L'enfant sauvage

The Wild Child could be the kind of movie that doesn't work. In a way it's hard to find what the dramatic conflict of the film would be if not for the push & pull struggle between the scientists and his 'test' subject of sorts, Victor, the wild child of the title. But somehow it does- Truffaut laces the film with a kind of undertone of logic for the audience (how can a boy for most of his life be out in the wild and become suddenly domesticated), while making a sort of nature versus society statement. The film also has the director's trademark lightness, which helps to not make the film's subject matter too bleak or disparaging. For it could be- Truffaut actually gives a kind of suspense to the narrative at times, that just when you think Victor is on his way to success, he stumbles and starts to act out on the floor or escape into the wild for a breather. It's a very curious film, not just because Truffaut (in one of his few times) gives himself the starring role, but also that the child- like Makim Munzak in Kurosawa's Dersu Uzala- had his only significant role ever in the film. And it's quite the seemingly impulsive, and always alive, performance that filmmaker's rarely get out of children.

Victor is named this only halfway through the film, and it starts off with him being chased by a small mob and their dogs through the woods. It's maybe the most exciting part of the film, but then this segways into the early stages of the boy's troubles. He's placed in a deaf and dumb school, beat up by the other kids, and still with the passions and intelligence that the woods have given him. It becomes a fascination in the story of what the limits, if any, are for him to learn everything real boys do. Once he's put into Dr. Itard's (Truffaut) care, then the film sets off onto a very direct path- how will he learn, will he, and how long will it it take? As with his other films, the literary aspect kicks in as the scientist takes repeated notes on the boy, using a kind of pre-Darwinian way of scientific methods. But it's within the little moments in the film, like when Victor is out on his walks, or makes his little successes, where Truffaut as a filmmaker picks up the best parts of the film.

This could be a very routine picture, and for some it may actually be a little dull and disheartening. Will the boy ever learn? The film actually does raise questions within its format, as it is based on a true case (from taking science classes I know there are also others of this kind as well). It brings to mind about what is pure and delicate about the ways of an animal and what separates them and humans. Each little test becomes dramatic conflict in the structure Truffaut puts forth, and in a way it's rather experimental. And it even becomes delightful in certain scenes, like when he first learns how to ask for milk, and then this expands. This, along with a sweet Vivaldi score in the background, and interesting visuals (love the iris usage), makes it a worthwhile entry in Truffaut's oeuvre. Not one of his absolute best, but up there.

The film is well made with good performances by Victor the wild child as well as Truffaut as his doctor and father figure.

Truffaut's main concern is studying what humans really are when you strip away the socialization process. Do we have morals? Language abilities? Compassion? This was also the main question for Dr. Itard who raised the boy after he was found.

However, the legitimacy of the wild child is called into question early in the film. Is Victor a normal human child or was there something abnormal about him that caused his family to abandon him? If he was abnormal to begin with, then we really can't conclude anything about what humanity would be like without the socialization process.

Reading through Dr. Itard's notes, many have concluded that Victor was an autistic child. His parents probably found him uncontrollable and abandoned him in the woods. So while Dr. Itard believed he was seeing the results of a normal boy with no socialization, he was probably seeing the results of a normal autistic child.

Despite this problem, the film is still interesting to watch but it ends up raising more questions than it answers.

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.

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.

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.