MovieChat Forums > La jetée (1962) Discussion > better than 12 Monkeys

better than 12 Monkeys


My opinion is that la jetee is better than 12 Monkeys. This is such a beautiful movie and it explores so many feelings. It has tragedy in a way that 12 Monkeys lacks.







"I throw shapes, I set them up, I watch them fall"- SANDS


43

reply

looks like you're on your own on that one...

reply

dr mambo would say that

reply

I agree with dr mambo. That movie is visually more stunning that 12 monkeys (which a masterpiece in any case) and much more difficult to be made.

reply

i think both movie are to different to compare. although the have the same basic story they each have elements of greatness.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm pretty sure that short films aren't allowed to be in the top 250.

Goo Goo G'Joob

reply

I disagree. While I'm a big fan of Gilliam's work, I don't think 12 Monkeys is one of his stronger films. La Jetee long ago entered the canon of great films; Kael called it possibly the greatest science fiction film ever made. La Jetee is also hugely influential (see the Bowie video mentioned here, or the trailer to Buffalo '66, or any number of lesser experimental films.) 12 Monkeys is never going to achieve the same degree of importance because it's only about the events depicted in its narrative, whereas La Jetee is about many, many things. It's a much richer piece of work than Gilliam's film, but this is not intended as a slight to 12 Monkeys; rather, it's a testement to the power of Marker's work.

If you're simply put off by the fact that La Jetee is made up almost entirely of stills, ask yourself the following, and see if it opens up new ways to interpret the film:

Aren't all films made up of stills?

reply

"Aren't all films made up of stills?"

That's such a philosophical yet true statement. I love it.

reply

"Aren't all films made up of stills?"

I found that statement to be pretty pretentious, personally.

____________________________________
"...needless to say, I had the last laugh."

reply

"Aren't all films made up of stills?"

I found that statement to be pretty pretentious, personally.

I agree, it is silly - Without motion, it's not a "motion" picture: it's just a slide show or a montage communicated through the medium of film.








"There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling!" - Comic Book Guy

reply

"Without motion, it's not a "motion" picture: it's just a slide show or a montage communicated through the medium of film. "

You mean the illusion of motion, right?

reply

You mean the illusion of motion, right?

You are correct that the "motion" on film is not actual motion, but the motion of three dimensional animate and inamimate subjects captured in the two-dimensional medium of film - in that sense, it is a type of "virtual" motion, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it an "illusion" of motion. Close call though.

"There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling!" - Comic Book Guy

reply

I agree with Kael. It just might be the best. Better than 12 Monkeys... and 12 Monkeys is pretty damn good.

reply

I must agree with Mambo here. La Jetée has an emotionnal power far beyond the 12 monkeys movie, while 12 Monkeys tries to reach that level during one hour and half, never reaching it.

La Jetée is an extraordinary work of art that tells a lot about how movies should be made to reach their universal purpose : art, or the free expression of creation through both mediums, image and sound.

Despite these assertions, the rating of 7.8 as of today comes quite unexpected. Do people today have become insensible to art in its basic forms ?

reply

I really like them both really.

reply

I must say, to be stunned by a 26 minutes black & white slideshow.
this is one of the best stories I've seen.

I wish I would've seen this before 12 monkeys.

but it's hard to compare it with 12 monkeys, since 12 monkeys is more of a "real" movie.
I couldn't really say la jetee is better, but indeed the story is more gasping brilliant and stunning.

I wish someone will make a remake on la jetee.. yeah I know, that's a totally crazy and stupid thing to say, looking at remakes today.
but if a real brilliant director did it, and made it really abstract.

kubrick might have done a good job.

reply

you mean...like Terry Gilliam did?

A remake shouldn't be a shot for shot recreation (Gus Van Sant I'm talking to you) but rather a revision of the work. Gilliam did this and did it quite well. making an amazing movie of his own while not defacing the original's greatness.

reply

i enjoyed gilliam's version, but la jetee absolutely confounded me. i wasn't really prepared to be amazed at a mere 28 minutes of screen time, but everything in the film worked so incomparably well that there is no other recourse than utter admiration. gilliam made a great film with 12 monkeys, but la jetee is wholly unique and a masterpiece.

reply

Even though 12 Monkeys is a Remake it's realy hard to compare the two. La Jetée is a love story while 12 Monkey's is a thriller

reply

[deleted]

Would all the pretensious *beep* who keep asking why this movie isn't in the top 250 explain exactly what this movie was about. I couldn't even read the subtitles--mine were in white and were often blurred. Also, I know you are simply asking this question because you saw a movie that few other people have seen so you want to sound important. It's not in the 250 because it's not a feature, it's not accessible and therefore will never reach a wide audience. Obviously you're a dumb teenager who wants to sound important. I'm sure it was very good, but the images--at least in my version--were so blurry and the subtitles were so difficult to make out I just gave up.

reply

YOU GAVE UP?!?! horrible idea! this movie's amazing. i saw 12 monkey's before hand obviously, being a young adult in this generation, but when i saw la jetee in a film class i was stunned. much better than 12 monkeys. it was nice to watch it in regards of, "what concepts did 12 monkeys use, be it storyline, characters or even the theme (love story vs. thriller is a terrible comparision). Le jetee is perhaps the most engaging 29 minute film i've ever seen (i wonder how many have been EXACTLY that.... perhaps this being the ONLY engaging 29 minute film i've seen). i've seen many of the 'classic' films (both in an internship reviewing hollywood classics and in a class of avant garde films from germany, poland, france, russia and other euopean nations made shortly after both the world wars), and i can HONESTLY say this is one of the best i've seen visually and in the story

reply

......What's great is just reading the narration, you can almost see why he chose still pictures.


This is the story of a man, marked by an image from his childhood. The violent scene that upsets him, and whose meaning he was to grasp only years later, happened on the main jetty at Orly, the Paris airport, sometime before the outbreak of World War III.

Orly, Sunday. Parents used to take their children there to watch the departing planes.

On this particular Sunday, the child whose story we are telling was bound to remember the frozen sun, the setting at the end of the jetty, and a woman's face.

Nothing sorts out memories from ordinary moments. Later on they do claim remembrance when they show their scars. That face he had seen was to be the only peacetime image to survive the war. Had he really seen it? Or had he invented that tender moment to prop up the madness to come?

The sudden roar, the woman's gesture, the crumpling body, and the cries of the crowd on the jetty blurred by fear.

Later, he knew he had seen a man die.

And sometime after came the destruction of Paris.

Many died. Some believed themselves to be victors. Others were taken prisoner. The survivors settled beneath Chaillot, in an underground network of galleries.

Above ground, Paris, as most of the world, was uninhabitable, riddled with radioactivity.

The victors stood guard over an empire of rats.

The prisoners were subjected to experiments, apparently of great concern to those who conducted them.

The outcome was a disappointment for some - death for others - and for others yet, madness.

One day they came to select a new guinea pig from among the prisoners.

He was the man whose story we are telling.

He was frightened. He had heard about the Head Experimenter. He was prepared to meet Dr. Frankenstein, or the Mad Scientist. Instead, he met a reasonable man who explained calmly that the human race was doomed. Space was off-limits. The only hope for survival lay in Time. A loophole in Time, and then maybe it would be possible to reach food, medicine, sources of energy.

This was the aim of the experiments: to send emissaries into Time, to summon the Past and Future to the aid of the Present.

But the human mind balked at the idea. To wake up in another age meant to be born again as an adult. The shock would be too great.

Having only sent lifeless or insentient bodies through different zones of Time, the inventors where now concentrating on men given to very strong mental images. If they were able to conceive or dream another time, perhaps they would be able to live in it.

The camp police spied even on dreams.

This man was selected from among a thousand for his obsession with an image from the past.

Nothing else, at first, put stripping out the present, and its racks.

They begin again.

The man doesn't die, nor does he go mad. He suffers.

They continue.

On the tenth day, images begin to ooze, like confessions.

A peacetime morning. A peacetime bedroom, a real bedroom. Real children. Real birds. Real cats. Real graves.

On the sixteenth day he is on the jetty at Orly. Empty.

Sometimes he recaptures a day of happiness, though different.

A face of happiness, though different.

Ruins.

A girl who could be the one he seeks. He passes her on the jetty. She smiles at him from an automobile. Other images appear, merge, in that museum, which is perhaps that of his memory.

On the thirtieth day, the meeting takes place. Now he is sure he recognizes her. In fact, it is the only thing he is sure of, in the middle of this dateless world that at first stuns him with its affluence. Around him, only fabulous materials: glass, plastic, terry cloth. When he recovers from his trance, the woman has gone.

The experimenters tighten their control. They send him back out on the trail. Time rolls back again, the moment returns.

This time he is close to her, he speaks to her. She welcomes him without surprise. They are without memories, without plans. Time builds itself painlessly around them. Their only landmarks are the flavor of the moment they are living and the markings on the walls.

Later on, they are in a garden. He remembers there were gardens.

She asks him about his necklace, the combat necklace he wore at the start of the war that is yet to come. He invents an explanation.

They walk. They look at the trunk of a redwood tree covered with historical dates. She pronounces an English name he doesn't understand. As in a dream, he shows her a point beyond the tree, hears himself say, "This is where I come from ..." - and falls back, exhausted. Then another wave of Time washes over him. The result of another injection perhaps.

Now she is asleep in the sun. He knows that in this world to which he has just returned for a while, only to be sent back to her, she is dead. She wakes up. He speaks again. Of a truth too fantastic to be believed he retains the essential: an unreachable country, a long way to go. She listens. She doesn't laugh.

Is it the same day? He doesn't know. They shall go on like this, on countless walks in which an unspoken trust, an unadulterated trust will grow between them, without memories or plans. Up to the moment where he feels - ahead of them - a barrier.

And this was the end of the first experiment.

It was the starting point for a whole series of tests, in which he would meet her at different times. Sometimes he finds her in front of their markings. She welcomes him in a simple way. She calls him her Ghost.

One day she seems frightened. One day she leans toward him. As for him, he never knows whether he moves toward her, whether he is driven, whether he has made it up, or whether he is only dreaming.

Around the fiftieth day, they meet in a museum filled with timeless animals. Now the aim is perfectly adjusted. Thrown at the right moment, he may stay there and move without effort.

She too seems tamed. She accepts as a natural phenomenon the ways of this visitor who comes and goes, who exists, talks, laughs with her, stops talking, listens to her, then disappears.

Once back in the experiment room, he knew something was different. The camp leader was there. From the conversation around him, he gathered that after the brilliant results of the tests in the Past, they now meant to ship him into the Future. His excitement made him forget for a moment that the meeting at the museum had been the last.

The Future was better protected than the Past. After more, painful tries, he eventually caught some waves of the world to come. He went through a brand new planet, Paris rebuilt, ten thousand incomprehensible avenues. Others were waiting for him. It was a brief encounter. Obviously, they rejected these scoriae of another time.

He recited his lesson: because humanity had survived, it could not refuse to its own past the means of its survival. This sophism was taken for Fate in disguise.

They gave him a power unit strong enough to put all human industry back into motion, and again the gates of the Future were closed.

Sometime after his return, he was transferred to another part of the camp. He knew that his jailers would not spare him. He had been a tool in their hands, his childhood image had been used as bait to condition him, he had lived up to their expectations, he had played his part. Now he only waited to be liquidated with, somewhere inside him, the memory of a twice-lived fragment of time.

And deep in this limbo, he received a message from the people of the world to come. They too travelled through Time, and more easily. Now they were there, ready to accept him as one of their own. But he had a different request: rather than this pacified future, he wanted to be returned to the world of his childhood, and to this woman who was perhaps waiting for him.

Once again the main jetty at Orly, in the middle of this warm pre-war Sunday afternoon where he could not stay, he though in a confused way that the child he had been was due to be there too, watching the planes.

But first of all he looked for the woman's face, at the end of the jetty. He ran toward her. And when he recognized the man who had trailed him since the underground camp, he understood there was no way to escape Time, and that this moment he had been granted to watch as a child, which had never ceased to obsess him, was the moment of his own death.

reply

i read this transcript too and it opened up my imagination so much more than the film did, being that i saw it once in a class, but it was nice to read it all and be able to look at some things twice. i cant' wait to see it again!

reply

Good call on that Gus Van Sant comment.

reply

There really is a tragedy and a love in La Jetée that Terry Gilliam just doesn't have; he's a brilliant satirist as seen in Brazil but he doesn't understand romantic tragedy. Marker's sort-of remake/homage of Vertigo is more fresh and original than anything Gilliam could ever conceive (and I find Gilliam to be Dr. Seuss for the films) because of the love that went into this project--it's poetry on film. There isn't a dull frame or a half-hearted emotion in Marker's film. It's a true masterpiece.

Plus, Hélène Chatelain has more beauty and presence in those still photographs than Madeleine Stowe does in motion.

"GOD--WAS--WRONG!"--James Mason, Bigger Than Life

reply

I agree. La jetée has a similar story, but it's much tighter in its telling, and also delivers an emotional conclusion. There really isn't even an actor at all in La jetée, in the normal sense, because all you get are snapshots. And still from just that and some awkward narration (the version I saw was in English) they manage to pull off a better film. That says something about how film should be made, and how film should not be made.

reply

[deleted]

yeah, saying Terry Gilliam ripped this movie off is very ignorant. it credits La Jetee in the opening credits, for god's sake. people look on remakes of movies too darkly... they expose a lot of people to the original. this is a great example.

reply

terry gilliam never even saw le jetee it was the writers doing

reply

Yeah Gilliam saw it..he talks about it on the Criterion release of La Jetee in one of the extras...but I'm sure you know this now that it's 2009...lol

reply

He never saw it before making the movie, but did see it after.

You may have read about La Jetée because of its connection with Terry Gilliam’s 12 Monkeys (1995). Gilliam explains in his La Jetée DVD commentary that 12 Monkeys was “inspired by” rather than “based on” the short. The screenwriters used it to generate ideas for their script. Gilliam, however, chose not to see it until 12 Monkeys was completed. After finally viewing La Jetée, Gilliam proclaimed Marker to be a genius.
http://www.classicfilmpreview.com/fragmentary-images/

reply

La Jetee was WAY more enjoyable than 12 Monkey's for me. It wasn't even close. I saw La Jetee second, and I was surprised I liked it as much as I did. Beautiful movie.

reply

[deleted]

A little facile to suggest there's no acting in a La Jetee, I think... It was shot live action; what we see is Marker's collection of the best stills. I think the performances do come across through the stills. But it's a fair point in some ways, I guess the actors in La Jetee could have been weaker and we'd find it difficult to spot that

reply

Only in this day and age can more twists and more complexity equal a better story.
La Jetée is beautiful precisely for it's ascetism.
I watched 12 Monkeys first, and i even own a copy, it is a nice, fun movie but don't compare a Pollock to a Rembrant no matter how pleasing to the eye it might seem.
La Jetée is food for the brain, i fail to understand how the director managed to fill it up with so such emotion and quiet despair. Honestly i don't understand how it works, but it does. Maybe that is what art is all about.

reply

You can't escape time...incredible.

After seeing La Jetee, now it seems that the message is a little construed in 12 Monkeys. There are too many variables and too much focus on the army of the 12 monkeys. I realize that they are different films as well and while I love 12 Monkeys, it is for different reasons.

La Jetee kept it relatively basic, and in doing so, the narrative remained clear and more effective.

reply

[deleted]

Amen. People are two keen to treat 12 Monkeys as some kind of remake: it's not a thoughtful comparison.

reply

Agreed. Besides the plot, there's actually not much ground for a comparison between 12 monkeys and la jetee. 12 monkeys is a time travel flick, and la jetee is really more about film itself than anything else.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The stories are pretty much exactly the same. Both are quasi love stories, both are about time travel, both revolve around the idea of a man seeing his own death.

The simple fact , ignoring much of the BSery (is that a word?) I have read on these forums about La Jetee is a film about film, the difference is pretty easy to grasp.

La Jetee is 25ish minutes. Twelve Monkies is 2hrs.

La Jetee is a short story (very short), while Twelve Monkies is a novel.

Of course La Jetee is more focused, its shorter.
Twelve Monkies in my opinion gave me more to think about since it doesn't spell every detail out for you. I actually think both are intelligent movies, with a very interesting concept, and I am curious how some like styx8852 come to such broad generalizations. Did you miss the point of 12 Monkies? The movie was very focused, not 25 minutes focused, but focused none-the-less.

The amount of Snobbery I find on these movie boards is sometimes astounding.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]