Adieu Philippine

At times, this feels like a documentary, or some kind of home movie where the director said "you guys just do some stuff, I'll keep rolling and we'll tart it up in the edit". At others, it's really quite entertaining (such as the filming of the igloo commercial). However, for me, it was just too episodic and, frankly, went on far too long such that by the end I was just bored. The acting wasn't bad (and in places very good), but it felt like they didn't really have much to work with, and the tone and lighting was all over the place - so I'm not that surprised that I haven't heard of this director before. Of its time, I guess.

With A bout de Soufflé (and other Godard films), Adieu Philippine is in fact the only film that deserves the 'Nouvelle Vague' label term and that kept the promises of this generation, of a new way to approach cinema. (Truffaut looks very classical in comparison). A real liberation of the cinema's language : variation of feelings, tones (sentimental comedy, Algerian tragedy, boulevard, etc...) on the screen followed by variations of technique's shooting (television, improvisation, etc...), of montage or setting, a jubilating firework as an hymn to joy of life, imagination. For this and other points, Adieu Philippine has the role in French cinematography that in Italy Otto e mezzo may have played though in another way and much more secretly. Rarely characters have been given such importance, such vibration in every day's little things. The close-up on a young 'stupid' girl's despair dancing face to you is one of the numerous unforgettable moments of this still refreshing poem sometimes worried by the threat of death.

Like most of the nouvelle vague works ,"Adieu Philippine" seems dated now.Some people will praise it to the skies ,other will find it a bit boring and tedious.

The first part is the best:the depiction in a quasi documentary way of the TV studios,the meal at the hero's home where his parents and grand-parents are discussing barroom politics ,the stupid commercials -the movie was prophetic for that matter-.The spontaneity of the actors is convincing.

There's a sword of Damocles hanging over the hero's head:in two months ,he will be drafted and will have to fight in Algeria ,French dirty war.That's perhaps the most amazing thing:nobody,neither the future soldier nor his girlfriends or relatives seem to take it seriously.He will go,period.That makes the movie unintentionally a bit reactionary,particularly if we compare it to old wave Autant-Lara's contemporary "tu ne tueras point".

The second part is nouvelle vague flesh on the bone:a very loose plot, and a very loooong ending.Sincerely,I doubt the 2002 audience can relate to such amateurish directing.Some will say the hero wants to make the best of what is left to him :but nothing vibrates and everything seems hollow.

The movie was a flop and did get critical acclaim afterwards.So,my opinion is probably not very orthodox.

This is for me an almost perfect film. Not because it is quintessential Nouvelle Vague, but because it had an excellent actor in it called Jean-Claude Aimini. It saddens me that such a natural actor could not have continued in other films. I was mesmerised by the ease he had before the camera, and if Belmondo could carry on why not him ? Or is Godard's ' A Bout de Souffle ' the official benchmark of that clique that appeared to change French Cinema ? ' Adieu Phillippine ' came out in 1962, when the waters were still quite high and Rozier showed how natural behaviour, natural gestures and freedom with the camera could wash away even a hint of the studio. But it is through the eyes of the lead actor, Aimini that we follow the film. The Algerian War will drag the character he plays Michel into its horror and I was left wondering at the end, will he be victim or killer in it, or if the fates were kind and he would become neither? The film plays out his last holiday before he is forced down that awful path. He plays around with two young women, and his feelings towards both of them is fascinating to watch. Who loves who and at that age do you really love at all ? Rozier plays with this threesome and unlike the overrated ' Jules et Jim ' I found it truthful because of the actors. There are no great stabs at acting as in the Truffaut film, and there does not need to be because the genius of the film is that it plays like a documentary, and the actors act so well there is none of the ' look here I am performing ' routine. This cannot happen in all film, and that is normal because basically film stands out usually as high drama for most directors, and even Bresson could not escape it. For nearly two hours I watch like a fly on the wall fiction that with a gentle sleight of hand looks like reality, or what we call reality. But Aimini is the focus ( others could challenge this ) and I wanted to see more of him. If he is alive and well and reads this I hope he realises what a pure presence he was. I hesitate to give it a 10 because I found the holiday section needed trimming, but a great film it surely is. Watch out for a glimpse of Jean-Claude Brialy, a pillar of the Nouvelle Vague in Cinema and he had a happy look on his face.

This is a very uneasy amalgam of a satire on the French television industry (the production of a cheap show called Montserrat), a commentary on French society (the dinner scene with Michel's family spouting slogans), and an improbable travelogue on Corsica. Since it does not--could not--hang together to form a unified work, my rating is lower than it might be.

The acting is first rate especially the two young women, Liliane and Juliette, who act with an impressive naturalness. Vittorio Caprioli is excellent as the oily and fairly stupid Pachali, a man who promises everything and delivers nothing. I'm left with the feeling that if Jacques Rozier could have kept to a central theme when writing the scenario the movie would have been really memorable, in the way of the first two Doinel films of Truffaut, or Godard's Bande a part.