MovieChat Forums > Ne touchez pas la hache (2007) Discussion > Did I miss something?

Did I miss something?

posted 17 years ago by sylvianiccarthaigh
20 replies | jump to latest

I know that I will probably be criticised for my lack of appreciation of the supposed intellectual content of this film, but I have to say that it is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. I saw it last night at the Cork Film Festival. What a ridiculous load of tripe!! I was stuck in the middle of a row, so I couldn't make a quick getaway. But there were people leaving after only 45 minutes. Thats 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. The acting was dire, neither of the main characters were good-looking (shallow, I know but I was getting desperate) or managed to gain my sympathy, the sets were terrible, the sound even worse. At times, it resembled the scene from 'Singin' in the Rain' when they are trying to make a film "with sound", where every move (e.g. footsteps) is picked up by the microphones. I couldn't believe it was made in 2006. I don't think I was alone in thinking this film to be so bad, the crowd leaving with me all expressed similar disappointment. Three French people in front of me looked frankly embarrassed. Everyone laughed at moments that were obviously not intended to be funny. At one point, a man at the front jeered loudly at M. Depardieu and everyone clapped in agreement. I would be interested to know what others thought of this film. I'm going to a film in the festival for the next three days, but I won't let this experience ruin it for me.

[–] esbiker 16 years ago

Agreed. I saw this film tonight at a screening in Manhattan. You guys can debate the merits of Rivette and Truffaut until you're blue in the face. And the "religious repudiation of Rivette's atheistic earlier films". The fact is -- the audience walked out. As in the post above, it got so bad people began laughing at parts that were meant to be serious moments. I got a headache from Armand's wooden leg banging against the wooden floor as he stomped around from one room to another room to another room. And the acting was as wooden as his leg. I would only see this movie if I was tired and looking for a warm place to sleep. That is -- only if banging on the floor doesn't keep you awake.

[–] sylvianiccarthaigh 16 years ago

Your response has reassured me, thanks. As it is, a number of mishaps occured the week of that film festival, and Ne Touchez Pas L'Hache was the only film I got to see, you can imagine my disappointment!!

[–] mngpatlaw 16 years ago

I agree completely that this film was an absolute disaster in every respect except for the furniture. What a pretentious waste of two hours!

[–] VeniceQueen 16 years ago

I saw the film tonight, and I also agree! It was poorly acted, I got nothing from the characters, so long and dull, filled with uninteresting, unpoetic dialogue. Very much pretentious and boring, void of real emotion. There were 20 in the screening to begin with, 5 walked out!

[–] crass84 16 years ago

Like everyone else here, I saw this film (tonight in Manhattan) and was utterly and completely disappointed. Without a doubt, worst film I have ever seen.

All my main points were already raised by others, and to be honest, the film doesn't even warrant my energy or thought.

There was about 25 people in the audience. 5 walked out before the halfway point. I was tempted, so tempted, but I can't stand not seeing a movie through to the end.

To the OP: you're not alone in your thoughts.

[–] sylvianiccarthaigh 16 years ago

Well its always good to have company!! You can see from my history that I have never felt the urge to complain about a film before, I consider myself a fairly open-minded person, but this one was out of the ordinary!!

[–] jdickson05 16 years ago

I will keep this brief since I, personally, dislike these boards.

This was a terrific film on the part of Rivette. Seeing this film gave me the exact same excitement I felt when I was first introduced to the work of Truffaut, Chaplin, Renoir, and many others. Its a shame people did not appreciate this; I'm very sorry you didn't. The entire time your minds raced around the desire to hate the pacing of this film, thus the film itself, a great thing of beauty passed by you. You may never see it.

To loosely quote Henri Langois: "People are accustomed to *beep* when they have been fed *beep* their entire lives. Their throats become coated with it."

To the people that have walked out of this film, or the others who have chosen to believe "they know the film's proper length" over the filmmaker's, I'm sorry. But it is an injustice on anyone's part to think they know more about the films of Rivette than Rivette himself.

But to the people out there, the adventurous lovers of the cinema, DO NOT listen to the hostile words surrounding this film. It is splendid. It is another masterstroke in the career of a master like Rivette, and also a blow of justice to the wondrous pages of Balzac.

[–] JakeDarko 16 years ago

Jdickson, I assure you that someone disliking this film has nothing to do with you or your character.

There is also something to be said for "acquired taste" involving "beep" as well. IE, there are two sides to that coin.

"To be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is to apply it."

[–] jdickson05 16 years ago

And I assure you it does. Patience is greatly needed, and understanding of the work. Something is lost in this world that may never come back and that is patience for a plot and story and tone to unroll.

But like I said, it isn't wrong to not like a body of work, its just disappointing that people cannot fully "give themselves" to a film anymore, OR its complexity. There are many ways this film could have really been a bore and had a weak story and overly-melodramatic situations, making the film more of a soap than the beautiful chamber music that it was.

A tremendous and brave work, and for me, maybe the greatest film of last year.

[–] Michitak 16 years ago

I enjoyed this movie very much.

I thought it was one of those movies that really makes you think.

As the NY TIMES puts it, "it is a story about manners, language, power and society and the bodies caught in their grip. “Life,” one character observes, “is simply a complication of interests and feelings."

[–] pookwierzba 16 years ago

A film that makes me want to live. An IMDB thread that makes me want to die.

[–] jdickson05 16 years ago

Haha

Agreed

[–] garywhalen2 16 years ago

What an absolute bore of a film!!!

I love Balzac. And to compare this to Renoir or Chaplin is absurd. Slow pacing is not what ruins this film; rather, it's poorly delivered dialogue and drab acting. The best scene in the film was between the butler and the maid. Give me more of them. Better yet, give me Rules of the Game.

[–] jdickson05 16 years ago

Never was the film compared to Renoir or Chaplin, but rather the excitement upon first seeing a film by them. Its that sense of discovery when everything else is painfully similar and unexciting. I'm not sure when it was decided that things have to be quick paced to be exciting, but I wish that wasn't the case in many peoples minds.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zurichpoet 16 years ago

This was in my estimation easily one of the top 3 films.

The question posed about the nature of society’s rules as a prism for which genuine love, attraction, emotion is viewed is timeless.
I don’t know if there was an answer in this movie.
Or if there can be an answer.

Maybe just an honest, beautiful, sad lament.

In terms of coherently composing shots, and very few close ups, gave this a depth of feeling that is rare. I’ve found as a whole American auds respond bizarrely to sincere emotion that is beyond mere sexual attraction. Either they retreat into sarcasm or ignore what is being said. The pace of the move moves, it's more a question of the editing if their is a rythym. And this has it, such a nice flow between scenes. As for slow....what else do people have to do?
Eat some more food?

But I'd have to, still, make Colonal Chabert my favorite Balzac adaptation.

Also, very tragic about Guillaume Depardieu’s passing.
He was wonderful in this movie. RIP my man.

[–] gaelicguy 16 years ago

I must confess that I am not very familiar with Rivette, but I did, ultimately like the film a great deal. As to the NY Times quote, for once, I believe, they got it right. The young general feels very much out of sync in the frivolity of this post-revolutionary French court (France is yet again a monarchy at this point) and the Duchess toys with his emotions, denying her own in the process.

It made me interested in Rivette, it impelled me to read more of Balzac (whom I always loved, but haven't read for years). The film was visually stunning and, I thought that Jeanne Balibar gave a splendid performance.

I did see it at a university cinema, so perhaps there was a particular cachet in that setting, but for a sultry July evening, the theater was packed and all were very engulfed, I thought, in the story.

To the OP, I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy it, but I rather think that when a film instills a desire in the viewer to learn more about the material, actors, director, etc, it is, as our Martha Stewart says, 'a good thing.'

For the record, I did like and enjoy this film very much, for what it's worth.

If you can't improve the silence, DO NOT SPEAK!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Brandontank 15 years ago

Ok, so I understand that people may become irritated over a movie like this, especially if they have no experience with films that require a bit more attention than the average hollywood fare demands. However, this movie was breathtaking, full of humor, insight & tension; I am so grateful to be able to experience a film of this beauty. It is indeed a masterwork. I'm sad that so many people are unable to appreciate works like this. Rivette is sparing with his material, precise and humane. It's not possible to say anything substantial in a film without making at least some demands upon the audience. The brilliance of Rivette, in part, consists in his ability to negotiate this demand with incredible dexterity and wit. The demand, in fact, is made by the subject, and Rivette's film allows us to come closer to articulating some of the most fundamental problems of human existence, the enigmas of desire, the impossibility of love, the multiple cultural demands that opperate upon us in multiple directions. This is not an obscurantist film. Go to Godard's later works for that (which I happen to love, btw), but this movie is not your enemy, it is your friend.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]