Having just watched the film, I felt that the people interviewed seemed more troubled and pessimistic than a random sample of people would be. I would have liked to have seen some frivolous people interviewed to juxtapose mary lou and Marceline.
shareWhile I quite like the film, I agree with you. All of the subjects were in the same social or political sphere as the two directors, who were both hard left activists, from what I've gathered.* This means that most of the people will share similar views, because they all have much the same belief system; thus robbing the film of the universality it wanted to achieve.
*Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm mainly going off the Criterion essay and a very incomplete knowledge of French history.
Chasing our yesterdays, we sacrifice our tomorrows
Was this supposed to speak universally about every person from a wide range socio economic background? I interpreted it as it purposefully focusing on lower working class and disenfranchised people and whether they were happy or not. And even though it had a smaller focus, I still do feel like the character's feelings and beliefs could be applied pretty universally, since most people fall within the middle to lower classe range.
Secondly, the film was also an experiment in seeing if normal people could act truthfully in front of a camera and while being watched. It's about trying to capture authenticity and a certain version of truth. Not a singular one.
That's an interesting point, but I agree with the PPs that the film never claims to present a representative sample of French residents in 1960. They basically used a "convenience sample," choosing people that they already knew.
share[deleted]