User Reviews (15)

Add a Review

  • One has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12-hour long films. It could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence - in fact, even in the world of 'arthouse' cinema, such mammoth running times are extremely rare, for obvious reasons. This is one thing that Hollywood and art cinema share in common: the generally accepted running time of 90-120 minutes, with a minority of movies that dare to approach, but rarely exceed, the three-hour mark.

    For this reason, a film like Out 1 (runtime: 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile, and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find.

    Originally devised as a TV series by maverick Nouvelle Vague director Jacques Rivette, it raised little interest from the French networks, and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (Peter Watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo- documentary The War Game, although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). Shown a couple of times in 1971, Out 1 has re-emerged at a handful of Rivette retrospectives over the last two decades, and many who have seen it, including esteemed US critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time.

    Is it? Well, yes, if you like Rivette. That alone is a big 'if', as Jacques Rivette has never been a commercially successful director. Only two of his films were hits (Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and La Belle Noiseuse (1991), both superb), and many remain difficult to find on DVD today (Out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). Nevertheless, he is greatly respected within the film community, and with good reason - his playfully surreal narratives, sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema's most unique and satisfying film-makers.

    Out 1 deals with a theme that re-occurs throughout Rivette's work: the nature of acting, particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. His fascination with acting make Rivette's films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries, as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. Out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives, gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops: two consisting of acting troupes, each trying to devise post-modern theatrical adaptations of Aeschylus plays; the other two individual petty thieves (played by Nouvelle Vague icons Jean-Pierre Léaud and Juliet Berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money; and an overarching plot involving a mysterious Balzac-inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as 'the thirteen'.

    As with any Rivette film featuring a 'conspiracy' narrative, the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. As the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down, the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post-1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. For a film made in 1971, these were remarkably prescient themes; another French director in Jean Eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece The Mother and the Whore. But this is not the limit of Out 1's scope.

    Comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief, abstract black-and-white still montage of the events of the previous chapter), Out 1 is no less watchable than any quality TV series, and may even be better experienced on a one-episode- at-a-time basis. This is not to say that it doesn't remain challenging even when viewed in segments. Like most Rivette films, it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot, of sorts, and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors' heavily abstracted 'exercises') seem interminably long. These scenes are important, however, not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film, but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. Paradoxically, long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience, and this understanding of pacing has led Rivette, along with more modern directors like Michael Haneke and Béla Tarr, to create films with less commercial running-times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled.

    In a film that is in many ways about acting, the acting is fantastic. Many famous Nouvelle Vague faces appear, including the aforementioned Léaud and Berto, the outstanding Michel Lonsdale and Rivette regular Bulle Ogier. Even another legendary director in Eric Rohmer has a great cameo as a Balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. The people and architecture of Paris c. 1971, though, seem to have an equally significant role - the city landscapes, crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze Out 1 in time, a document of a place at a point in history.

    After a little more than 720 minutes, the film ends on an impossibly brief, enigmatic note; yet, the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities, intricacy and spontaneity, that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning, or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. For those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer, Out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. For film-makers, film critics and artists of all disciplines, this is something to be cherished.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Museum of the Moving Image here in New York recently put on a comprehensive retrospective of Jacques Rivette's films. Having fallen in love with his "Paris Nous Appartient", I decided this was not to be missed.

    Largely through extended shots and flexibly structured scenes, the movie depicts two avant-garde theater companies preparing their renditions of Aeschylus' "Seven Against Thebes" and "Prometheus". Additionally, we are shown the directionless day-to-day lives of two individuals distantly connected to the companies: a working class woman named Frederique who finds creative ways of hustling men out of their money, and a young man named Colin who visits local cafés posing as a deaf-mute, and plays shrill harmonica at the patrons until they pay him to go away. The first four hours or so are devoted to establishing the characters and their patterns, before a somewhat loose, whimsical plot finally emerges involving a conspiracy and the decoding of clandestine secret letters.

    The film is largely about life on the fringe of society. The theater companies are a despairing affair, using their elaborate, emotionally draining exercises (which are really something to watch) to distract themselves from the fact that their acts are unlikely ever to be staged or even seen. Colin and Frederique both have very few friends, who only briefly find any excitement or purpose after the conspiracy touches them, as they are spurred to find out more about it. The film meditates on the consequences of rejecting normal society in several memorable sequences, including a long shot of Colin as he wanders the streets of France shouting poetry to himself. As such, the film has been referred to as an analysis of 1960's counterculture.

    There is not a frame of the film that is not bursting with energy and vitality. The fact that much of the dialogue and movement is improvised makes the characters much more spontaneous, much more immediate. The camera also becomes an important character in this regard; throughout the movie boom shadows are visible here and there, or other similar errors, yet they seem natural and fit with the flow of the action because the camera is so important a player therein.

    More than anything for me, the film seems a great example of another way of making movies, a venue for film outside the usual pattern. For me it was a mind-opening experience, even more than "Paris Nous Appartient", though the latter bears many similarities of theme and structure. A must-see for anybody pondering the nature of art.
  • At close to thirteen hours in length, Out 1 (1971) is director Jacques Rivette's most challenging and complicated film; mixing elements of topical social debate, character comedy and narrative self-reference alongside thematic elements lifted from Honoré de Balzac's epic collection of inter-linked novels, La Comédie humaine, updated to a contemporary French setting. I was lucky enough to see the film in its full, uncut form at the London NFT back in April 2006, having no prior experience with Rivette's work at that particular time, but being told that as a fan of Jean Luc Godard, his style should be right up my street. Since then, I've seen two other films by Rivette - the frantic farce of Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and the more reflective, though somewhat arduous La Belle Noiseuse (1991) - both of which are similarly unwieldy in length and filled with a variety of deconstructive narrative tricks that are self-reflexive in design.

    Without wishing to take too much away from Rivette, the presentation of Out 1 suggests certain similarities to Godard's underrated political satire La Chinoise (1967); with the emphasis on a group of disparate characters attempting to uncover some hidden truth (here through the art of performance) that is contrasted against a topical, socially-aware backdrop of contemporary Parisian existence. The self-referential idea of a film about performers putting on a performance created by performers (etc) is exploited throughout by Rivette, who captures the proceedings in an uncomplicated, technically progressive approach that mixes elements of documentary-like investigation, cinéma vérité type deconstruction and a more experimental sense of abstraction that intensifies as a result of the film's hypnotic, languorous rhythm. According to most sources, the film was made without a script - again, something that Godard would occasionally claim to have attempted, though in reality was far too much of a domineering perfectionist to really adhere to - and the shambolic, formless improvisations, uncomplicated mise-en-scene and obviously unrehearsed moments of filming on the streets of Paris would all conform to this idea; with the film featuring a number of accidental technical errors that have been deliberately left in the final cut in order to alienate us further from the story and its characters.

    These mistakes include the shadow of the boom-mic, fluffed lines, camera reflections and the awkward gaze of street-level spectators glaring into the camera lens whenever Rivette and his crew hit the streets. In any other film, these flaws would be dismissed as simply incompetent film-making; however, in Rivette's work, such deliberate mistakes become part of the artistic aesthetic that here conspires to challenge the audience on both an emotional and purely visceral level. By including such examples, Rivette is bringing to light the artificiality of the film; offering us a fractured narrative about creative expression in a behind the scenes sense that continually reminds us of the manufactured nature of the thing itself. Shot on 16mm, Out 1 comes to typify the reportage style of cinema in which the emphasis is placed on clinical examination, as evident from the director's continual use of incredibly long takes and often complete lack of close-up shots to further distance us from the action and the characters on screen. This sense of deconstruction and deliberate alienation from the traditional cinematic codes and conventions that many of us might expect can also be seen in Rivette's experiments within the narrative, and how we, as an audience, are invited to find our own themes and interpretations as the characters in the drama group are likewise expected to find a motivation of their own.

    With these factors in mind, Out 1 is quite simply cinema at its most challenging and revolutionary. It is as far removed from the recognisable conventions of traditional film-making as one could possibly get, and seems to be an extension of the more superficial experiments of Andy Warhol combined with the unapologetically lofty output of Marguerite Duras; and all combined alongside certain stylistic elements found in the aforementioned La Chinoise and the Japanese New Wave masterpiece, Funeral Parade of Roses (1969). However, if you're already familiar with Rivette's work, from the preceding L' Amour fou (1968) to the more widely regarded Celine and Julie..., then you should be accustomed to the more alarming, deconstructive elements and the film's disarming length. As one critic put it, "the best way to experience Out 1 is to immerse yourself in it completely". Obviously, few of us will ever have the time or the energy (not least, the opportunity) required to get through the whole thing in a single sitting, however, given the fact that the film is broken down into a number of disconnected chapters, we can easily approach it in bite-sized chunks; losing out on the overall feel and flow perhaps, but still receiving the required information as it comes.

    For many it will no doubt feel like an obvious period piece - something that is there to be endured as opposed to enjoyed - though nevertheless, there is a real flow and a sense of energy to the film that might seem surprising given the slow-pace and epic length. It is a film that resonates with ideas about life, love, freedom and expression, all captured in a manner that is anarchic, spirited and filled with passion and vitality. It does take a great deal of work; and as a result, this review is really only scratching the surface of its themes and ideas that are there to be poured over by the viewer at their own leisure whilst immersing themselves in the continual games and absurdities of the plot. Although as a film it is always going to have an incredibly limited audience, as an experience Out 1 is second to none and really deserves to be seen in its full, 773 minute restoration, rather than the shorter, 4 hour cut, Out 1: Spectre (1974), which should probably be seen as a standalone work in its own right.
  • More than anything else watching "Out 1, noli me tangere" was a completely unique and, as much as I hate the use of the word in relation to film, revelatory experience. For most of my life I have involuntarily dwelt on what I perceived as 'imperfections' in any book, film, television series, or album I was particularly interested in, and completely ignored the argument that the whole, the ultimate experience, overpowers any flaws to the point that they don't matter. By no means is "Out 1" a 'perfect' film by conventional standards, boom mics are visible, random passers-by in Paris stare with bewilderment at Rivette and his actors, some scenes (in my estimation) go on far too long, specifically the 'acting exercises', which are beautiful and fascinating at times and indulgent nonsense at their worst. At least, that's what I thought while watching the film. Looking back at "Out 1" as a complete work of art it is a triumph of style, of aesthetic, of humor, of storytelling and of acting, and the end product is, in its own unique way, 'perfect'.

    "Out 1" has an intimidating reputation, and most reviewers fail to point out that it is largely unwarranted. Most people know it as an outrageously long (it is nearly thirteen hours in length) hardcore art film. That is not true. "Out 1" was planned as a television series for French state TV, which refused to air it resulting in it being shown once, theatrically, over two days in 1971 and then disappearing for 18 years. It is, in intent, as much a conventional theatrical film as Dennis Potter's "The Singing Detective" or "I, Claudius". This is not in any way diminishing its status, in fact, it should encourage more people to see the film knowing that it was intentionally split into eight easily digestible episodes and flows like a great miniseries.

    Also, while the film has sections of impenetrability, and is ultimately confusing here and there, it does have a mostly linear and easy-to-follow storyline, at least for the attentive, intelligent viewer. It's also an incredibly entertaining storyline, and while I'm not going to describe it here, I'll just quote from Rosenbaum's review of the film, which does a nice job of summing up the main plot: "Then gradually, as in a vast novelistic fresco, more crisscrossing intrigues emerge -- some of which include a lawyer (Francoise Fabian), another member of Lili's group (Hermine Karagheuz), and a hippie boutique owner (Bulle Ogier) with a dual identity who provides the name for episode six, "From Pauline to Emilie," all by herself -- until all strands are intertwined. Eventually Frederique steals a batch of letters that point her in the direction of the same mystery Colin is investigating: a clandestine group of 13 people from different sectors of French society who, inspired by Balzac's Histoire des Treize (gracefully explained here by Eric Rohmer, in the role of a literary scholar), have come together to control Paris. Or perhaps the group has never existed as anything but a plan, one abandoned after the failed French revolution of 1968. Colin and Frederique have different reasons for their pursuits -- his are intellectual, hers are mercenary; their paths cross only once, and very briefly at that." There is more to the film, certainly, much more, but that is the main driving force of the story.

    The film also destroyed any ideas I had about 'efficiency' in storytelling. "Out 1" takes as much time as it needs to tell its story, and unfolds slowly over eight episodes, exploring each and every one of its characters in great detail and leading to a climax that's both believable and satisfying within the realm of the film, but also frustrating not in a conventionally anti-climactic fashion, but in the way the end of a story within your own actual life often feels. I do firmly believe that the viewer should not attempt to watch the film in one long stretch, as the ability to reflect on each episode (which are, on average, around 90 minutes long, and are as full of detail and depth as many great feature films) was an essential part of just how much I ended up enjoying "Out 1". It is lengthy, sure, but it is unbelievably enjoyable viewing, mostly thanks to the fantastic enigma at the center of the film as well as its brilliant sense of humor. I'm sure Rivette enthusiasts will stop reading this once I say it, but I can absolutely see the Coen brothers (albeit the Coens in "Barton Fink" mode rather than "Burn After Reading" mode) making a much shorter version of this film and doing a great job of it. The characters, the humor, and the mystery are all there.

    Nearly all of the characters in this film are great, but Colin and Frederique are possibly my two favorite characters in all of cinema. I won't say much about them here, but they are among the best-defined and most interesting characters I've seen, and even without the strength of the rest of the film would have been enough to keep it interesting. I'm not sure how much of this film was improvised, but I understand that quite a lot of it was, which is really a testament to the skill of the cast and also the director, whose long takes and subtle direction are as fascinating and beautiful as the performances and story. "Out 1" is a fascinating enigma of a film, one which takes the viewer on a fascinating, enigmatic journey filled with hilarity, tragedy, and mystery, as well as a healthy dose of adventure. "Out 1" defies labels, defies genre categorization, and remains completely unpredictable throughout (even its final shot is surprising, and brilliant). This is most definitely a masterpiece.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I loved this movie! So worth the long running time. I need help with the ending though....


    The final shot of Marie at the end - Is this to suggest that she is still searching for Renaud? or possibly that she was the one who wanted to reinvigorate the 13? (she seemed to be the one who delivered the initial letter to Colin in the first place) I don't quite understand it, but I know I really liked it. So if anyone has seen this and remembers it or has just seen it, please elaborate on the ending.

  • ninecurses28 January 2017
    Over the years, I have read so many articles on Out 1, and have seen so many stills from it, that I felt as though I'd already seen the movie. Out 1 already existed for me in such a big way, that finally watching it could only lead to disappointment. Sadly, this was the case. As great as Out 1's legend is, for me it never comes together. It's all promise unfulfilled.

    There are Holy Grail movies: Films written and talked about in reverential tones, yet largely unavailable to the public. Until recently, "Out 1" was one of these, and having lived with its legend for many years, I was giddy the day it showed up on Netflix. An eight-part film totaling about 13 hours? I was binge-ready! Unfortunately, it took only about half way thru the first segment for my enthusiasm to wane.

    But oh is it ever ambitious, and almost every concept and character that we are introduced to is inherently interesting. One example is in how two different acting troupes work toward discovery in the play that each is planning to put on - It seems to be a great metaphor for this very film - but their rehearsal scenes go on (and on), and there are so many of them. 10, 20, even 30 minute (!!) scenes of actors writhing around on dirty theater floors? I love the slower pace of foreign films, but it was just too much.

    The acting? Jean-Pierre Leaud, who I usually find fascinating, here just annoys the crap out of me. The rest of a very large cast, many of whom were big in French cinema, may or may not be doing good work. With long, rambling scenes inside of the film's overall loose structure, I actually couldn't tell. Rivette usually has one camera going, and he just lets it roll. Even his veteran actors at times seem lost.

    If being loose and letting things "just play out" was what Rivette was going for, I think that he could have made his point in less than 13 hours. Considering how much love Out 1 continues to get, perhaps it's just me who is missing out. Yet I can't help think that he not only let his actors down, but that he let his viewers down, too.

    I'll leave it to other reviewers to get into The Thirteen, Balzac, Lewis Carroll, conspiracies, paranoia, etc. It IS all very fascinating to read about.

    Having read (and heard) so much over the years, about both the film and its legend, it felt as though I had already seen the movie. I could recall its characters, style, and elements with clarity. Unfortunately, having now seen it, that movie has been erased from my memory. I should have stuck with the legend. Sadly, the "Out 1" of my mind no longer exists.
  • I think that Pierre Léaud, or his character, to be precise, is really outlandish but with grace: I also remember the chess player, and of the girl who seems to be appearing by chance in his home, something really curious...the woman acting as the lawyer, is to me one of the most beautiful actresses ever seen on the screen...but I must admit that the plot is too inconsistent to be taken seriously....The character who plays as the lead theater actor is really nice, especially when he's annoyed by the new actor, the one in purple t-shirt...also, the scene where the bearded actor - who belongs to another company - directs the stage is really fascinating and relaxing, as it often happens with this movie - for example, when they drink tea, they just make you want to have a cup...
  • This is the very La Nouvelle Vague.One of the best films of the New Wave and I dare say one of the first ten ever made! Why? The atmosphere, the story,the actors (actress) are all brilliant. This is the theater, a fairy tale, the life, the film.Paris. Thank you Mr.Rivette.
  • Here is another film, similar to 1924's la Roue, where narrative structure is not only ignored, but largely obliterated in this 13 hours-long character study, acting study, process study - and film is all the more better for it.

    On one hand, Out 1 is minimalist (in settings and surroundings) . On one other hand, however, it is elaborate and sprawling (I am referring, obviously, to its massive run-time.)

    Film spends several hours drawing us, in cinema verite fashion, into the characters' meandering, directionless lives, through conversations filmed in mirrors, and stationary cameras in backseats filming conversations during car rides, lengthy sequences of two theatrical troupes rehearsing Classical stories, and, most amusingly, small kids and curious passersby follow cast and crew during filming.

    Fiction eventually begins to overtake this pseudo-documentary, as the young man initially referred to in the film's credits as "le jeune sourd-muet" (the young deaf-mute) becomes known as Colin, and his harmonica-playing deaf-mute act is revealed to be just that, an act. He is revealed to be a bit of a conman, a poetic, philosophical con-man (who believes there is a real life secret society known as The Thirteen) much like Frederic is revealed to be a con-woman, stealing correspondence to try to blackmail and extort money from their writers, (and who might have really discovered evidence of the existence of The Thirteen) Neither is who they appear to be- they each have a face to show, and a face to hide. Curiously, despite being prominently featured characters, Colin and Frederic share only one scene together. Even more curious are Pierre and Igor, two major characters in the plot who are never shown at all, either together or by themselves.

    Interesting colour composition, especially in episodes 4 and 5; Frederic, in white, on a dark green rug, in front of red tapestry hung on the wall behind her, as she begins to wonder about the mysterious Thirteen she has learned of, as the plot (sort of) kicks in; black suit on deep red sofa against pale white wall, simple composition successfully made chaotic by chess board and chess pieces in front of him. Rooftop conversations overlooking Paris and the Seine river ; the city itself and its buildings and its streets become a character in its own right.

    But, is there really anything to the Balzac-inspired Thirteen, are they real and trying to control all of Paris, or is this just a search for some purpose (unravelling this mystery) in their meandering lives?

    We, the audience, try to understand the crisscrossing and tangled narratives and characters, much the same as Colin tries to understand the Thirteen. We are trying to unravel a mystery to. But it is almost of no matter if The Thirteen exists or not, just dive into the characters' lives for the duration of its thirteen hours runtime.

    This is not plot- or character-driven, it is process- driven. The process of filmmaking,
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Shooting in 16 mm in the late 60s-the norm in the TV industry-was an attempt to take film closer to the Real, which Rivette and Godard were doing. In L'amour fou(1969) Rivette 16 mm represents the footage shot by a TV crew documenting the rehearsal process where a group of actors rehearse Shakespeare's Pericles. In Out1 the 16 mm format was not a tool designed to document the work of the actors, but was dictated by the mode of production of the film, commissioned in serial form by French state TV, but when the executives saw the 8-episode, 743 minutes of the finished product, they rejected it. Rivette edited a 255 minute version of the film, Out 1 :Spectre, which had a modest commercial run. The original version, Out 1 : Noli me tang ere became almost invisible, apart from a screening in Le Havre in 1971. Rivette used theatre rehearsals as a structuring device, as in his breakthrough film Paris nous appartient ( 1961)-as much a paranoid portrait of Paris in its time as Out1 had been 10 years later.But he became embarrassed by conventional scripting and made the more free form,unscripted L'amour fou, this opened up his work to improvisation and greater length,with a bare bones scenario.Rivette shot Out 1 after the collapse of the social uprising of May 1968,when a series of strikes by Parisian student unions resulted in a full blown confrontation with the military. The radical hope to change a conservative society ended meekly with De Gaulle's party consolidating power. Out 1 taps into this post-'68 amalgam of malaise, disillusionment and distrust in grand social movements.

    Paris is turned into disconnected individual groups hermetically sealed off from each other. In Out 1 he wrote an outline blueprint to get funding, but allowed the actors their heads in having them improvise after having chosen their characters themselves.There are two theatre groups rehearsing two Greek plays, 7 Against Thebes and Prometheus Bound, which provide a backbone- a defiance against authority- around which the other diffracted narratives gravitate. One troupe headed by Thomas(Michael Lonsdale) who leads his group through a series of psychosomatic exercises(breathing, improvising,touching,exploring, free-associating about different versions of the text), the other headed by Lili( Michele Moretti) more interested in forms of choral practise and dance, both attempting to recreate the unselfconscious play of children. We later understand they formerly lived together but split up due to differences of method.Thomas appears in the course of the film as both mastermind and victim of his "alternate lifestyle", alternating between several women, dressing down in slacks, T-shirts and Afghan jackets as a bohemian,yet associating with friends from the upper crust( businessmen,lawyers etc.) with whom he may be involved in another game-the hidden plot inspired by Balzac's Histoire des Trieze in which 13 individuals form a secret society to achieve power. Yet he has a spectacular breakdown late in the film,when internal strife within the group forces him to give up the production of Prometheus,when he seeks shelter in a sea-side house owned by a group of friends. He lies in the sand crying and laughing, giving an uninhibited improvised performance. Something of "the Real" is captured in the most artificial sequences of all-rehearsals in enclosed space, where through improvisation the actors are asked to enact their fantasies. The rehearsal scenes are filmed in extremely long shots, capturing facial expressions,drops of sweat, body movements of the actors.

    For Rivette, narrative cinema is a documentary on the actors. These groups are bonded by ideals of communal togetherness. Intersecting with the lives of the theatre groups and their elusive "13 friends"( do they exist or not or are they vaguer groupings?) are two perfect outsiders existing in the margins, Colin( Jean-Pierre Leaud) and Frederique( Juliet Berto). Colin panhandles in cafés pretending to be a deaf mute, Frederique uses cons to obtain or steal money( or valuable letters) from men. If all the characters are lost these are adrift and loners. Colin is a detective of signs of the secret 13.This leads him to The Corner of Chance a boutique run by Pauline(Bulle Ogier) with whom he falls madly in love. But she has another life and maybe a member of the 13 with a different name, has children, lives in a big house with a nanny and a mysterious husband she never sees. There are class differences. There are moments of high comedy in the pranks and pratfalls of these grifters. Frederique bumps into Renaud, an outsider who stole a lottery win from Lili's group after pretending to be one of them,leading to its dissolution, and they get together briefly and tragically.The two outsiders attempts to get to know the nature of the conspiracy ultimately fail. The Balzacian plot was a MacGuffin, a child's fantasy, a game in which to get caught up. The conspiracy they're all involved in may be their own creation, their projection of an oppressive regime that's all powerful and all knowing, maybe it's all them, they're looking for something to battle against. This is a total immersion in an experience. What you'll certainly take away from this film is the idea of the long take lasting 13 minutes, amazing live street sequences, graffiti and posters, the bohemian modes of dress, a memoir of a time when politics was mainly about philosophy, the way myths are used to understand reality, and the Noli me tang ere theme, the elusiveness of the Real, you get so sucked into this Promethean vat of inspiration and all its characters that perfectly captures a time and place forever. Like Proust's A La Recherche we dip into the sensibility and hang the sense. Rivette lives .This led on to Celine and Julie go boating.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A real masterpiece. Nouvelle Vague at its best. 13h of pure delight and aesthetic pleasure. If you are tired of mainstream and already watched all Godard / Truffaut and loved 'em, this is for you!

    If you want spoilers, i might share my understanding of who the 13 actually are (one of the great things about this film is the uncertainty, you never have a complete picture; you are just a person who chanced to overhear and peep into the characters' lives)

    Anyway. My idea of the 13:

    (1) Pierre (2) Igor (3) Étienne (4) Warok (5) Georges (6) Lili (7) Thomas (8) Émilie (9) Iris (10) Sarah (11) Lucie (12) Rose (13) Marie

    Though Rose and Marie still beg the question

    Hypothesis on Igor:

    He might have been hiding at the Hospice whose sign we repeatedly see for no apparent reason
  • What a crazy film!It lasts 12(!) hours and you don't understand who these people are and what are they doing!The main plot is about a bunch of clueless actors trying to bring on scene "Prometheus",but there are lots of sub-plots,like the disappearing of Thomas and a crazy guy looking for Monsieur Warok....what's the meaning of all this???
  • Provided you know what you're in for, a lot of "bleed in" for the practice of theatre will occur to you. Given that America is protected by two oceans and only got punched in the nose in 9/11, we can't imagine how much May of '68 changed the whole country. However, this film -- and Olivier Assayas's "Something in the Air" -- could help. Kudos!
  • Jacques Rivette is the most enigmatic director of the Nouvelle Vague. His movie Paris Nous Appartient was the first completed work of the Wave, although it was overtaken in release, and overshadowed by several movies that became instantly famous, among them Truffaut's Les quatre cents coups and Godard's A Bout de Souffle. My first experience with Rivette was many, many years ago in the VHS era. Browsing tapes in my neighborhood shop, I discovered two sets of two tapes each. Both sets were labelled as Rivette's La Belle Noiseuse, but the stickers indicated different movies. They turned out to be almost equal; same scenes in both versions but different takes. I found the experiment fascinating: the change of takes did influence the story in subtle ways, but the trick did not justify the double viewing of a 4 hour movie.

    Out 1 is 13 hours long. It was completed in 1971. Its original title added noli me tangere = don't touch me, which apparently meant the director wanted it to be shown without cuts (in spite of this there was a cut version Out 1: Spectrum, 4 hours long). The complete version was shown in festivals and specialized venues all over the world, and was rejected by French television as a miniseries. It has lately been available in this form in the streaming services.

    This is a movie difficult to describe, to say the least. It contains several parallel plots that intersect at times and subplots that appear and disappear. One of the plots. involving secret societies, is not unlike that of Paris Nous Appartient. Another plot involves several theater troupes rehearsing. Another is on a supposed deaf-mute carrying out a well rehearsed scam day by day. I don't think the plots mesh convincingly, There is a lot of repetition: a scene involving Jean-Pierre Léaud and envelopes is shown an extraordinary number of times. Why? The title Out 1 may be due to the fact that many scenes were filmed in one take, even when actors flubbed their lines or the crew made obvious mistakes (spontaneity? alienation effect? lack of budget?). In some scenes involving the theater groups it seems the camera was turned on and simply registered what happened, its footage unedited (registered what: reality or reality with camera running?) However, the movie has some fascinating moments. In one, Eric Rohmer delivers a compelling lecture on Balzac and secret societies. In another Jacques Doniol-Valcroze shows his prowess in conversation. And in yet another, the funniest, repetition woks: Léaud, with his usual Chaplinesque dignity is forcibly ejected from a building in take after take. I don't think these moments, few and far between, justify 13 hours of one's time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    All at once Ali never becomes in languages I want to say it's never really interesting the first episode is okay when people just scream and you wonder what it'll be about that for the rest I've been watching this not for 13 hours and it's so boring so incredibly boring it's incredible this is not a movie this is torture and you don't want people to be tortured so this movie fails and it was only that it was telling an interesting story and a character development but it is not everything which could make this movie interesting is lacking Indian product of it and that is a bit too sad thing about at 1 at one looks like an experiment which might have been successful but fails completely Indians sad really sad especially to see champion Leo and Michael Lonsdale playing the way they do you have a beautiful spectacle Lonsdale and you do respect your favorite but the whole thing is just not interesting that's sad I'm very disappointed in out 1.