by some sort of a genius.

Me too, and I agree 100%.
It's incredibly beautiful and I can't get it out of my head.

[–] sean_pak215 13 years ago

I can understand someone not being fully immersed into the characters and storyline. Not many people in the film are likeable and the narrative is simple. But I find it next to impossible not to appreciate the technical and stylistic innovations of this movie. From any objective point of view, even today, it remains one of the most beautiful movies ever made, visually. How can anybody miss those innovative high and low angles, the amazing cinematography (especially outdoors and in the city). Camera-wise, it basically foreshadows French New Wave. In my opinion Citizen Kane didn't do anything visually 7 years later that L'Atalante didn't do. Saying Vigo was technically ahead of his time is an understatement. And there's also the wonderful use of music. How the eloquent tunes wash over the multiple scenes in a dream-like quality. This aspect wasn't innovative per se (Under the Roofs of Paris used music the same way in 1930) but it was still beautifully done. Really, L'Atalante could have been made in the 1950s and 60s. Technically it's that breathtaking. Editing clunky? Couldn't be further from the truth. Any aspiring director would kill to make something this smooth.

However, I respect your other thoughts. Personally it took me a few views to fully appreciate--and feel--the storyline as much as I did the "look." You just kind of have to be in the right mood for such a loose narrative. However, the dreamy, simple storytelling was also ahead of its time; many New Wave films told stories the same way decades later. In this aspect it feels like many of today's art and foreign films and wasn't anything like its contemporaries.

[–] Replicant-88 12 years ago

Me to just watched now IMHO L'Atalante (1934) one of the greatest movie ever made

my favorite films://www.imdb.com/list/iFa7p7uwsr8/

[–] clivey6 12 years ago

Chalk me for 'underwhelmed'. I didn't hate it. The precis on imdb is a bit false though, in a 90-minute movie it is one whole hour before the newly wed decides to flee to Paris and see the sights. Until then, it's humdrum and not as charming as it ought to be imo, though the cats are cute. It's just life on the river, no dramatic purpose from what I can see, merely the eccentricity of the older shipmate to liven things up, but even that seems to be a bit creepy. I didn't find the couple that endearing.

BTW the pedlar really was the old equivalent of ebay, wasn't he? Here, some frilly things for you to buy? How about this? And the music arcade, where you pay to listen to a song you like, the old equivalent of youtube...

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

[–] Porn_Flakes 9 years ago

It's just life on the river, no dramatic purpose from what I can see, merely the eccentricity of the older shipmate to liven things up, but even that seems to be a bit creepy.

I didn't find him creepy myself. Irritating as all heck, sure. He was so loud and obnoxious. It was like watching one of the local drunks down town.

[–] juheb-hussain 11 years ago

Stick to your linear plots instead.