I watched this movie a few years ago and I liked it but I really didn't understand. To me it was like a prolonged episode of the Twilight Zone. If it really is like Alice and Wonderland I guess I should just accept it and enjoy if for what it is. However if someone could explain what happened I would appreciate it. I would also like to hear different people's opininions. Thank you.
shareI consider this one my favorite films, if not my favorite. It is based loosely on Alice in Wonderland, especially the start: Celine being the rabbit and Julie being the little girl. As for what it means, People have many interpretations of the movie. The most popular one seems to be that it's a metaphor for the creative process and the extent of one's imagination. I like this take on the movie but I doesn't matter to me because somehow this movie always cheers me up, and to me, thats really the point. As for what happened, Celine and Julie meet and become friends and start to swallow magic rocks and hallucinate a story (based on "A Romance of Old Clothes" by Henry James", I think)and they save the little girl who is supposed to die in it. They, as viewers, get involved in that story and we in turn , as viewers, get invloved in their story and thats what happens when we watch a play, watch a movie or read a book. After saving the litte girl Celine and Julie go boating? Why? Because the title says so,I guess.The ending could mean anything. I think it means to imply that every life is an adventure regardless of who you are.
shareThank you, damascus12. That was very helpful.
shareI also saw it as a sly attack on mainstream art film ethos -- with Celine & Julie embodying the spirit of the Nouvelle Vague, exposing the falseness of the melodrama and freeing the story from its inevitability.
shareIt's evidently quite anti-commercial,entirely playful and quite amusing in parts - just the sight of the red-haired one clacking across the streets of Montmartre in her unsuitable shoes is probably one of the funniest moments in a French cinema not known for its humour! I also like the soundtrack with its ample use of off-camera sound effects.
share[deleted]
Frightening? That would be the last impression I would take from this film. I found it thoroughly delightful. I'm not seeing the sanity/insanity dichotamy. There may be a bit of drama/melodrama, but I wouldn't take it to the degree of madness.
...ugly lives...? Umm, how were their lives ugly? Quirky maybe, but ugly?
I'm sorry, but are you by any chance studying film or english criticism? Your interpretation just seems so... academic. In the worst possible definition of the term. Unless this is a joke. In which case.. ha ha?
Shudder. I'll just go experience the film again to exoricise the dreariness of your criticism.
[deleted]
Why can't a deep or long film be delightful? I enjoyed myself thoroughly the whole way through, particularly during the scene when Julie replaces Celine on stage. It's a very silly movie in many ways, and yes, I insist, delightful.
You may consider me juvenile (graduation? - I would guess I'm quite a bit older than you, and most other people on imdb, if such things even matter), but I'm not the only one who finds this film delightful. This user's comments particularly resonated with me (scroll down to 7).
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur4344252/comments-index?order=useful&summary=on
And also a review in Slant
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=919
I supppose if you find Alice in Wonderland to be an irredeemably dark work you would only see madness in this film, but I myself see the whimsy and humour as well.
I am sorry about my cheap jab about academia, but I had just finished watching this charming film and felt the need to defend it, even though it of course has no need of any defense. I do hope you get more from the film than insanity and ugliness, as so many others obviously have. Perhaps I might suggest you watch it again?
[deleted]
I heard some good things about Miami Vice, I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet, so wouldn't feel competent to dismiss it at this point. I apologize again for my initial insult about the academic tone of your criticism. I'm sorry I upset you so much that you felt compelled to weigh in with rude comments of your own (not that I really mind, I recognise imdb for the free-for-all that it is - for priviledged and not-so priviledged movie buffs alike).
share[deleted]
Geez, what an arrogant jerk. I know this was 18 months ago, but...
this poster has clearly missed the point of the film. Yes, it's deep. Yes, it deals with some interesting themes. But that does not necessarily make it dark.
It is possible that some readings of the film could be somewhat disturbing, but having seen the film three times, I reckon you'd be clutching at straws. The film is a playful, light-hearted allegory for the joys of cinema, imho.
You could also possibly write a detailed essay on why Monty Python and the Holy Grail is actually a harsh analogy for the human condition, but logic tells me that you'd be barking up the wrong tree.
"Geez, what an arrogant jerk. I know this was 18 months ago, but..."
Hehe, I agree.
Ofcourse Rivette has his dark side (see The Pied Piper) and here it is also present. But the poster dismisses or neclects the farcical, sparkling and the absurd humor that is also present, that Jacques Rivette had plenty of and loved to put in his films.
"When there is no more room in the Oven,
the Bread will walk the Earth."
[deleted]
Well, it seems to me, Lynch took a deeper look into this movie by creating Mulholland Dr.. Not a lot of people on the Mulholland fraction did have noticed this yet though... Both films have a very similar structure, but Lynch clearly pointed out the frightening potential of the story. There is a great deal more to say anyway.
share[deleted]
Thanks and that's an intelligent and insightful review you've written. Great great film.
share[deleted]
lets not fight.
personally i dont like to think about the deep meanings of this film, and it is fun and delightful, it can be taken that way if you want, films are meant to be enjoyed.
i think this is the best film ive ever seen, so lets all bask in love...
This film is great, and yes, DELIGHTFUL. But, like any good work of art, it's open for interpretation...and whatever interpretation is given is very telling of the person who gave it.
And just because a film is 3 or 4 hours long doesn't mean that it has to be some grim statement on life/death, reality/unreality, sanity/insanity, good/evil. It can just be that the story is longer than the Hollywood friendly 90 minute run time.
With that out of the way, what is the significance of all the occultism that is rife throughout the film?
I tried. I didn't get the movie, but it seems lots of other people did.
shareI dunno, if the film really was supposed to be such a dark teetering on the edge of insanity as one poster here suggests, then it´s definitely a gross failure. Personally, I don´t see it as such, but nevertheless ain´t too happy with it even as a more lighthearted plunge into metash-t and makebelieve. For one thing, it feels needlessly drawn out with the entire first 45 or so minutes being an almost total non-event, a narrative vacuum where very little of interest occurred - and it didn´t strike me as particularly well rendered either. Sure, some filmmakers tend(ed) to revel in similar kind of underdramatization - like Antonioni or Wenders - but in their case it seemed more calculated in a sense as well as far more compellingly realized.
Secondly, the film sorely lacked atmosphere - which may have something to do with the almost complete lack of soundtrack. I mean, if you set out to go all surreal on the viewer, it´d help to back the proceedings up with a proper score to more effectively pull the viewer in the mysteries unfolding (rejecting musical score can be effective in reality based gritty dramas, but in Celine And Julie... not so much). Here, everything remained kind of flat and bland throughout with only a few scenes fulfilling their potential as far as I´m concerned.
And thirdly, the entire tone of the film seemed just wrong to me throughout. Admittedly, that might be more ´my´ problem than the film´s because it just didn´t do what I expected it to do or go the places I hoped it´d go - but it´s a problem nevertheless. It would have made the thing come so much more alive if even the proceedings in that damn house would have been shrouded in more mystery or sinister foreboding or even suspense - it would have made a great setting to stage a proper creepout... but, alas, Rivette apparently did not want to go down that road. Kind of wish he could have co-directed it with Lynch or something - woulda come out more intense and haunting that way. Also, talking of tone, the silliness and goofy antics displayed many a time by the leading ladies were also kinda grating and cringe-worthy more than anything else. Reminded me unpleasently of Bunuel´s similar horsing around in the crappy Belle Du Jour.
Overall... a great deal of potential, rather little of which was realized imo. Or maybe I just didn´t "get it" and should watch it again sometime... which does not look like an appealing prospect due to Celine´s 3+ hour running time. 6/10.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
Yeah it was my first Rivette and many reviews I read similarly suggest it´s not representative of his typical tone or sensibility. It certainly didn´t put me off from seeking out his other stuff or anything - it didn´t quite click with me, yes, but the concept itself´s intriguing and indicative of a colorful imagination at work.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan