My Journey Through French Cinema

I thought that I had seen a lot of French films, but now after having gone on this journey with Bernard Tavernier, I realize that I have missed many more! This documentary should be required viewing for film students and basically anyone who appreciates world cinema and/or French culture and language.

Incredibly interesting, informative and strangely intimate. Merci beaucoup, Bernard, mon ami!

I saw it as a beautiful confession. Subjective out of doubts. But charming exactly for the public exposure of stories, enthusiasm, choices, stories, portraits, fragments of films. A nice trip across French cinema, having as pleasant guide Bertrand Tavernier. Confession of an admirable director, it can be not the expected film. But it is ot exactly a list of must see films but bricks of a long way to understand , love and make cinema.

Tavernier is a very important figure in the history of not only French but world cinema. There is no better man suited to direct a documentary about the history of French cinema. Alas, this is a very subjective voyage through French cinema based on Tavernier personal connections and recollections and, most importantly, own taste.

The first half is fantastic, but the movie loses itself after the tale of Gabin, France greatest actor. There is no thread liking one part with another, no message to be told. It is just one recollection after another, which could go on forever, and indeed it went on as TV series of 10 episodes.

The movie or documentary fails because he actually carries very little interest. If you know French cinema prior to see this documentary, you will learn very little. If you don't know much about French cinema then yes, you will learn about Renoir, Becker, Gabin and The Great Illusion (the undisputed greatest movie ever made) but you will miss out on the legends that were Raimu, Fernandel, Bourvil, Clouzot, Dassin, De Funes and the greatest director out of them all Robert Bresson.

How come they've been left out? One might ask, well, for one thing, by time restrictions, although Clouzot and Guitry were touched upon in the TV series. But the main reason is Tavernier's own taste. Tavernier likes film noir and gritty films, hence the omission of all the comics of France Golden Age. He also isn't a particularly spirituel director, hence the omission of Bresson and Bunuel. It's a shame, it is similar to directing a documentary about the France football team and omitting to talk or even mention Zidane, Cantona and Papin.

A nice effort but lacking too much in structure and interest, although the first half is brilliantly told.

Sure looks and sounds like Tavernier took this trip with Tarantino as his constant companion, huh? In other words we spend way too much time in the crime/noir room of the Gallic movie mansion. I mean, I don't mind that certain of my favorite directors, like Malle and Truffaut, are given extremely short shrift. That's bound to happen whenever your personal list is put alongside someone else's. But not to balance Jean Gabin with, say, Simone Signoret or Danielle Darrieux or Jeanne Moreau but rather pairing him in the actor category with Eddie Friggin Constantine is to let one's love of one particular genre, to mention nothing of one's sexism, overwhelm one's good sense. And did you notice the lack of humor or whimsy in Tavernier's selections? Not a comedy or a musical to be seen anywhere in this guy's dark field of vision. Again, Tati and Demy are not my favorite French film makers but shouldn't they at least be mentioned somewhere along this particular excursion?

We now come to the "however" part of my review or: Why I Give It A 7 'Stead of a 6? First off, I learned a lot. Got a new appreciation of film makers like Becker and Sautet as well as a crash course in the superiority of French movie music scoring of the 1930s/40s versus that of Hollywood. Second, I enjoyed Tavernier's ability to admire a director without undue hagiography as in his affectionate but clear eyed portrait of Melville, in my opinion the best part of the documentary. And finally there is no denying that Tavernier is a most engaging guide, by turns relaxed, intense, self deprecating and always generous and warm in his assessments. Give it a B minus.

Is it recommended and useful to persons studying theory of film, history of cinema etc? Yes, certainly. Is it interesting, and enlightening about how to better understand cinema in general? Yes. But.... it is a very personal, Tavernier's history of French cinema, which means it is subjective and ultimately frustrating. I think "personal Bertrand Tavernier's" should have been included in the title, so that viewers don't feel misled and frustrated. For example, he spends a lot of time on the actor Jean Gabin or the director Melville but ignores many important and interesting personalities of French cinema, like Jean Vigo, Robert Bresson, Truffault, Delon, Deneuve, Auteil and many, many others. He spends short few minutes on Godard... and ignores the phenomenon of the French Nouvelle Vague altogether. And not one word is mentioned about modern French cinema in the 21st century. These 191 minutes (!) are worth your while, but also frustrating.