Would you call it a documentary?

I was about to say "yes," and now have changed my mind four times in the last five minutes.

This is a compliment, says I. I get the most out of films that are so singular in their vision that assigning them to a genre, even one as broad as "documentary," is an utterly pointless exercise. Generic terms like "good," "great," or "greatest" really don't apply. Is "San Soleil" good? Sure! Is it bad? Guess so. Compared to what? Exactly. Nothing comparable that I've seen exists. That fact alone means it stands out to me as an immensely rewarding viewing experience. I bought the dvd because of "La Jetee" and have ended up becoming much more passionate about "Sans Soleil."

I guess if I were running a video shop, I'd grudgingly file it under documentaries, but only because no existing genre seems to fit any better. Amazon lists it under "Classi Sci-Fi & Fantasy" (presumably because it's packaged with "La Jetee") and as part of Jimmy Stewart's filmography. At first I assumed that was a mistake until I remembered "Sans Soleil"s references to "Vertigo." Sci-fi and fantasy this film is surely not, but oddly that's nearly as apt a description as anything else. Until enough films exist to populate a "free-form, dreamlike film essay" section, I guess we'll just have to accept that "Sans Soleil," God bless it, ain't gonna fit in with the popular kids.

Pseudo documentary..?

Kinda like Man With a Movie Camera?

You know, it kinda deserves its own genre.

It's an essay film.

there is a very loud amusement park right in front of my present lodgings

No - the filmmaker is not trying to present an argument about an issue to try to bring more attention to it, with an ultimate goal perhaps of motivating the viewer into taking action or changing behavior at the most or altering perspectives on the issue(s) at the least.

The movie is simply some woman's ramblings about the world around her, her experience with it and the people she encounters and observes. Presumably, this is the voice of the male filmmaker, but maybe not.

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

Yes.

Oh whisky, leave me alone.

Well, to the extent that the core of a documentary lies in the story surrounding the "real life" images contained within it, then I'd have to say NO, because the footage in San Soleil is used primarily to define and expand the narrative field of a "fictional" or at least semi-biographical realm - the story of the unseen narrator and her letters from Krasner. The true lyrical center of the film is the monologue and it's meditations on time, memory and the human condition. The footage is an adjunct, there to add texture and dimension (albeit with textures and dimensions that sometimes correspond exactly to what is being spoken.) This, at least, is the way I like to experience the film. To give an example of what I think is happening here, in a sense and manner it's a bit like the poetic harmonization of fictive and non fictive elements seen in parts of Zerkalo…except that in Sans Soleil the documentary elements contain personal links and have been exploded outward to occupy the film's entire visual field.

Yes. This is like the Baraka and Koyaanisqatsi type of documentaries, experimental documentary of a concept.

I have, in general, problems with the term "documentary", which is a subject for separate discussion.

I would call this, if anything, a cinema-essay.

Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools.