Out 1

At close to thirteen hours in length, Out 1 (1971) is director Jacques Rivette's most challenging and complicated film; mixing elements of topical social debate, character comedy and narrative self-reference alongside thematic elements lifted from Honoré de Balzac's epic collection of inter-linked novels, La Comédie humaine, updated to a contemporary French setting. I was lucky enough to see the film in its full, uncut form at the London NFT back in April 2006, having no prior experience with Rivette's work at that particular time, but being told that as a fan of Jean Luc Godard, his style should be right up my street. Since then, I've seen two other films by Rivette - the frantic farce of Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and the more reflective, though somewhat arduous La Belle Noiseuse (1991) - both of which are similarly unwieldy in length and filled with a variety of deconstructive narrative tricks that are self-reflexive in design.

Without wishing to take too much away from Rivette, the presentation of Out 1 suggests certain similarities to Godard's underrated political satire La Chinoise (1967); with the emphasis on a group of disparate characters attempting to uncover some hidden truth (here through the art of performance) that is contrasted against a topical, socially-aware backdrop of contemporary Parisian existence. The self-referential idea of a film about performers putting on a performance created by performers (etc) is exploited throughout by Rivette, who captures the proceedings in an uncomplicated, technically progressive approach that mixes elements of documentary-like investigation, cinéma vérité type deconstruction and a more experimental sense of abstraction that intensifies as a result of the film's hypnotic, languorous rhythm. According to most sources, the film was made without a script - again, something that Godard would occasionally claim to have attempted, though in reality was far too much of a domineering perfectionist to really adhere to - and the shambolic, formless improvisations, uncomplicated mise-en-scene and obviously unrehearsed moments of filming on the streets of Paris would all conform to this idea; with the film featuring a number of accidental technical errors that have been deliberately left in the final cut in order to alienate us further from the story and its characters.

These mistakes include the shadow of the boom-mic, fluffed lines, camera reflections and the awkward gaze of street-level spectators glaring into the camera lens whenever Rivette and his crew hit the streets. In any other film, these flaws would be dismissed as simply incompetent film-making; however, in Rivette's work, such deliberate mistakes become part of the artistic aesthetic that here conspires to challenge the audience on both an emotional and purely visceral level. By including such examples, Rivette is bringing to light the artificiality of the film; offering us a fractured narrative about creative expression in a behind the scenes sense that continually reminds us of the manufactured nature of the thing itself. Shot on 16mm, Out 1 comes to typify the reportage style of cinema in which the emphasis is placed on clinical examination, as evident from the director's continual use of incredibly long takes and often complete lack of close-up shots to further distance us from the action and the characters on screen. This sense of deconstruction and deliberate alienation from the traditional cinematic codes and conventions that many of us might expect can also be seen in Rivette's experiments within the narrative, and how we, as an audience, are invited to find our own themes and interpretations as the characters in the drama group are likewise expected to find a motivation of their own.

With these factors in mind, Out 1 is quite simply cinema at its most challenging and revolutionary. It is as far removed from the recognisable conventions of traditional film-making as one could possibly get, and seems to be an extension of the more superficial experiments of Andy Warhol combined with the unapologetically lofty output of Marguerite Duras; and all combined alongside certain stylistic elements found in the aforementioned La Chinoise and the Japanese New Wave masterpiece, Funeral Parade of Roses (1969). However, if you're already familiar with Rivette's work, from the preceding L' Amour fou (1968) to the more widely regarded Celine and Julie..., then you should be accustomed to the more alarming, deconstructive elements and the film's disarming length. As one critic put it, "the best way to experience Out 1 is to immerse yourself in it completely". Obviously, few of us will ever have the time or the energy (not least, the opportunity) required to get through the whole thing in a single sitting, however, given the fact that the film is broken down into a number of disconnected chapters, we can easily approach it in bite-sized chunks; losing out on the overall feel and flow perhaps, but still receiving the required information as it comes.

For many it will no doubt feel like an obvious period piece - something that is there to be endured as opposed to enjoyed - though nevertheless, there is a real flow and a sense of energy to the film that might seem surprising given the slow-pace and epic length. It is a film that resonates with ideas about life, love, freedom and expression, all captured in a manner that is anarchic, spirited and filled with passion and vitality. It does take a great deal of work; and as a result, this review is really only scratching the surface of its themes and ideas that are there to be poured over by the viewer at their own leisure whilst immersing themselves in the continual games and absurdities of the plot. Although as a film it is always going to have an incredibly limited audience, as an experience Out 1 is second to none and really deserves to be seen in its full, 773 minute restoration, rather than the shorter, 4 hour cut, Out 1: Spectre (1974), which should probably be seen as a standalone work in its own right.

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.

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.

I think that Pierre Léaud, or his character, to be precise, is really outlandish but with grace: I also remember the chess player, and of the girl who seems to be appearing by chance in his home, something really curious...the woman acting as the lawyer, is to me one of the most beautiful actresses ever seen on the screen...but I must admit that the plot is too inconsistent to be taken seriously....The character who plays as the lead theater actor is really nice, especially when he's annoyed by the new actor, the one in purple t-shirt...also, the scene where the bearded actor - who belongs to another company - directs the stage is really fascinating and relaxing, as it often happens with this movie - for example, when they drink tea, they just make you want to have a cup...

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.