Vendredi soir
- 2002
- Tous publics
- 1h 30m
IMDb RATING
6.7/10
2.2K
YOUR RATING
It's Friday night--she's moving in with her boyfriend tomorrow--so she goes out, but gets stuck in traffic--where she meets a handsome stranger.It's Friday night--she's moving in with her boyfriend tomorrow--so she goes out, but gets stuck in traffic--where she meets a handsome stranger.It's Friday night--she's moving in with her boyfriend tomorrow--so she goes out, but gets stuck in traffic--where she meets a handsome stranger.
- Awards
- 1 win & 3 nominations total
Florence Loiret Caille
- La jeune fille du flipper
- (as Florence Loiret-Caille)
Featured reviews
The traffic jam sequence alone stands as an amazing and lyrical study of the rhythms of stop and start driving. The two lovers are so anchored in the magnetism of the present. This movie is a homage to human nature, and sexual attraction consummated. Also, I absolutely love that the film accepts and cherishes the moment as the lovers do. It's very French.
Claire Denis' films may look slick to the jaundiced American audiences, since many fashion and advertising makers employ devices that create Denis-esque effects. Beau Travail was unfortunately evocative of Bruce Webers' damp pretty man ad campaigns and books, yet the power of the film remained when the memory of the packaging had faded.
This film was beautiful to my innocent eye, as it wistfully, abstractly spreads out night-time Paris as a diorama into which drivers and passengers are thrown during a harrowing transit strike. The intimacy that occurs in the film between strangers is intensely depicted - close close close and the camera - as with Beau Travail - is genius. The film made me sad to consider the sense of loneliness inside of that city and my own during the night, yet I am pleased to have seen such a lovely rendering of that idea. I saw the film last night and the pictures are still downloading inside today, my mark of great films.
Finally, THANK YOU Claire Denis for never being ponderously intellectual during appearances and for not feeling that you need 3 hour films to make art. This film - in less than 90 minutes - is more profound than any of the 3 hour French films made.
This film was beautiful to my innocent eye, as it wistfully, abstractly spreads out night-time Paris as a diorama into which drivers and passengers are thrown during a harrowing transit strike. The intimacy that occurs in the film between strangers is intensely depicted - close close close and the camera - as with Beau Travail - is genius. The film made me sad to consider the sense of loneliness inside of that city and my own during the night, yet I am pleased to have seen such a lovely rendering of that idea. I saw the film last night and the pictures are still downloading inside today, my mark of great films.
Finally, THANK YOU Claire Denis for never being ponderously intellectual during appearances and for not feeling that you need 3 hour films to make art. This film - in less than 90 minutes - is more profound than any of the 3 hour French films made.
This was a damn good movie. Very different, the closest movie that comes to the feel and over all effect is The Loss of Sexual Innocence. Movies such as this catch many off guard because they don't follow the de facto movie format. Meaning, an event happens, people react to said event, drama, conclusion, resolution.
This movie takes a totally different approach, and that's what makes it shine. This movie defies being labeled as a movie altogether. People say this movie is boring, that nothing happens, there are almost no words. They'd be right, there is no real drama, conclusion, resolution. I don't believe that's what this movie is even about.
From the opening moments of the Paris rooftops I knew I was in for something special. The long shots, the turning off of lights, the gazes at the Paris skyline. This was a visual feast with poetic credentials, and I expected as much.
Folks, this movie was not about Jean and Laure. I believe thats where all the critical flack stems from. This movie isn't about a brief encounter that is over by sunrise. The plot that you all speak of, that's secondary.
The movie tends to focus on their surroundings more so then them. A cluttered car, a heater, traffic, boxes. A best example of this is their skin, during the sex scenes there are close ups of their skin rather then showing them making love. As if the plot, in this case, making love, is secondary to the poetic element of the story.
In any given event, the surroundings are just as important as the story itself. This movie displays that perfectly. That is the purpose of this movie, that is it's beauty, that is what it is about.
If this movie is about the surroundings rather then a plot or story, then what would be the purpose of showing rooftops, skin, lamps, boxes? Because is it life, and it is poetic and beautiful. What is the purpose of a rose? Why take a picture of it, or give it to someone? A rose simply is, this movie simply is. The nuances of life deserve appreciation and this movie pays homage to that fact. That is what this movie is about.
It is life, it is the beauty of everything around you.
This movie takes a totally different approach, and that's what makes it shine. This movie defies being labeled as a movie altogether. People say this movie is boring, that nothing happens, there are almost no words. They'd be right, there is no real drama, conclusion, resolution. I don't believe that's what this movie is even about.
From the opening moments of the Paris rooftops I knew I was in for something special. The long shots, the turning off of lights, the gazes at the Paris skyline. This was a visual feast with poetic credentials, and I expected as much.
Folks, this movie was not about Jean and Laure. I believe thats where all the critical flack stems from. This movie isn't about a brief encounter that is over by sunrise. The plot that you all speak of, that's secondary.
The movie tends to focus on their surroundings more so then them. A cluttered car, a heater, traffic, boxes. A best example of this is their skin, during the sex scenes there are close ups of their skin rather then showing them making love. As if the plot, in this case, making love, is secondary to the poetic element of the story.
In any given event, the surroundings are just as important as the story itself. This movie displays that perfectly. That is the purpose of this movie, that is it's beauty, that is what it is about.
If this movie is about the surroundings rather then a plot or story, then what would be the purpose of showing rooftops, skin, lamps, boxes? Because is it life, and it is poetic and beautiful. What is the purpose of a rose? Why take a picture of it, or give it to someone? A rose simply is, this movie simply is. The nuances of life deserve appreciation and this movie pays homage to that fact. That is what this movie is about.
It is life, it is the beauty of everything around you.
Claire Denis uses close-ups better than anybody since Sergio Leone. Agnes Godard is amazing. A Denis film almost always has a human warmth few other filmmakers achieve with their films, even if it's their intention to do so. All these qualities are present in "Vendredi soir", yet I felt it was significantly weaker than the three Denis films I had already seen: "Chocolat", "Nenette et Boni", and "Trouble Every Day". It's not that the film is 'slight' or that it doesn't have much narrative drive that bothered me, either, but that it never took on the sort of gravity I thought it should have. Moreover, the film falls apart toward the end, when it should have come together. The opening stages of the film, with Godard's camera taking us through Paris were absolutely gorgeous, the first few scenes after the two main characters meet were great, especially the brilliant impressionistic montage after Jean unexpectedly takes over driving Laure's car (accompanied by a Hitchcockian musical score), but when they actually get together and have sex the film just falls apart. Here's a film which is technically brilliant (direction, cinematography, acting, Dickon Hinchliffe's great debut score), formally interesting, but which just doesn't have enough in it to justify even its short length.
1st watched 3/9/2010 -- 7 out of 10 (Dir-Claire Denis): Beautiful film about a woman preparing for a new life, getting stuck in a traffic jam, picking up a stranger and then having a night together with him. This film is like watching a ballet with it's beautiful depiction of everything from the city of Paris, to the hotel room, to the main characters. The camera is like a peeping tom into the heart of the main character played by Valerie Lemercier as we feel and see everything she sees and feels. Except, of course, the emotions are a little restrained -- which is typical of the French. With French films, you never expect a cut-and-dry ending and they take their time letting you experience every moment(this is unique to this countries films). The film has a very simple premise and it lets you think thru what's going on in the character's minds and never gives away anything. There is very little dialogue which lets you breathe in and experience every minute. Sure -- not much happens, but it doesn't have to. Sometimes life is "exactly" like this and Claire Denis captures it beautifully. Do we know what happens to the character's when it's over?? -- no, but we can guess and that's where the fun lies in a film like this.
- How long is Friday Night?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $156,918
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $9,381
- May 25, 2003
- Gross worldwide
- $609,542
- Runtime1 hour 30 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content