50 L'amour fou

[A Tempted Christ]

Radiance - why do you torment me so? I have a lot of Radiance. Why can't I have this?

This is with Janus/Criterion in US and Canada. No idea how long they're gonna sit on it though.

[Noiretirc]

Radiance - why do you torment me so? I have a lot of Radiance. Why can't I have this?

This is with Janus/Criterion in US and Canada. No idea how long they're gonna sit on it though.

Ok, thanks. Dom mentioned this months ago, but I thought (hoped) something had changed.

[domino harvey]

I adore Out 1. Does that mean that I will love this?

I guess it depends on what aspects of Out 1 you value, but I imagine a Venn diagram of lovers of these two films looks like a bracelet, so probably

[Michael Kerpan]

Noiretirc -- There are flashes of humor (some VERY dry) scattered throughout Out 1 (even if only a small percent of the running time), I can't really recall any humorous moments in L'amour fou.

[Beloved Aunt]

Michael Kerpan, I seem to recall from my viewing of LAF like twenty years ago that there is a moment when Kalfon's character semi-jestingly offers one of the actresses who isn't his wife his gun, to kill herself with, that seems to have been intended to be darkly humorous. Not that it was actually funny, really. Kalfon has a gun in this film, right....? Or maybe he was just alluding to the idea of suicide sans gun. I forget.

I found this film pretty fun and not that hard to sit through, especially considering I saw it in a theatre, but I get very much how it's not truly one of Rivette's essential or greatest films. I sense already, having just seen a couple of Rivette's films and read about some of the others, that probably a goodly portion of the rest might be rather insubstantial, dare I say a bit silly, even though he is still an artist of considerable stature. And some rather superficial aspects of a film of his like L'amour fou might invite overrating from some.

[Michael Kerpan]

I found the film powerful -- but not at all "fun".

[Beloved Aunt]

Really? It's not that dark really...is it? Even the folie-a-deux, or whatever, dirty weekend apartment-destroying thing Ogier and Kalfon have at the end of the film I remember having a frivolous side to it. What about LAF do you find so grave or shattering? (if that is what you mean)

[Michael Kerpan]

It's been 20 or so years since I saw this screened -- but I recall finding it "shattering" at the time. Details are vague.

[nowhereisaplace]

I agree with the initial assessment of it being "shattering" after seeing it finally at that Rivette retrospective in Queens 20 years ago. There are moments of lightness in the film (for instance, I agree the apartment destroying is does have a frivolous side to it), but to me it was the overall weight of the duration paired with the tedious work in the creation of the play and the very drawn out destruction of the relationship that gave me that impression. Much more so than Out 1 did at the time. But I would counter and say I do think it is one of Rivette's most important films, if not the most important. It was the first time he went in this direction and this experiment informed his methodology in a profound way for the rest of his career.

[Noiretirc]

"Shattering" is an interesting word. I think I could apply it to my overall reaction at the end of Out 1. (And I don't mean my physical state after that duration.)

[Michael Kerpan]

I found the apartment destruction more frightening than funny (the moreso the longer it went on).

[Beloved Aunt]

But I would counter and say I do think it is one of Rivette's most important films, if not the most important. It was the first time he went in this direction and this experiment informed his methodology in a profound way for the rest of his career.

I don't mean to be rude, but, so what? Surely this alone doesn't make L'amour fou one of Rivette's greatest or most important films?

[Noiretirc]

To be fair, here is the whole quote!

I agree with the initial assessment of it being "shattering" after seeing it finally at that Rivette retrospective in Queens 20 years ago. There are moments of lightness in the film (for instance, I agree the apartment destroying is does have a frivolous side to it), but to me it was the overall weight of the duration paired with the tedious work in the creation of the play and the very drawn out destruction of the relationship that gave me that impression. Much more so than Out 1 did at the time. But I would counter and say I do think it is one of Rivette's most important films, if not the most important. It was the first time he went in this direction and this experiment informed his methodology in a profound way for the rest of his career.

Anyway, you are all making me want to see this even more.

[Beloved Aunt]

Regardless, I think my point still stands.

[nowhereisaplace]

I didn't say greatest but as I said, L'amour For was the first film that Rivette utilized improvisation, the first time he has worked with extended duration and the first time he used rehearsal scenes as long building blocks that the narrative weaves around - all things that would be become the hallmarks of his work and usually the first things discussed when talking about Rivette's contribution to cinema history. For that, I would say it's his most important film. I love Rivette's work, I honestly don't think there is a film of his that I dislike; but when I think of his important work, this one definitely stands at the summit for me.

[Beloved Aunt]

Sure, I can see you're not saying there's a link between L'amour fou being an important turning point in Rivette's career and it being one of his best films, sorry about that. You are saying you do think it is one of his best films, though...aren't you? And if so why do you think that? Just curious.

[spectre]

Michael Kerpan, I seem to recall from my viewing of LAF like twenty years ago that there is a moment when Kalfon's character semi-jestingly offers one of the actresses who isn't his wife his gun, to kill herself with, that seems to have been intended to be darkly humorous. Not that it was actually funny, really. Kalfon has a gun in this film, right....? Or maybe he was just alluding to the idea of suicide sans gun. I forget.

If I recall correctly, the scene does actually start off quite amusingly, with the main couple sitting around in their apartment with a guest trying to make small talk and miserably failing. But then things turn sour when Kalfon seems to get a bit too into his routine with the gun.

I think that's the trajectory of much of the film – where things that initially seem childish, playful or charmingly eccentric soon take on a harder and uglier edge, forcing you to revisit how you thought about those earlier moments. I think it's a fascinating and deeply interesting film about mental illness, but no question that it's less fun than some of Rivette's work that followed it. I liked this review from Letterboxd, which I think captures the vibe pretty aptly:

accurately captures the experience of trying to do fun little side quests while your brain decays into pink goo. each cut gradually feels like the movie tearing itself open. unsparingly grim stuff; this probably should've had a content warning. i liked the part where it becomes the eric andre show for like 20 minutes

[Red Screamer]

There seems to be an issue with my copy. There’s a thin black line at the top of the image with a slight gap between it and the normal black bars at the top and on the right side. It looks like it’s just been superimposed in Premiere or something. It only shows up on the feature film and not the disc menu etc. Anyone else have this problem / an idea of what’s happening?

[Red Screamer]

I watched it anyway since I’d already blocked the evening off. A magnetic and unsettling film. It pulls together Rivette’s Warhol/Garrel side (open-field/documentary) and his modernist novel side (insistent structure/allegory) in tense little knots that keep shifting and coming undone.

To respond a bit to Domino’s complaints from the last page: When the TV director (he’s importantly not a cast member but an outsider) asks Kalfon about Barthes’ reading of the play, it’s on one level the classic dynamic of an artist resisting critical interpretation of their work. But there’s also something more personal to the question since he’s asking if Pyrrhus, the character Kalfon plays, is the real main character of the tragedy. Kalfon’s response is that Barthes forgets the fact that Hermione, played originally by Ogier, loves him, which changes everything.

I agree that Rivette isn’t really “saying” anything about the theater as an institution, because he’s instead using the experience of theater formally to reflect and denature behavior and speech on a wider level. Like other Rivette films, L’amour fou is concerned more generally with fiction as a concept — Ogier, like Proust’s narrator in La prisonnière, is trapped in her bedroom telling herself stories strung together by jealousy; though shared fiction (theater?) is also the thing that makes romance possible, hence the childish games and scenes they act out together when they’re alone. Also, since you were wondering, the break-up scene, for example, was the result of 19 takes, according to Frappat. Though “the break-up scene” could refer to like 3 different sequences in the film, so maybe the extras will have some more details.