La commune (Paris, 1871)

This is a pretty exhilarating idea.

Take a period in history where its all about collective points of view. In other words, select a time where the movies chosen by groups clash. Its better if it a time before movies and in a place that believes they know something about movies.

Introduce it as a movie, with interviews first with actors and then with characters. Then, action (with characters glancing at the camera), but wait.

Soon we see that inside the movie, we will see reporting by a TeeVee news crew. This is displayed in two forms within the film.. We see the news broadcast and the Parisans watching it.

They are of course biased in favor of the royalist government. So just as the rabble revolt against the government, we have an alternative TeeVee crew enlisted, who also go around interviewing the crowd as well, all obviously amateur actors, not starving, not sick, toothless and in pain.

We are introduced to characters who introduce themselves as fictional characters. We see the two TeeVee reporters take on the character of the events we see, and get blamed for the whole thing, history writing itself. It is the only example I know of this particular type of fold, where our notion of history as retrospective watching is folded into on-screen watchers.

But at so many hours, its a long slog because there is some conflating of French history with French film history, and its just not as profound as they suppose.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Truly exceptional film making really breaking down the barriers of what is storytelling and letting everything run free. Peter Watkins does what would seem the impossible, not only create a realistic re-enactment of the commune in Paris (just after the siege of the Prussians and the exile of the bourgeois to Versailles) using only an abandoned warehouse and 200 odd unemployed French citizens and illegal immigrants but also to on top of that add a detailed and amazing social experiment. Putting these people through this experience and then have them portray not only their 1871 characters but also themselves in the one film. To hear these people talk about life today and draw parallels between the film they are making and the lives they lead is quite invaluable information. And as if that alone wasn't enough there is the whole other element of the media and how sides are formed and why people believe what they do and how things are taught and passed down so that divides never seem to cease. The use of reporting and television and newspapers really give this film a whole other level from which to operate and constantly throughout the film one has to ask themselves "who do I believe, do I believe anyone" "why am i believing what this person says and not this person" then as if one hasn't had enough thinking to do already you then, like the cast, have to project forward to today and ask yourself who do i believe when it comes to the reporting of current events? Am I receiving an accurate picture of what is occurring? I don't think anyone who offers themselves up to this 6 hour masterpiece can look at the media in quite the same way. Once again I just have to say this film is without a doubt set to become a masterpiece to filmmaking and I urge anyone who happens to see it on a program for a festival or perhaps even on television to sacrifice those few hours, you wont be disappointed. Also is you are left in awe after its viewing as I was then look out for the Universal Clock- The Resistance of Peter Watkins, it acts as a sort of "making of" but is a film in its own right and gives insight to what it was like to be involved in the making of Le Commune Paris 1871

I don't think this is Peter Watkins's "best" film, exactly. It lacks the discipline and precision of "Edward Munch." But this is the purest example of the potential of Watkins's practice. Few films I've ever seen have felt as alive as a collaboration between a director and a group of performers. The non-actors, denizens of a working-class neighborhood of Paris, lived together and collaborated with Watkins as a legit, studio-based commune during their re-enactment of the events of Paris, 1871. In the film's second half, the reenactment subtly starts to occasionally give way to conversations between the performers during the course of the production. The past starts to seem truly "re-enacted," as the "present" seems to become part of a work of historical story-telling. In the final scenes, the actors seem to go into a kind of trance of fury as they sing revolutionary songs while awaiting to defend the city from Versailles' soldiers. Many turn to the camera and say that they would pick up guns to fight for a new commune in the present. As a viewer, I believed them.

This film also goes farther in its critique of media than Watkins' earlier films. All of Watkins's films feature a contemporary documentary camera crew interviewing historical figures in a way that is quite confrontationally unnatural. In the previous films, the (seemingly) Watkins-led camera crews were portrayed as the allies of "the people." Here, the larger canvas allows for a more nuanced critique of even "people's media." Two media outlets vie for the hegemony of the viewer: Versailles News and Commune TV. Even Commune TV, the "ragtag, independent" news outlet is presented as always veering towards the most relatively conservative seats of power. The Commune reporters consistently defend the (I think rather inappropriately maligned) "professional" Commune leadership from the masses. (As much as I admire Watkins, he is undeniably an ultra-leftist.) I wonder, however, if this more complex take on the media is not tied to the more complex layerings of "realities" in this work that I discussed in my first paragraph. For, unlike, in the earlier films, here the "progressive" media outlet (Commune TV) is not the "highest" reality, and therefor is not directly attached to Watkins himself. It is only part of the historical fiction that Watkins implements to show his performers embrace the political heritage of the Commune. In the scenes where the performers discuss their experiences of the production with each other, Watkins name is only ever mentioned with reverence. The filmmaker deepens his critique of media, but not of his place within it as a "radical saint."

I must admit, the first thing that caught my attention in the programme of Arsenal Movie Theatre was the length of the film - 345 min. I was intrigued and looked it up on the internet, starting with imdb, and became even more intrigued. So I saw the movie yesterday.

And I didn't regret it at all. (Although I had to struggle through German subtitles for the shorter German version of 300 min. The announced full one with English subtitles was stuck somewhere in Paris.)

It is probably one of the most unusual movies I've ever seen. It is even not really a movie, at least in the standard understanding of it (let alone the length of the thing). It is obviously a mind game, but a mind game so fine and intellectual, as well as passionate, thrilling and challenging, that it somehow makes you feel deeply involved in it emotionally, not forgetting for a single moment that it is a game and the whole idea is completely absurd.

Indeed, what can be more absurd than watching "breaking news" about Paris Commune of 1871, like we were all watching tv on 9.11 or when the war in Iraq was about to begin. "Versailles TV", "Commune TV". Journalists asking "What do you feel now? What hopes do you have now for the future of The Commune?". But all staged, actors sometimes telling the camera about the roles they are playing. Or discussing whether The Commune could have had future, or Russian revolution was successful despite Kronstadt uprising.

The shocking thing is that it feels real. Even though you perfectly understand that it can't. He's using the media and our perception of the media (which makes us question to what an extent can our senses be manipulated) as a frame for all the events happening and in a way alters our perception of history and of history happening now.

I'm still digesting the movie, it raises a lot of question and makes you think a lot. But I'm happy to know that Arsenal is planning Peter Watkins's retrospective. So Berliners will have a unique chance to see his other works. Which I'm looking forward to.

Peter Watkins stands at the base of a form of historical documentaries known as 'documentary reconstruction'. Lightly based on battle re-enactments, Watkins hires amateur actors to play the roles of common people in the Paris of 1871. Famine and civil unrest cause a popular revolution, supported by followers of Karl Marx. The people take power and form a Commune, a communist government. After a few weeks, the official Versailles government regains the city by force, and tens of thousands of people are executed.

Watkins' historical drama is based on the common people, which are shown in their everyday life. To do this, he introduced an anachronism: in the 1871 context, the people form a tv station. The Versaillais also have their official tv station. This way, the documentary becomes both a social project and a media experiment.