Out 1

Out 1 is the longest film I've ever seen, and at just under 13 hours, it's likely to stay the longest film I'll ever see. Really, it blurs the line between being a miniseries and being a long, long film, but it does remain consistent with its characters and loose storylines and over eight roughly 90-100 minute episodes, and it does present a whole experience that is best watched in a short timeframe.

All in one go is likely impossible, but I watched it all within less than 24 hours (made a whole day of it, really, with a few longish breaks). It is sometimes tedious, sometimes frustrating, and more often than not confusing. But with a premise involving over a dozen main characters interweaving, with said characters often keeping their identities and motives secret from other characters, the overwhelming confusion and density of it all makes sense in its own unique way. As a viewer, you're swept up in something that's hard to comprehend. So too are many of the film's best and most interesting characters.

The length contributes to this feeling. It is a daunting runtime and the first few hours in particular have many scenes that are patience-testing. With a plot concerning the possible existence of a secret society that no one is sure about, with some characters going to extreme lengths to discover it, Out 1 almost reflects that by being so impenetrable and sometimes hard to watch. You may understand it after a while, or continuing to watch may make you more confused. Either way, you're solving a mystery, or you're experiencing more and more the feeling of paranoia and confusion that I think the film wants you to feel. Ideally, you'll probably get to do a bit of both.

It's an amazing experience as a result, and it uses its runtime well to create a unique feeling that a film probably couldn't pull off as effectively with a more traditional runtime. The 13 hours is also justified by thirteen being an important number within the film's story in more ways than one, and there being (maybe?) 13 main characters (you could argue that at least). Funnily enough, I'd be more likely to find the length unjustified if this was 11 or 12 hours, as a result.

Cannot recommend this for everyone and cannot say I enjoyed every minute. I don't think I was supposed to of course. But what this film does is impressive and unique, and I know it put me in a headspace that no other film has done before (you will feel paranoid for at least the last few hours, and will be on your toes questioning many things to do with the storylines and the filmmaking). It's challenging, and fairly often it's not exactly fun, either, but it's an ambitious and successful experiment in sustaining a sense of anxiety and suspicion, and very much a one-of-a-kind near masterpiece as a result.

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,

There's a certain type of moviegoer we can all picture in our minds, or perhaps have even known; maybe we've even been them at one time or another (I know I was, when I was very young). There's a certain type of person who by chance stumbles upon a title in another language, especially one where the imagery seems nonsensical without context, and perplexedly dismisses it out of hand as a "weird foreign film." I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to say that 'Out 1' is a premier example of such a title that will confound and frustrate those who are unprepared. The gargantuan length is one matter; all throughout these thirteen hours (get it? Thirteen?) are scenes that on the face of it are plainly absurd. I mostly refer to any scenes of the theater troupes rehearsing, Thomas' in particular, and pretty much any time Colin is playing his harmonica, but there are definitely others, too. Why, even for those who are most receptive to what this feature has to offer, it's a lot to try to digest. It's almost impossible to watch from start to finish in one sitting; one can readily assume there are bigger artistic themes and ideas underlying the presentation, though what those may be, well, I can't say I'm the one to identify them. And it needs to be said that while there are discrete plot threads running throughout the extraordinary runtime, they are quite loosely stitched together, with beginning and end points that are rather amorphous. There are even times when it all seems a tad uneven, wavering between concrete storytelling and a more meandering sort of exploration. No matter how you slice it, Jacques Rivette and Suzanne Schiffman's towering magnum opus is a movie for a niche audience.

It's also kind of brilliant.

I've watched some movies that were only ninety minutes long, or maybe less, that were so terribly paced or otherwise poorly made that they felt substantially longer. While there's no mistaking the unparalleled span of time that passes in watching 'Out 1,' by and large it all goes down so smoothly that in some fashion, thirteen hours seem to go by surprisingly quickly. There's an incredible duality in its storytelling by which we're given a tale that's complete, coherent, and cohesive, yet which is rendered with a mix of both distinct beats and notions and other thoughts that are left mysterious and secretive, or no more than suggested; the ratio might be an even 75/25, or possibly more like 50/50. While I know this isn't the only work of fiction to have ever done so, the filmmakers' use of parallel narratives is frankly a stroke of genius. There's no distinguishing, here, between primary characters and secondary ones, or lead and supporting actors. No one is given greater or lesser prominence; the length is allowed to bounce back and forth at will between characters and story threads that thusly connect in so loose a form; the viewing experience is kept fresh simply by virtue of such far-flung horizontal movement, let alone its quality or the actual progression of the plot. To that point: it's drawn out to an unbelievable length partly because of the sheer wealth of characters and story, and mostly because of how scenes are allowed to truly manifest, breathe, and resolve of their own accord, contrary to the cinematic convention of cutting a moment off after a certain point so that the plot can move forward. For as admirably well done as the picture is generally, the fact that it really does all feel like a single, unified whole despite that unbelievable length is itself an exceptional feat of film-making and storytelling. Far shorter and less ambitious pieces have gone much more wrong, falling apart at the seams, in the same ways that this so magnificently succeeds. For this alone, I'm honestly so very impressed.

Yes, I'm marginally troubled by the sheer looseness of the narrative, such as it is. But this is otherwise so remarkably well done as to easily make up for the subjective indelicacy. Relatively lax though the connections between threads may be, the overall tapestry that is woven is as absorbing as it is curious, and ultimately quite satisfying. What we're given to know of the characters makes them all fascinating, and there's a striking richness in the scene writing that's wonderfully gratifying, not to mention shrewd creativity and inventiveness. Marked by masterful shot composition in no few cases, the direction also carries delightful playfulness as it dances on the fine line between specific ideas and free-wheeling improvisation - or at least, it definitely feels like it, perhaps on account of how the production was accordingly built on a lot of first takes, or at least takes (at that, many, many long takes) that consciously lack the refinement that would come organically with repetition. Across the board the cast is to be celebrated for acting of natural ease, wholehearted spirit, and outright whimsy, nevermind terrific range, nuance, physicality, and poise. It's readily evident that the actors are having a total blast, and given some of the situations that they're put in, it would be all but impossible not to; I dare not single any one person out, because inevitably I'd have to just list the names of all involved. The exercises we see during theater "rehearsals," alone, are sort of breathtaking in both the obvious joviality and in the commitment of the ensemble. Pierre-William Glenn's cinematography rather carries those same qualities as the acting in its own manner. And please, everyone, a round of applause for editor Nicole Lubtchansky. Yes, her work was made easier at times on account of the substantial use of long shots, but even putting aside the massive quantity of footage to which to give shape, there are plentiful instances of editing here that illustrate the deft, keen eye that Lubtchansky had illustrated again and again in her career, and I've nothing but praise for her contribution.

Rounded out with splendid filming locations, fun production design and art direction, smart props, and superb costume design, hair, and makeup, I can only repeat that 'Out 1' was sharply made in every capacity. Heard sparingly, even Jean-Pierre Drouet's music is an endlessly pleasing element; so often underappreciated in cinema broadly, the sound design and editing are simply grand. I expected as much, sure, yet that these facets are but nice garnishes on an otherwise staggering, monolithic project is very noteworthy, especially because that project is so fabulously successful. In fairness, I think anyone who would dare to take on such an enormous movie must necessarily be very serious about it, and be fully prepared to realize it as fully as possible; you'll thankfully never see Uwe Boll, M. Night Shymalan, or David DeCoteau attempt something of such magnitude. Even though this is fairly early in Rivette's career, and among the first major credits for Schiffman in terms of how she contributed, their skill, intelligence, and vision are absolute and undeniable. And, honestly, such commendations extend to all others on hand, cast and crew alike, if in different ways. Just as the excellence of the craftsmanship comes as much from the earnestness of the participants as from their own amusement in the process of creation, the joy of the viewing experience comes as much from the marvelous vitality of what we see and hear before us as from a giddy disbelief, as spectators, that such a monstrosity could be brought to life. It will appeal to comparatively few, and reasonably so; it won't meet with equal favor in the eyes of all who do watch it. Be that as it may, I was stupendously entertained, and found this to be even better than I had hoped. Supposing that everything the title portends isn't an immediate turn-off, I can only give my very high, hearty recommendation to find this to watch, however one must, and space it out over several nights if need be. 'Out 1' is a smart, fantastic, stunning achievement, and I very happily give it two glad thumbs up.

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.