Changing Times

I very much liked this film. I have been a Deneuve fan for a long time and really enjoyed seeing her in another Téchiné picture. This director has a very ambiguous way of making his characters very human and very enigmatic simultaneously. The music he chooses is fantastic. Watching this, I was very much reminded of his 1996 film, Les Voleurs, also starring Deneuve. Les Temps qui Changent is part comedy, part family drama, part romance, and part political commentary. The film doesn't drag--it simmers and feels very alive. Morocco is quite a setting. In such a contrast to the mainstream American films, this film is subtle and unapologetic. The viewers come to care about not only the characters but their world as well. The subplots do not detract but only enhance the realistic and cultural quality of the film. Without a doubt worth watching. Téchiné is a master.

André Techiné sets this story of undying love against a complicated backdrop of conflicted individuals living in today's fragmented world. Essentially a simple story of a middle-aged pair whose paths have not crossed in 30 years, until one of them, still smitten and unable to relinquish his love, throws himself, unwelcome, into the life of the other. Deneuve is at her restrained best, further shown to advantage by the always watchable Depardieu.

The film's other main message is that life is complex and hard, that connections are increasingly difficult to maintain, and our attention must be scattered but vigilant in order to survive. Techiné throws in so many pieces of commentary on modern life that, while the main story is relatively simple, the viewer comes away under a heavy weight, as if having watched an epic film.

I'm a bit confused at the negative reactions on here, I really can't imagine anybody disliking this film. It's perfectly solid writing, direction and performances, and I miss the days when filmmakers were encouraged to tell stories relevant to life with relatable but complicated characters, against a fascinating, politically charged backdrop.

I'm a huge fan of Techiné's Wild Reeds, it's one of my favorite films of the 90s (and in general) - and OK, granted, this wasn't *as* good, but it was still horribly clever, sweet and entertaining. Depardieu does well despite a tricky character (who's a little too naive to be believable at times), Deneuve is as gorgeous and just generally magnificent as ever, and the supporting cast fares well also.

What a let-down!! With a renowned director and two of the biggest French stars, you could expect at least a good movie, if not a masterpiece. But the result is a shamble: the film tells of the undying love of Gérard Depardiieu for Catherine Deneuve, as they were lovers but parted some 30 years before. But the reason of the split is not explained: on the contrary, Deneuve confesses to her assistant and good friend that she was madly in love with Depardieu, both sexually and affectively … So you don't understand. Add an unfaithful husband who does not care a hoot any longer for Deneuve… you cannot expect to fulfill a 100 minute-movie with so thin a story. So they create useless roles ( the AC/DC son of Deneuve, his wife and his son, and his lover, as well as the wife's twin sister) and scenes (Depardieu's attempt at black magic, the dogs attacking Deneuve's son) . But they are uninteresting (when not laughable) and leave you cold… And if Depardieu is rather good, - showing some aspects of his former talent before he agreed to make any and every indifferent or bad films for amassing pots of money -, Deneuve appears unconcerned, showing no sincerity in her performance. I give it a 4, feeling generous ..

I saw this film last night as part of a Catherine Deneuve festival. She never disappoints me, and she didn't disappoint me this time, but the film did. Gerard Depardieu also was outstanding as usual; he is utterly amazing in his ability to portray vastly different characters despite his utterly distinctive physical presence.

I regard any film that holds my attention throughout as being basically good, and any that doesn't as basically bad. This one held my attention, so it's good. I kept wanting to see what happened next.

But there are degrees of goodness, and this one was down near the bottom. At the end, I thought, "Well, what am I supposed to take out of all that?" Two former lovers may or may not be reunited; if they are, it may or may not be the result of witchcraft; the half-gay son's girlfriend is unhappy about something, but I have no idea what it it is or if it's going to get better; her sister is also troubled, but I have no idea what about; maybe something significant was said about the politics of Tangier and/or Iraq, but if so it went over my head.

The hand-held camera, as always, didn't make me think about the significance of the events that were unfolding; it just unsettled my stomach by forcing me to adjust my field of vision every millisecond. When you think about it, the basic rationale for constant use of hand-held cameras is fundamentally stupid. It doesn't add realism; it destroys it. When I observe people interacting, I don't dance around them as photographers holding cameras seem compelled to do; and if I do move, my field of vision changes smoothly and, to me, unnoticeably. But when the hand-held camera moves, it jerks, and the viewer has to adjust his field of vision and then absorb the sights he sees. Bring back the good old days where the images were the focus, not the camera-work.