A subtitle warns, "Beware of dark sunglasses." Anna and her lover, whose looks in bowler and bow tie are reminiscent of a young Buster Keaton, kiss chastely on a bridge overlooking the ...
See full summary »
What does being a woman really mean? How do women live the status society reserves for them? A group of women, beautiful or not, young or not, gifted with motherly instinct or not, answer before Agnès Varda's camera.
While in San Francisco for the promotion of her last film in October 1967, Agnès Varda, tipped by her friend Tom Luddy, gets to know a relative she had never heard of before, Jean Varda, ... See full summary »
A subtitle warns, "Beware of dark sunglasses." Anna and her lover, whose looks in bowler and bow tie are reminiscent of a young Buster Keaton, kiss chastely on a bridge overlooking the Seine. He dons sunglasses and waves as she runs down a stairway to the river's edge, then watches in horror as she's knocked flat and loaded into the back of a hearse. In vain, he gives chase. Disconsolate, he buys a large funeral wreath and a handkerchief from sympathetic vendors. He removes the glasses to wipe his eyes and realizes they are the cause of all his woe. He replays the farewell without the glasses.Written by
A young couple kiss on a bridge, and she leaves.... only to be struck down by a man with a hose.
It would be possible, I suppose, to read some great affirmation of Nouvelle Vague principles into this five-minute short subject directed by Agnes Varda, with other members of the French New Wave. However, analysis must begin with recognition of what the evidence is, and the image that the young man affects is not that of Buster Keaton -- he wore a porkpie hat in any case. No, glasses, straw boater (which is what the young man wears) and business suit and tie is the image of Harold Lloyd. Chaplin wore a bowler. So did Laurel & Hardy.
So, is this Varda and her New Wave friends (including Anna Karina and Michel Legrand) contemptuously mocking the old-fashioned film-making that they thought blight French movie-making, by reaching dimly back to the Lumieres' L'AROSEUR AROSE, without bothering to get their references correct? Because they're not worth getting straight? Or just some friends who love movies and movie-making making a movie.
I'm on the side of the latter interpretation.
0 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this