Jacques Rivette

[Michael Kerpan]

Talking about Pascale Ogier: would it be a good idea to check out Rohmer's "Les nuits de la pleine lune"? I remember to have seen it some time in the 80s when it came out, but have basically lost all memory of it, and wasn't really amazed by Rohmer in the films I saw from him later. But Pascale is such a magnificent actress that I almost want to see her again regardless of the film.

I didn't care much for this when I saw it. Too much talking (of the bs-ing sort) for me. I much preferred Green Ray and (3 of) the Four Seasons.

I wish there were more wonderful Pascale Ogier performances to see.

[Zazou dans le Metro]

http://www.filmsdulosange.fr/fr/fr_stloup.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Greg Shantz]

Some YouTube videos of the film being shot: 1 2

[Tommaso]

"Durée: 1 h 24 " : that must be by far his shortest full-length film ever. I simply can't imagine a fast-paced Rivette film, though.

[Michael Kerpan]

Maybe one should just consider this new Rivette a long-ish (for anyone but JR) short film.

[Stefan]

That's really strange news. Indeed, it's virtually impossible for anyone familiar with JRs oeuvre to imagine how this 84-minute film might work. I still hope they (the folks at Films du Losange) have simple forgotten to add a "1" to the number.

[Perkins Cobb]

Hopefully the NYFF will run it twice, back-to-back, for the benefit of those in the audience who cling to their seats like a security blanket, unable to disengage themselves from a Rivette before the two-and-a-half-hour mark.

[Jack Phillips]

Does anyone know anything about this release?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002 ... d_i=468294" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What makes it "definitive"/superior to the last DVD version?

[RodneyOz]

Just because it has both the long/complete/true version (which was on the previous AE release) and the short/cutdown/annoying version as well. Unlike a hypothetical Out 1 release with both the 13 hour version and the 4 hour 'Spectre', I'm not convinced the addition of the cut down version is all that useful as a demonstration of different approaches by Rivette to the same material (whereas with 'Spectre', which I haven't seen, you apparently have scenes and shots radically reconfigured by new contexts from their original purpose in the full length film).

If you haven't got La Belle N., though, it would be a worthwhile purchase; but for those of us who bought the 2 disc AE just months ago ](*,) this is a double dip that isn't worth the extra expense.

[Jack Phillips]

Just because it has both the long/complete/true version (which was on the previous AE release) and the short/cutdown/annoying version as well.

Ah. So the long version is spread over two discs, and the short version is on disc 3?

[James]

Not really sure why there would be a "short version" considering the major flaw of La belle noiseuse is that it's too short.

[RodneyOz]

Yeah, the 'old' AE release had the four hour version spread over two discs . I'm thinking that the only change will be disc 3, which will have the short version, created in response to the belief that a two hour version of the film would be much more commercial than a four hour one (sigh... I fully agree with james that if there's a problem with the running time of the original version, it's that it could do with even more).

Of course, now the short version of the film is the hard one to find, since the long version is the one that won the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes, did fairly respectable business etc. So I suppose there's historical value in preserving it (just not in my buying it again). Not sure if there's much more scope for extras -I've tried to find my copy for the extras listing but alas I've bought too many discs (mostly from MoC) recently and can't find the blasted thing but I'm fairly confident that all releases of this had the exact same extras. However the Accent (R4) release apparently had a 1.66 ratio (this is 'my region' and I love Accent but don't have this, so it might just be a mistake in listing) and was alone in showing it in this ratio rather than 1.33; I didn't see the film theatrically but would be interested in whether this could be an area for change in the new edition.

[MichaelB]

Just to be clear, Divertimento isn't a "short version" in the sense of being cut down from the longer version - it's a separate film that was assembled at the same time from alternative takes and other material that you won't find in La Belle Noiseuse. So while the latter is certainly the one to go for as a first preference, Divertimento has more going for it than is being implied above.

[RodneyOz]

Mea culpa, MichaelB - I knew that (in my head) in my first post (thus my reference to Spectre) but because I chose the terms 'cutdown' and wasn't clear about what I meant by 'the same material' (i meant more the film as a whole rather than the specific physical materials) I ended up confusing myself (especially in my second post) and muddying the waters for everyone else. Sorry. Thanks for the much needed explanation.

I should also add that my one viewing of the Divertimento version was (a) before my conversion to the Rivette cult and appreciating these sort of things, and (b) while I was in the thrall of the idea 'longer is always better!' (a few years of extended-for-DVD cuts have battered THAT out of me). So I might end up with a VERY different evaluation upon a re-viewing - "the 3 disc set is essential!!"

[MichaelB]

I'm pretty sure it was screened in Academy when I caught it on its original London theatrical run - I remember being surprised at the time.

But the cinema (the Chelsea) was owned by the distributor (Artificial Eye), which is obviously no guarantee that it's 100% correct, but it does make it more likely that it was being treated with care. More to the point, Academy is extremely unusual for a West End presentation, so it's unlikely to have been an accident.

[GaryC]

I'm pretty sure it was screened in Academy when I caught it on its original London theatrical run - I remember being surprised at the time.

But the cinema (the Chelsea) was owned by the distributor (Artificial Eye), which is obviously no guarantee that it's 100% correct, but it does make it more likely that it was being treated with care. More to the point, Academy is extremely unusual for a West End presentation, so it's unlikely to have been an accident.

It was shown in Academy when I saw it at the Renoir, which was also owned by Artificial Eye. I wasn't surprised as I had read the Variety review (from the Cannes premiere) which mentioned the ratio.

[cinemartin]

It looks like a career spanning study will be released early next year, the first in English. I'm looking forward to this.

[tartarlamb]

It looks like a career spanning study will be released early next year, the first in English. I'm looking forward to this.

That is cause for quite a bit of excitement. I work at a University, and there's not a single book on Rivette. Its appalling. This is turning out to be quite a year for Rivette! Although, I suppose the bar for that is set pretty low.

[domino harvey]

The Godard and Chabrol books in that same series are quite well-done and make excellent primers on their careers, this is sure to be more of the same

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Just to echo domino, Manchester University Press does great film books. The Pialat and Rohmer books are highlights for me while stuff like the Renoir and Bresson books are useful, intelligent, and always interesting. I have very high hopes for the book. Can't wait until it's in paperback so it's more affordable, though.

[Stefan]

Thanks for the link, cinemartin. That book is way behind time. Let's hope these two guys really have to say something about Rivette.

Have a look at the trailer for "36 vues du Pic Saint Loup":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PemoZJAzha4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Doesn't look all too promising, I'd say.)

[tartarlamb]

yes, it's a playful and indeed more relaxed film than the others you mention. But curiously, these are precisely those that I would prefer over "Pont du Nord", though I'm equally not sure why; perhaps because it occupies some middle-ground between those films and the funnier "Va savoir" - another of my favourites - and is surprisingly short for a Rivette film (but then, "Duelle" and "Noroit" are not longer either, just perhaps more concentrated, if one can say that about "Noroit"...).

I second the complaint that Pont du Nord is too short, which in my view is the film's only, easily forgiven flaw. Otherwise, it hits all of the right bases for me. I love the playful tone (the Ogiers are so lovely together), and the liberating feel of the urban space, combined of course with the necessary paranoia. If the length of the film were as free and expansive as the narrative and the Ogiers' performances, it would certainly be one of his very best films. Merry-Go-Round is a great film as well, but Pont du Nord is kind of an antidote for its deeply sinister (too sinister?) and pessimistic tone.

[Michael Kerpan]

Why, oh why, has Pont du Nord ever been released on DVD (with English subs)?

(I don't even begrudge its shorter than average length).

[sidehacker]

Personally, I think Pont du nord is the perfect length. Perhaps, then, it's no surprise that it's my favorite Rivette.

[tartarlamb]

I always feel that his shorter films are too short. Duelle seems abbreviated to a cruel degree. Its probably the expectation and the nagging feeling that a respectable Rivette film should at least break two and a half hours.