Vendredi soir

Vendredi Soir (2002), directed by Claire Denis, is a film about two

residents of Paris who come together because of a horrendous,

citywide traffic jam. The movie is slow and deliberate, but not

boring. The film's power derives from the interaction of two

attractive strangers who are temporarily trapped--and yet

liberated--by the fact that mass transit is shut down, and auto

traffic has come to a standstill.

Valérie Lemercier portrays Laure, a young woman who has left her

apartment to move in with her lover. Ms. Lemercier owes a great

debt to Ms. Denis, who could have cast the part with a more

traditionally beautiful woman. (In the U.S., the role would probably

have gone to Demi Moore.) Instead, the director chose an actor

who is undeniably beautiful, but in an interesting, complex way.

Lemercier is an outstanding actor, and she is given enough time

on screen to demonstrate her professional skills.

Don't see this film if you're looking for excitement, graphic sex,

violence, or a strong narrative story line. See this film if you want to

view Paris--and human relationships--portrayed in a serious, but

almost dreamlike, lyrical, fashion.

This was a damn good movie. Very different, the closest movie that comes to the feel and over all effect is The Loss of Sexual Innocence. Movies such as this catch many off guard because they don't follow the de facto movie format. Meaning, an event happens, people react to said event, drama, conclusion, resolution.

This movie takes a totally different approach, and that's what makes it shine. This movie defies being labeled as a movie altogether. People say this movie is boring, that nothing happens, there are almost no words. They'd be right, there is no real drama, conclusion, resolution. I don't believe that's what this movie is even about.

From the opening moments of the Paris rooftops I knew I was in for something special. The long shots, the turning off of lights, the gazes at the Paris skyline. This was a visual feast with poetic credentials, and I expected as much.

Folks, this movie was not about Jean and Laure. I believe thats where all the critical flack stems from. This movie isn't about a brief encounter that is over by sunrise. The plot that you all speak of, that's secondary.

The movie tends to focus on their surroundings more so then them. A cluttered car, a heater, traffic, boxes. A best example of this is their skin, during the sex scenes there are close ups of their skin rather then showing them making love. As if the plot, in this case, making love, is secondary to the poetic element of the story.

In any given event, the surroundings are just as important as the story itself. This movie displays that perfectly. That is the purpose of this movie, that is it's beauty, that is what it is about.

If this movie is about the surroundings rather then a plot or story, then what would be the purpose of showing rooftops, skin, lamps, boxes? Because is it life, and it is poetic and beautiful. What is the purpose of a rose? Why take a picture of it, or give it to someone? A rose simply is, this movie simply is. The nuances of life deserve appreciation and this movie pays homage to that fact. That is what this movie is about.

It is life, it is the beauty of everything around you.

This movie is not for the sort of casual movie-goer who must have a plot driven, dialogue heavy entertainment vehicle in order to be satisfied. This film is typical Denis: intensely visual, with sparse dialogue and a very minimal plot.

The premise of the film is a simple one. A woman about to move in with her lover is caught in a traffic jam during a Paris transit strike. She picks up a stranger, and they have a one-nighter.

The film's focus is the little things that make up sexual attraction, the situations, the glimpses, the attitudes, the predilections, etc. It manages to present this in an almost completely visual way without ever becoming dull, pretentious, or difficult to watch. The film has a minute logic to it which manages to pull the viewer along from scene to scene using humor, suspense, and a good deal of empathy for the central character.

This film invites one to reflect on the way in which sex relates to the variety of life's anxieties: anxieties over self-image, anxieties over one's future, anxieties over one's significance, etc. It also provides an interesting vantage point from which to view the over-romanticized over-serious status that sex is given in main-stream American cinema.

Go to this film with the intent of viewing a wonderful piece of art. There is some work required on the viewer's part, but it's worth the effort.

This film resists all that is wrong with blockbuster cinema, totally refusing to offer straight-forward, passivity-inducing narrative structures. It is one of the most book-like films you are likely to see, taking its time to develop the central characters in manner that leaves them open to determination by the audience's imagination. It is an erotic film that has no climax. It is a film that engages in life rather than distracts us from it.

This is an immensely subtle film that uses a broad range of cinematic techniques so you should definitely see it on a big screen. In fact, I wouldn't even bother seeing it on TV, so diminished would its impact be.

Claire Denis' films may look slick to the jaundiced American audiences, since many fashion and advertising makers employ devices that create Denis-esque effects. Beau Travail was unfortunately evocative of Bruce Webers' damp pretty man ad campaigns and books, yet the power of the film remained when the memory of the packaging had faded.

This film was beautiful to my innocent eye, as it wistfully, abstractly spreads out night-time Paris as a diorama into which drivers and passengers are thrown during a harrowing transit strike. The intimacy that occurs in the film between strangers is intensely depicted - close close close and the camera - as with Beau Travail - is genius. The film made me sad to consider the sense of loneliness inside of that city and my own during the night, yet I am pleased to have seen such a lovely rendering of that idea. I saw the film last night and the pictures are still downloading inside today, my mark of great films.

Finally, THANK YOU Claire Denis for never being ponderously intellectual during appearances and for not feeling that you need 3 hour films to make art. This film - in less than 90 minutes - is more profound than any of the 3 hour French films made.