Tati and the French


As a great lover of French film, as well as French culture in general, I can afford to make a critical point, as I did discussing "La Mome".

Like other peoples, the French built a myth around themselves, this one concerning their pro-culture bias, especially contrasted with the primitive English, and the culturally challenged Americans. THEY support great Artists, as opposed to other primitive cultures, which support pop-trash, eat junk food, and ignore their artists, often forcing them to Paris, to be accepted. I'm willing to go along with this myth.

At least most of the time.

How Hollywood treated Welles, Keaton, von Stroheim, and many others, is well known, and is certainly a stain on the oft greatness of that film industry. But what about Tati, one of the really great and original film artists of the 20th century, whose career was abruptly ended (more or less) when his real masterpiece was trashed by the French critics, and ignored by the public?

"Play Time" is a remarkable work, the clearest statement I've ever seen concerning mid-20th century modern architecture, and man's place in it. And, it's hilarious?

reply

[deleted]

Several questions to jumpcut76:

1. Can you refer me to specific articles in Cahiers du cinema, about Tati in general, and "Play Time" in paricular? I have several collections of articles translated into English, but can find anything about the director or his work.

2. What did the rest of the press write about "Play Time"?

3. More important, what was the relative influence of Cahiers and or the general press on the French film-going public as a whole?

4. Did any Cahiers critics actually fight for Tati, and make an effort to defend the film?

This is a discussion that I'd like to continue.

reply

[deleted]

Merci!

reply

I found the Rivette interview in a book I'd forgotten I bought, articles from Cahiers translated into English. Your quote is correct, his stating that "Play Time" was "a revolutionary film". But then he continues:

".... in spite of Tati; the film completely overshadowed its creator."

He went on to explain that the film therefore had no auteur, probably the most damning thing that a Cahiers critic could say.

Is this the best that Rivette could say about Tati? Would his fellow travelers agree with him? These are issues which interest me a lot, as I try to better understand French film culture, and teach New Wave, and its influence on world film in general, and American film, and film criticism, of the 1970's.

reply

[deleted]

Since finding my two Cahiers books in English, I've been reading articles, from the '50s and '60s, and it's amazing that, for all the importance of the critics, and how much they developed film culture, so much of what they wrote is almost total babel (nonsense). It's interesting from a historical perspective, the history of film criticism, and certainly was important in creating serious discussions. But much of it is almost unreadable, like the Rivette ideas on Tati, which really make little sense.

reply

[deleted]