What a dull and pretensious comment (about Where The Chicken Got The Axe
Sorry to react like that to a comment but it's the only one yet on "Ne touchez pas la have" (I'm writing my own...) and it's really injust to Rivette (that I don't even particulary apreciat), and, above all, it's full of inexactitudes and semi-thruths (that is lies, I guess...)
I'm talking about this comment : Where The Chicken Got The Axe, who's author is writers_reign from London, England (0 out of 10 people found the following comment useful, by the way).
I just want to say one or two thinks about some false critics, that easily comes to mind when you're unable to see any interset in Rivette's movie, but which are totaly injustified.
First of all, the french "Nouvelle Vague", which included Rivette, but also Truffaut, Rohmer, Godard or Chabrol, is the most important mouvment in the history of french cinema, and even "POSITIF" agrees to say that it was certainly the only time, where french cinema shined over the entired world (there would have been no Scorsese, DePalma or Forman whithout it).
They DIDN'T have any "pathological hatred for anything shot in a Studio by professional technicians", for they were the first to praise Hollywoodian studio directors like Hitchcock, Hawks or Ford : then stop with the clichés !
The same thing goes with balzac, who is omnipresent in Godard's, Truffaut, and especially Rivette's !!! So it's NOT "difficult to find something less New Wavelet than Honore Balzac" : "Out 1" is already inspired by "L'histoire des 13" (in 1971), and "La belle noiseuse" is a Balzac adaptation of "Le chef d'oeuvre inconnu"... Balzac is very familiar in Rivette's film, and also appears quite often in his articles in les cahiers du cinema, in the 50's...
(And one last thing concerning the human comedy : it's not a very laughable one, by the way.)
Before writing a so pretentious and ridiculous comment, it's preferable to take some informations on Rivette, la nouvelle vague and Balzac, please...
"It is pretty
But is it art ?"
WELLES