Der Wolfsjunge

Originaltitel: L'enfant sauvage

1970
12
1 Std. 23 Min.

IMDb-BEWERTUNG

7,4/10

9318

IHRE BEWERTUNG

In a French forest in 1798, a child is found who cannot walk, speak, read or write. A doctor becomes interested in the child and patiently attempts to civilize him.

trailer wiedergeben1:25

2 Videos

90 Fotos

Biographie Drama Geschichte

In einem französischen Wald wird 1798 ein Kind gefunden, das nicht laufen, sprechen, lesen oder schreiben kann. Ein Arzt beginnt sich für das Kind zu interessieren und versucht geduldig, es ... Alles lesenIn einem französischen Wald wird 1798 ein Kind gefunden, das nicht laufen, sprechen, lesen oder schreiben kann. Ein Arzt beginnt sich für das Kind zu interessieren und versucht geduldig, es zu zivilisieren.In einem französischen Wald wird 1798 ein Kind gefunden, das nicht laufen, sprechen, lesen oder schreiben kann. Ein Arzt beginnt sich für das Kind zu interessieren und versucht geduldig, es zu zivilisieren.

Siehe Produktionsinformationen bei IMDbPro

IMDb-BEWERTUNG

7,4/10

9318

IHRE BEWERTUNG

Siehe Produktionsinformationen bei IMDbPro

Auszeichnungen
- 5 Gewinne & 5 Nominierungen insgesamt

Boy at Farm
(Nicht genannt)

Eric Dolbert

Boy at Farm
(Nicht genannt)

Frédérique Dolbert

Girl at Farm
(Nicht genannt)

Jean Gruault

Visitor at Institute
(Nicht genannt)

Dominique Levert

Child at Farm
(Nicht genannt)

René Levert

Police Official in Rodez
(Nicht genannt)

Gitt Magrini

Aveyron Countrywoman
(Nicht genannt)

Jean Mandaroux

Dr. Gruault - Itard's Doctor
(Nicht genannt)

Annie Miller

Madame Lémeri
(Nicht genannt)

Claude Miller

Monsieur Lémeri
(Nicht genannt)

Nathan Miller

Baby Lémeri
(Nicht genannt)

Benutzerrezensionen55

7,49.3K

Empfohlene Bewertungen

8Xstal

The French Forest Forager...

A child left to fend as hunter gatherer, a late 18th century, French forest forager, brought into society, just wants to run, escape and flee, but Jean Itard will take him in, become his shelterer. After spending many years in isolation, nobody knows the level of, the boys cognition, can he learn to read and write, show less aggression, resisting flight, a start is made to change his ways, make transformation.

An incredible film, mainly down to the incredible performance of Jean-Pierre Cargol as the boy recovered from the forest, who leaves you under no illusion that he could literally have grown up in isolation, in the middle of nowhere, with only the flora and fauna of the forest for company. Still holds up all these years later, which is not as common as you might think for many films made around this time - well worth further investigation.

John N.

Highly recommended

If it weren't for several other strong works from Truffaut, this one would be my favorite. And it somes ways it is my favorite. The interaction between Victor and Dr. Itard was splendidly done. It was a joy simply to watch Truffaut on- screen directing the boy's progress, much like he must have done off-screen to get some very human reactions. At no point during this film did I think a scene was overdone or unnatural. It just seemed to flow from one small triumph to the next. My only complaint was that the whole experiment ended abrubtly, and so too did the movie. We are told by Dr. Itard that Victor is a extraordinary boy, but he has much training left to master. There were many points along the way where doubt lingered as to whether the wild child could be fully trained at all until the final scene. There we learn that Victor has a new home.

This movie was based on a true event which took place in the late 1700s. Unfortunately for the audience, the most pressing question of what became of Victor in his adult life is left unanswered. But fans of Francois Truffaut will find him even more engaging than in his role of Claude Lacombe in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". The roles are similar in many ways. If Lacombe could have taken home the child-like aliens to instruct, I'm sure he would have been much like Dr. Itard.

whiterat1

A Great Film

Everything about this movie is great. The acting is done perfectly, particularly Victor. This child has the ability to evoke every primal human emotion without doing anything but making sounds and using facial expressions. Perhaps only a child could be capable of doing this but I doubt any child could do it as well. We feel sympathy for him and want to care for him ourselves at the same time that we are anxious about the deep mystery he forces us to recognize. The scene when he is rocking under the full moon, and the look on his face as the movie ends, are brilliant and frightening. The fact that this actor, to my knowledge, has done nothing since, adds to the effect. Where did he go? Might he have been more in touch with this side of humanity than just as an actor? Just incredible. And Truffault's direction was perfect as well. Filmed in a minimalist style and cleverly utilizing early film techniques, he evokes a time period yet allows no distraction from the actual issues involved in the story. The viewer is forced to pay attention and forced to deal with the issues confronting the doctor and his relationship with the boy. I cannot recommend this highly enough.

10dbdumonteil

A true story

This austere ,black and white movie might be Truffaut's peak.Recalling sometimes,in its spirit,Penn's "miracle worker",the work suffuses with humanism,belief in dignity of man .The child ,for Truffaut,is a frail human being,who needs (and deserves ) education.Hence,some critics called "wild child" the positive side of "the 400 blows".Perhaps so,but ,in my humble opinion,the 1969 effort is much stronger than the rather academic first attempt.Following Doctor Itard's report with absolute fidelity,and portraying him with gusto,Truffaut is a much better actor here than he 's in Spielberg's "close encounters".The production is pared down to the essential,using old-fashioned techniques,recalling silent movies.I do not think,like M.Maltin,that it "loses steam half-way through".On the contrary,the most important scene in the whole movie comes in the last third:Victor,the wild child ,unfairly punished,rebels.He can see the difference between good and bad.Might it be possible that moral conscience should be innate? Does society,as Rousseau believed it pervert man? At the beginning of the movie,remember how cruel was our civilized populace to the different child: showed in public,like a queer animal,to make dough. All teachers in the world should see this masterpiece.

NB:In France,in primary school,a lot of pupils read Victor's story.

6shneur

Well done but a bit misleading

For those unfamiliar with the history of "the wild boy of Aveyron," this film will be intriguing and informative. It follows the known facts of "Victor's" life closely, but does not reveal, even in an epilogue, that its terminus represents about the furthest that Victor ever progressed. In fact, Dr. Itard, who adopted the boy and attempted to educate and "civilise" him, abandoned the project soon afterward, and Victor died at about age 40 in a public institution. Whether or not it would have been better to allow him his "nasty, brutal and short" -- but free -- life in the wild presents a genuine moral dilemma.. Both Francois Truffaut's direction and the cinematography of Nestor Amendros are stark, and emphasize the paradox of intellectual riches and emotional poverty said to have been the lot of bourgeois children in the eighteenth century.

Mehr wie diese

Handlung

Ändern

Wusstest du schon

Ändern

Wissenswertes
Truffaut remained true to Dr. Itard's written accounts in most respects. A few variations are: (1) Victor was not stark naked when first captured; he had the shreds of a shirt around his neck. (2) Victor's hair would have been much longer, because he was indifferent to hygiene or how he looked. (3) Jean Itard was merely a young medical student, while the film suggests that he was on an equal basis with Pinel. (4) Madame Guerin became almost a mother to Victor, always attending to him, whereas the film suggests that she merely helped to train him and to clean up after him. (5) Itard would rub Victor's back to relax and comfort him, but then had to worry about sexual responses. Victor also often wet his bed, but Itard never punished him; he decided to allow Victor to learn whether he preferred to lie in a wet bed or to get up to relieve himself. These problems are not shown. (6) In the scene in which Victor throws a tantrum about learning the alphabet, his and Dr. Itard's responses were different than are shown in the film. Real-life Victor bit his bedsheets and began to throw hot coals around the house before falling to the ground and writhing/screaming/kicking; and Itard (Truffaut) did not merely put him into the closet for a few moments. Itard admits [in translation] that he actually "violently threw open the window of his room, which was on the fifth floor overlooking some boulders directly below ... and grabbing him forcibly by the hips, I held him out of the window, his head facing directly down toward the bottom of the chasm. After some seconds, I drew him in again. He was pale, covered with a cold sweat ... I made him gather up all the [alphabet] cards and replace them all. This was done very slowly ... but at least without impatience." Viewers may thank Truffaut for choosing the lesser of two evil punishments! (7) Finally, Dr. Itard took care of Victor for 5 years; in 1806, Victor moved into Madame Guerin's house and stayed there for the rest of his life, with the French Government paying for his care. It is believed that he died there, without ever marrying.

Patzer
In the US subtitles, the opening says that this is a true story that happened in 1978. It should have read 1798.

Zitate
[last lines]
Le Dr Jean Itard: I'm glad that you came home. Do you understand? This is your home. You're no longer a wild boy, even if you're not yet a man. Victor, you're an extraordinary young man with great expectations. Later, we'll resume our lessons.