Unimpressed

everything you say in your post is so funny. and when i thought it couldn't get any funnier (e.g. "photography seemed amateurish" hihihi!) you start comparing la jetée with night and fog. hahaha! that's almost like comparing 12 monkeys with schindler's list. thanks for the laugh! you're such a funny bone!


"never underestimate the power of denial". ricky fitts

[deleted]

Hi - me too I thought like you in some things, but that was *before* I realized (read) it was a 1962 movie... I enjoyed the film, liked its photography, and also liked the 'non convincing actors'. I think it's matter of tastes, but specially in this case you don't need actors, just faces and poses, and I think they did well; actually in those case probably the merit is for the photographer.

But this maybe has to do with the context in what the movie was shot, which was the 'nouvelle vague' thing, and that allowed and even encouraged this (correct me if I'm wrong).

As for the makeup, sure it was laughable, again, from our perspective. 2001 set a more realistic sci-fi cinema, and it has aged very well (except for the haircut of the hostress in the first scenes. That counts for the 1st star wars as well). I mean, even the old Bond flicks look aged now, and we (or I at least) enjoy it anyway.

[deleted]

Predominately I agree with you, I wasn't terribly impressed with the film. Vaguely inspired but I found it sluggish and dull.

So I did some research and found out it was originally shot as a moving image film but the film was destroyed because of .. something, I don't remember, and so Marker created La Jetee out of the salvagable footage - which, obviously, are mostly still although there is perceptable movement and one moving scene at the end. It may also explain why, photographically, the set up isn't working.

Although seeing as it was set in a post-nuclear blasted country and all in underground bunkers, light was never gonna be great for realism if nothing else.

The doorbell thing.. I have no explination for. lol :)

Hmm I disagree with you in saying it is not a good movie, but I do agree on some of the points you state.
I agree the resources were limited and that it did seem a bit "back in time" (as in not futuristic) compared to other movies made about the same time, as you exemplified with 2001: Space Odyssey; I also agree the actors didn't have much "character" (except for the girl, who I absolutely loved and for me had a pretty memorable cinematic face - if this expression even exists). When I say character i mean they lack that "good face" quality you wrote about.
Well that's true, overall the movie lacks strong resources. However I don't see this lack the same way that you do.
Where you see it making the movie weak, I find the movie humble and I see the story (which is indeed delivered beautifully) and, more - the *way the story is told* are enough to sustain the movie, to make it exist and come to life from the most limited resources. I actually find it insightful to do it this way, it kind of condenses what the story has to say, it escapes the "artifacts" that many movies use in order to "enchant", overwhelm the viewer, distracting him from what's essential or from it's weaknesses. For me the movie combined very well a strong and elegant narrative (and also a very very simple one - simple yet enough to gain my attention), sound and image. And that's where I disagree again - I didn't find the photography amateurish.. some of the stills were not as memorable as others but in general I think the images were quite beautiful, in an imtimistic way - focused on the characters and not on a sense of space that is characteristic of sci fi movies (and perhaps regarding it from another point of view, other than La Jetée being a sci-fi movie may help liking it more or viewing it from a different angle). I think light was handled well, from existing light probabbly, true, but very well managed in my opinion, I liked it visually.
Well I love science fiction, both novels and movies, I love sense of space, futuristic devices and ambience, I am thrilled to go and watch these new proposals, but I can't watch La Jetée looking for that kind of thing. What I look for and find in this movie is more like an insight of how we deal with the passage of time, with memories and with image itself. Also about war and what it causes on social conscience.

Let me just finish by saying I also saw Night and Fog, it put me in a horrible state of reflection (and misery) - as it also opened my mind to think about much needed things. Yes, it was a wonderfully achieved piece, but I don't think it relates, I found both very refined in very different ways.

Sorry for the long (looooong and hopefully not boring text) and some lousy english, good post anyway.

I agree.

I don't think the series of still pictures worked or was effective.

It was hard to get a sense of the characters and connect with them, since you never saw them move (except for the brief blinking by the woman) and you never heard them talk.

Frankly, I would not even call this a movie. It could just as well have been depicted in a graphic novel with no loss of detail.

I think "12 Monkeys", the film based on La Jetee, is *far* superior to La Jetee. The characters are richer and it all makes more sense.

Again, I didn't enjoy watching a series of still pictures. And I'm left to wonder "why ?"

Gino.

Oh, come on! It's a independent film!
Of course Chris Maker could not found better actors, better lights, better cameras, etc...
Your discussion it's ridiculous!
The beautiful think about the film is that it's a primitive image and actors with a incredible story. Thats why the movie is a masterpiece.