L'enfant sauvage

The Wild Child could be the kind of movie that doesn't work. In a way it's hard to find what the dramatic conflict of the film would be if not for the push & pull struggle between the scientists and his 'test' subject of sorts, Victor, the wild child of the title. But somehow it does- Truffaut laces the film with a kind of undertone of logic for the audience (how can a boy for most of his life be out in the wild and become suddenly domesticated), while making a sort of nature versus society statement. The film also has the director's trademark lightness, which helps to not make the film's subject matter too bleak or disparaging. For it could be- Truffaut actually gives a kind of suspense to the narrative at times, that just when you think Victor is on his way to success, he stumbles and starts to act out on the floor or escape into the wild for a breather. It's a very curious film, not just because Truffaut (in one of his few times) gives himself the starring role, but also that the child- like Makim Munzak in Kurosawa's Dersu Uzala- had his only significant role ever in the film. And it's quite the seemingly impulsive, and always alive, performance that filmmaker's rarely get out of children.

Victor is named this only halfway through the film, and it starts off with him being chased by a small mob and their dogs through the woods. It's maybe the most exciting part of the film, but then this segways into the early stages of the boy's troubles. He's placed in a deaf and dumb school, beat up by the other kids, and still with the passions and intelligence that the woods have given him. It becomes a fascination in the story of what the limits, if any, are for him to learn everything real boys do. Once he's put into Dr. Itard's (Truffaut) care, then the film sets off onto a very direct path- how will he learn, will he, and how long will it it take? As with his other films, the literary aspect kicks in as the scientist takes repeated notes on the boy, using a kind of pre-Darwinian way of scientific methods. But it's within the little moments in the film, like when Victor is out on his walks, or makes his little successes, where Truffaut as a filmmaker picks up the best parts of the film.

This could be a very routine picture, and for some it may actually be a little dull and disheartening. Will the boy ever learn? The film actually does raise questions within its format, as it is based on a true case (from taking science classes I know there are also others of this kind as well). It brings to mind about what is pure and delicate about the ways of an animal and what separates them and humans. Each little test becomes dramatic conflict in the structure Truffaut puts forth, and in a way it's rather experimental. And it even becomes delightful in certain scenes, like when he first learns how to ask for milk, and then this expands. This, along with a sweet Vivaldi score in the background, and interesting visuals (love the iris usage), makes it a worthwhile entry in Truffaut's oeuvre. Not one of his absolute best, but up there.

If it weren't for several other strong works from Truffaut, this one would be my favorite. And it somes ways it is my favorite. The interaction between Victor and Dr. Itard was splendidly done. It was a joy simply to watch Truffaut on- screen directing the boy's progress, much like he must have done off-screen to get some very human reactions. At no point during this film did I think a scene was overdone or unnatural. It just seemed to flow from one small triumph to the next. My only complaint was that the whole experiment ended abrubtly, and so too did the movie. We are told by Dr. Itard that Victor is a extraordinary boy, but he has much training left to master. There were many points along the way where doubt lingered as to whether the wild child could be fully trained at all until the final scene. There we learn that Victor has a new home.

This movie was based on a true event which took place in the late 1700s. Unfortunately for the audience, the most pressing question of what became of Victor in his adult life is left unanswered. But fans of Francois Truffaut will find him even more engaging than in his role of Claude Lacombe in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". The roles are similar in many ways. If Lacombe could have taken home the child-like aliens to instruct, I'm sure he would have been much like Dr. Itard.

This austere ,black and white movie might be Truffaut's peak.Recalling sometimes,in its spirit,Penn's "miracle worker",the work suffuses with humanism,belief in dignity of man .The child ,for Truffaut,is a frail human being,who needs (and deserves ) education.Hence,some critics called "wild child" the positive side of "the 400 blows".Perhaps so,but ,in my humble opinion,the 1969 effort is much stronger than the rather academic first attempt.Following Doctor Itard's report with absolute fidelity,and portraying him with gusto,Truffaut is a much better actor here than he 's in Spielberg's "close encounters".The production is pared down to the essential,using old-fashioned techniques,recalling silent movies.I do not think,like M.Maltin,that it "loses steam half-way through".On the contrary,the most important scene in the whole movie comes in the last third:Victor,the wild child ,unfairly punished,rebels.He can see the difference between good and bad.Might it be possible that moral conscience should be innate? Does society,as Rousseau believed it pervert man? At the beginning of the movie,remember how cruel was our civilized populace to the different child: showed in public,like a queer animal,to make dough. All teachers in the world should see this masterpiece.

NB:In France,in primary school,a lot of pupils read Victor's story.

A movie like this can be viewed in two main ways: a human example of a scientific study (with on screen replications of the study, and a moral conclusion); or a lesson in learning for the participants (the wild child will learn how to spell his adopted name; his teacher -- and we the audience -- will learn how to feel!). Truffaut kind of merges both into something of unique value. It feels a little removed, and it becomes clear that that's to prevent sentimentality. It's unsentimental, but Truffaut is a quiet master; as is the case with David Lynch's "The Elephant Man," his auteur sensibilities shine through the story so that it fits in neatly with his catalogue -- here we have another film with a naked boy's bum, and young children being goofy and walking in packs. What the film is is an intense magnification of the troubles of child-rearing, emphasized twofold by Truffaut's role in the film: he is the "mother" giving birth to the film; and he is the father raising this "wild child" within the film; good-natured, but without the inherent understanding of the boy that his housekeeper has (and without the inherent understanding Truffaut the director has of cinema).

Is it possible to feel bad watching a Truffaut film? And even better than making you feel good, he's not being sneaky about it -- instead of crass manipulation (and what kind of film could be more easily made manipulative than a one about boy left to survive in a forest and how he learns to be "human"?), he imbues each frame with soft, gentle love; so instead of jerking our emotions around via contrivance of the characters, he trusts us enough -- and his own talent enough -- to allow us to latch on to feeling his respect and love for cinema itself. (And he wisely keeps the film in mostly medium shots.) Nothing is really highlighted, but occasionally a particular image will be so fine that it's hard not to notice it, like the one where the camera is raised above Victor as he slouches back to his room after being told he can't accompany Truffaut to the doctor. (Or the sly visual gag where Truffaut is teaching Victor letters with the boy's fingers, and he manages to basically flip the audience the bird -- then has Truffaut swat his fingers with a cane.)

Truffaut isn't interested in the kind of acting displays that normally accompany this kind of film; the acting is subdued and realistic (but then again, how would we ever know how a wild child would act?). The boy is limited to acting without words, and it's a very good performance: whether he's grinning wildly in a bath or swaying back and forth or opening his mouth as wide as it can go in an act of effrontery, it's a performance that refuses to indicate how we should feel. There are some scenes that portray confusion so well but don't rub our noses in it, like the one where he's trying his hardest to follow instructions and eat his soup properly, but can't help himself and sticks his face in the bowl. After Victor makes a craft and impresses Truffaut with it, Truffaut writes in his ongoing journal how joyful he is but to forgive his enthusiasm over such a small triumph -- that's the best way to describe how the film feels: a series of small triumphs of gentle subtlety. 9/10

For those unfamiliar with the history of "the wild boy of Aveyron," this film will be intriguing and informative. It follows the known facts of "Victor's" life closely, but does not reveal, even in an epilogue, that its terminus represents about the furthest that Victor ever progressed. In fact, Dr. Itard, who adopted the boy and attempted to educate and "civilise" him, abandoned the project soon afterward, and Victor died at about age 40 in a public institution. Whether or not it would have been better to allow him his "nasty, brutal and short" -- but free -- life in the wild presents a genuine moral dilemma.. Both Francois Truffaut's direction and the cinematography of Nestor Amendros are stark, and emphasize the paradox of intellectual riches and emotional poverty said to have been the lot of bourgeois children in the eighteenth century.