Playtime - Tempo de Diversão

Don't see this film on TV. This film was shot on 70 mm and you should see it in the cinema on a LARGE screen. I've seen the film in the cinema first, it was brilliant. Later I saw it on TV, it was mediocre the most. Then I saw it in the cinema again, and again it was brilliant. Why? The quality of this film is in the small details. In some scenes, you just don't know where to look because so much is happening at once. On TV, all these details get lost. DVD won't help! A TV just has way too few pixels! This film relies not on story (there hardly is one), but on inventive and imaginative images. Watch the 70 mm version in the cinema, and enjoy the biggest film this genius ever made, with sometimes subtle, sometime hilarious humor!!!

I comment 2 years after seeing "Playtime" at the Art Institute of Chicago, an event in which the film was presented in its original 70mm format for the first time since its debut. Over the years it had been cropped and recropped for standard prints and video leaving little of the original magic, which is the sheer SCOPE of this visual marvel.

Absolutely amazing sells "Play" short. The picture was so clear and the sequences so thrilling that I dare say this is Tati's Masterpiece. Apparently, he created an entire 1/5th scale city outside Paris and shot over the course of three years to get this honey in the can, and man-o-man, does it show.

This is the kind of film that reminds a viewer just how standardized modern cinematic narrative has become. Tati exists in an alternate plane of recorded consciousness; I walked out of "Play" as if hallucinating, having fully entered his perspective and adopted his suggestions as my own.

This is a film in balance with the nature of cinema itself; if Frank Lloyd Wright was a director, Tati would be his disciple: Tati's cinematic interpretations are in natural proportion to the distinctive elements of film. Visual dominance, sound hyperbarically in support of the image rhythm, help me I'm hallucinating again-thanks Jaques...

Don't miss this one, but don't see it in any other format than a special 70mm screening. Somebody put a screening together!!!

You need to understand one thing. Playtime isn't a movie. It is a painting. A moving painting. Therefore you should see it as such and not as a movie.

Some people say it's not funny despite being classified as a comedy. And they would be correct if it was a movie. It's not. But among comedy paintings it might be the funniest one.

I wasn't amused during watching it. And you most likely won't be as well. Because paintings aren't amusing/funny/entertaining. Paintings serve a different purpose. Art serves a different purpose.

So if your favourite movie is from Marvel or any other mainstream studio, stay away from Playtime. It isn't for you. You won't enjoy it.

If you enjoy art museums give it a shot. You might like it.

I have only seen Playtime once--in 1975 when I was a teenager living in Los Angeles. I, too, saw it at an art revival movie house (though probably not in 70mm) and remember it to this day! I recall the feeling of having entered a maze, or being lost and dazzled, of thinking how life was like a labrynth and how funny and touching Tati was. I still recommend it to people, especially if you like Fellini. Also, I think the film "After Hours" was based on this film, but the original is far more magical.

Others have commented about Tati's artistry and his sense of humour. I won't add to that.

One thing that many seem to miss is the physical setting for virtually the entire film, which is in and around international-style architecture. Tati continually pokes fun at it, demonstrating how inhumane much of it is in practice. Although idealistic and pure in some sense and appreciated for that (consider Philip Johnson's Glass House in New Canaan), it is often better looked at or visited than lived in.

From one viewpoint, the entire film can be seen as a criticism of that architectural school. It may be the only film that concentrates its energy on architectual criticism.