La bataille de Solférino

To make a movie under the look of a sociologist who redraws the day of the victory in the presidential elections of François Hollande in France, it seems to us very interesting. The problem consists in the art which could reconcile an event of the private life of a character with this big event of the life of an important country. This attempt seems to us difficult because it is about two almost set themes and, unfortunately the movie The Battle of Solférino is law to have associated these themes. Indeed, the film-maker Justine Triet does not succeed in creating an exciting movie which would know how to interest the spectator. We have difficulty in finding the link which exists between a fact of the private life of a journalist and a victory of François Hollande. By examining both poles of her theme we notice that the event Of the life of our country. This attempt seems to us difficult because it is about two almost set themes and, unfortunately the movie The film " La Battaille de Solférino" is far for being able to associate these themes. Indeed, the film-maker Justine Triet does not succeed in creating an exciting movie which would know how to interest the spectator. We have difficulty in finding the link which exists between a fact of the private life of a journalist and a victory of François Hollande. By examining both poles of her theme, we notice that the event of the political life of France is presented in a insignificant way, with some extracts which make no sense and no report with the private life of the protagonist. Also we can consider that the recordings of the television which have to be in archives are more interesting than the extracts of the film-maker. As regards the private life of the journalist: what is the interest of this story/ If there is a drama of a father who sees itself private to see his children it is very badly developed and the scenes of hysteria without a particular aesthetic value we made regret having gone to the cinema. A large number of critics tends to criticize severely the American movies, but it is not a movie as the one who can give an advantage to the European cinema

I'm afraid that I pretty much hated this from start to finish. Somewhere along the line "Laetitia" (Laetitia Dosch) has managed to have children with "Vincent" (Vincent Macaigne) but that relationship is now completely toxic. She's a reporter and on the weekend of the run-off vote for the Presidency of the Republic is out and about at work whilst he turns up and tries to bully the sitter into giving him access - despite the fact that he's shown up, angry, on the wrong day and she's not there (important conditions of the judicial grant of access he keeps waving around). Next, the kids are taken out into the mêlée where amongst the tens of thousands celebrating François Hollande's victory, yep - he manages to find them again, and yet more histrionics ensue including him thumping a random stranger and ending up in a police station arguing the toss with an irate policeman. Finally - and not a moment too soon - we end up with him at her front door at 2am with his friend "Arthur" (Arthur Harari) posing as his lawyer demanding to see the kids and arguing about the legitimacy of both of their behaviour whilst the kids try to remain asleep. It may well arouse feelings of man-hating from an audience, but frankly neither of these characters were fit to be looking after children and the constant barrage of increasingly vitriolic dialogue began to look more and more contrived. From an acting perspective, the relentlessness of the effort from Macaigne has to be commended - his ability to get under just about anyone's fingernails is remarkable. Dosch doesn't have so much to work with, but her selfish and ambitious persona is no less likeable as the drama crosses the line into repetitive boredom early on and stays firmly ensconced. Sorry - but it's simply a rant, a joyless and implausible rant.

The real name is "The Battle of Solferino," and this detail is significant as it refers to a bloody battle during Napoleon III's time, which led to the establishment of the Red Cross. In the film, we witness a very interesting exploration of symbolic themes, all centered around the challenges of divorce.

In Latin, the word 'divorce' initially denoted the division of lands caused by waters. Later, it acquired its meaning in conjugal life. There existed a religious marriage that was indivisible: "Conferreatio". However, this was less common than civil marriage, which could easily be dissolved. The "Univira" (one marriage) woman was revered, but divorced women didn't face chastisement in ancient Rome.

Now, the essence of the movie is subtle. Our lives are constantly on a thin line, between different poles in politics, peace or civil unrest, and between a father who can or cannot see his daughters. Appointments fail, discussions escalate into arguments. In the end, cinema is less about the purity of experiments but about the insistence on conducting them. And this movie manages to do exactly that, simultaneously entering the public arena of political masses and the intimate life of a mother preoccupied by her violent ex.

'Age of Panic' is genuinely stressful to watch, with many baby cries and deep tensions. At the same time, it delivers a superb performance by Leticia in a great part as herself, as she already demonstrated in the previous short film, 'Two Birds.' The minimal use of Bach's well-known and much-used Prelude in C minor is also effective.

It begins with a risky concept, but quite thrilling: make a movie during the 2012 presidential election, in the streets of Paris with the thousand of Hollande and Sarkozy supporters. With a second goal, make a movie about the thirty-old people with precarious situation.

However, the gamble is not won. The fact that a lot of scenes are made without retake, doesn't give the movie something special - and shows limitation of the improvisation actors can make with an undevelopped story. The scenes with militants and supporters aren't showing anything, we don't feel anything special about this historical event. You'd better not expect any sociological aspect. Placing the events on that day is only artificial. And the story in itself is a succession of hysterical and egotistic behaviours, shouts and verbal violence (not to mention the continuous cries of the babies).