Não me Toque

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.

One has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12-hour long films. It could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence - in fact, even in the world of 'arthouse' cinema, such mammoth running times are extremely rare, for obvious reasons. This is one thing that Hollywood and art cinema share in common: the generally accepted running time of 90-120 minutes, with a minority of movies that dare to approach, but rarely exceed, the three-hour mark.

For this reason, a film like Out 1 (runtime: 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile, and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find.

Originally devised as a TV series by maverick Nouvelle Vague director Jacques Rivette, it raised little interest from the French networks, and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (Peter Watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo- documentary The War Game, although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). Shown a couple of times in 1971, Out 1 has re-emerged at a handful of Rivette retrospectives over the last two decades, and many who have seen it, including esteemed US critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time.

Is it? Well, yes, if you like Rivette. That alone is a big 'if', as Jacques Rivette has never been a commercially successful director. Only two of his films were hits (Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) and La Belle Noiseuse (1991), both superb), and many remain difficult to find on DVD today (Out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). Nevertheless, he is greatly respected within the film community, and with good reason - his playfully surreal narratives, sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema's most unique and satisfying film-makers.

Out 1 deals with a theme that re-occurs throughout Rivette's work: the nature of acting, particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. His fascination with acting make Rivette's films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries, as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. Out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives, gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops: two consisting of acting troupes, each trying to devise post-modern theatrical adaptations of Aeschylus plays; the other two individual petty thieves (played by Nouvelle Vague icons Jean-Pierre Léaud and Juliet Berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money; and an overarching plot involving a mysterious Balzac-inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as 'the thirteen'.

As with any Rivette film featuring a 'conspiracy' narrative, the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. As the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down, the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post-1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. For a film made in 1971, these were remarkably prescient themes; another French director in Jean Eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece The Mother and the Whore. But this is not the limit of Out 1's scope.

Comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief, abstract black-and-white still montage of the events of the previous chapter), Out 1 is no less watchable than any quality TV series, and may even be better experienced on a one-episode- at-a-time basis. This is not to say that it doesn't remain challenging even when viewed in segments. Like most Rivette films, it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot, of sorts, and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors' heavily abstracted 'exercises') seem interminably long. These scenes are important, however, not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film, but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. Paradoxically, long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience, and this understanding of pacing has led Rivette, along with more modern directors like Michael Haneke and Béla Tarr, to create films with less commercial running-times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled.

In a film that is in many ways about acting, the acting is fantastic. Many famous Nouvelle Vague faces appear, including the aforementioned Léaud and Berto, the outstanding Michel Lonsdale and Rivette regular Bulle Ogier. Even another legendary director in Eric Rohmer has a great cameo as a Balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. The people and architecture of Paris c. 1971, though, seem to have an equally significant role - the city landscapes, crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze Out 1 in time, a document of a place at a point in history.

After a little more than 720 minutes, the film ends on an impossibly brief, enigmatic note; yet, the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities, intricacy and spontaneity, that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning, or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. For those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer, Out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. For film-makers, film critics and artists of all disciplines, this is something to be cherished.

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.

Over the years, I have read so many articles on Out 1, and have seen so many stills from it, that I felt as though I'd already seen the movie. Out 1 already existed for me in such a big way, that finally watching it could only lead to disappointment. Sadly, this was the case. As great as Out 1's legend is, for me it never comes together. It's all promise unfulfilled.

There are Holy Grail movies: Films written and talked about in reverential tones, yet largely unavailable to the public. Until recently, "Out 1" was one of these, and having lived with its legend for many years, I was giddy the day it showed up on Netflix. An eight-part film totaling about 13 hours? I was binge-ready! Unfortunately, it took only about half way thru the first segment for my enthusiasm to wane.

But oh is it ever ambitious, and almost every concept and character that we are introduced to is inherently interesting. One example is in how two different acting troupes work toward discovery in the play that each is planning to put on - It seems to be a great metaphor for this very film - but their rehearsal scenes go on (and on), and there are so many of them. 10, 20, even 30 minute (!!) scenes of actors writhing around on dirty theater floors? I love the slower pace of foreign films, but it was just too much.

The acting? Jean-Pierre Leaud, who I usually find fascinating, here just annoys the crap out of me. The rest of a very large cast, many of whom were big in French cinema, may or may not be doing good work. With long, rambling scenes inside of the film's overall loose structure, I actually couldn't tell. Rivette usually has one camera going, and he just lets it roll. Even his veteran actors at times seem lost.

If being loose and letting things "just play out" was what Rivette was going for, I think that he could have made his point in less than 13 hours. Considering how much love Out 1 continues to get, perhaps it's just me who is missing out. Yet I can't help think that he not only let his actors down, but that he let his viewers down, too.

I'll leave it to other reviewers to get into The Thirteen, Balzac, Lewis Carroll, conspiracies, paranoia, etc. It IS all very fascinating to read about.

Having read (and heard) so much over the years, about both the film and its legend, it felt as though I had already seen the movie. I could recall its characters, style, and elements with clarity. Unfortunately, having now seen it, that movie has been erased from my memory. I should have stuck with the legend. Sadly, the "Out 1" of my mind no longer exists.

Here is another film, similar to 1924's la Roue, where narrative structure is not only ignored, but largely obliterated in this 13 hours-long character study, acting study, process study - and film is all the more better for it.

On one hand, Out 1 is minimalist (in settings and surroundings) . On one other hand, however, it is elaborate and sprawling (I am referring, obviously, to its massive run-time.)

Film spends several hours drawing us, in cinema verite fashion, into the characters' meandering, directionless lives, through conversations filmed in mirrors, and stationary cameras in backseats filming conversations during car rides, lengthy sequences of two theatrical troupes rehearsing Classical stories, and, most amusingly, small kids and curious passersby follow cast and crew during filming.

Fiction eventually begins to overtake this pseudo-documentary, as the young man initially referred to in the film's credits as "le jeune sourd-muet" (the young deaf-mute) becomes known as Colin, and his harmonica-playing deaf-mute act is revealed to be just that, an act. He is revealed to be a bit of a conman, a poetic, philosophical con-man (who believes there is a real life secret society known as The Thirteen) much like Frederic is revealed to be a con-woman, stealing correspondence to try to blackmail and extort money from their writers, (and who might have really discovered evidence of the existence of The Thirteen) Neither is who they appear to be- they each have a face to show, and a face to hide. Curiously, despite being prominently featured characters, Colin and Frederic share only one scene together. Even more curious are Pierre and Igor, two major characters in the plot who are never shown at all, either together or by themselves.

Interesting colour composition, especially in episodes 4 and 5; Frederic, in white, on a dark green rug, in front of red tapestry hung on the wall behind her, as she begins to wonder about the mysterious Thirteen she has learned of, as the plot (sort of) kicks in; black suit on deep red sofa against pale white wall, simple composition successfully made chaotic by chess board and chess pieces in front of him. Rooftop conversations overlooking Paris and the Seine river ; the city itself and its buildings and its streets become a character in its own right.

But, is there really anything to the Balzac-inspired Thirteen, are they real and trying to control all of Paris, or is this just a search for some purpose (unravelling this mystery) in their meandering lives?

We, the audience, try to understand the crisscrossing and tangled narratives and characters, much the same as Colin tries to understand the Thirteen. We are trying to unravel a mystery to. But it is almost of no matter if The Thirteen exists or not, just dive into the characters' lives for the duration of its thirteen hours runtime.

This is not plot- or character-driven, it is process- driven. The process of filmmaking,