Cibbuano
RubySoho
Morgan Bell
Matt Shea
David O'Connell
Mountain FogThe 400 Blows (Les quatre cents coups)
March 18th 2008 22:15
Francois Truffaut's landmark debut broke the shell of the French New Wave in the 60s, ushering a cinematic era where the director took his auteurship seriously... "The 400 Blows" is a magnificent creation, a personal, moving work that shows us how life can be recreated in film.
Truffaut was an
How close was he, though, to being cast aside?
"The 400 Blows" is a fiercely personal autobiography of Truffaut's life as a young boy... played incredibly by Jean-Pierre Leaud, called Antoine Doinel, life in postwar France is difficult, living in small, cramped apartments, going to school to be picked on by cruel teachers, and having a family that seems to want to disown you.
Doinel is a good kid, but no one's ever had faith in him. His parents suspect him of lying, and they're hardly around to guide him. His teachers force the class through seemingly meaningless tasks, irrelevant for kids who struggle to find their place in society.
I wasn't a troublesome kid, but the child in me sympathizes with Doinel. Truffaut captures the young actors face meticulously, reminding me of my own emotions at that age - when adults scream at you to be responsible, but then extend no courtesy. Doinel is resigned to the fact that people think he's bad, so why should he fight it?
Things get bad for Doinel, and it's a wonder that he doesn't just break down and cry... certainly, the audience is moved to tears, watching this forgotten child try and fit himself into the world.
Traffaut knows how to control the viewer, though... despite the tragic subject matter, the film is one of small joys, filmed almost with glee. Watching Doinel down a pint of milk is a refreshing experience, and the scenes where his family take him to the movies seems almost idyllic.
Truffaut was famous for a damning essay that he wrote, criticizing French cinema and claiming that the director should take authorship of the film. "The 400 Blows" is a fine testament to that theory, giving us a savagely personal account of the director's life - indeed, it's as compelling, if not more, than the finest fictional tale.
I say: A truly incredible film. Shot beautifully in B&W, making the cold Paris streets look inhospitable, Truffaut gives us an impressively forgiving view of Doinel's life. Try to see this in a cinema, and let yourself fall in.
See it for: It was released in 1959, quite some time ago, so the French society is at great odds with what we think of Paris. No romance, no bright lights. Cold stone and people working to eat... it's an interesting reminder.
*this image is taken from Roger Ebert's review.
| 164 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
Great review!
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
One of my favourites, too, I think, though I'd love to see it again in a cinema.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Every film I have ever made and will ever make will be in some way influenced by The 400 Blows.
Truffaut said that his biggest challenge in making the film was how to make the audience feel sympathy and affection for a character who "does a little bit of thieving every five minutes". But, boy did he succeed. No matter how many times I see this film I am moved as if seeing it for the first time. And that performance! Oh, I could go on about this film all day...so just stop me now.
One small note- Truffaut was not an orphan, he was estranged from his family and this film put him at even greater odds with his parents due to its autobiographical content.
Thanks for this Cibb.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Nathan 1
Auteur filiming is the way to go if you want a viewing experience that has a common thread of the creator's own desires and I remember this film because of the auteur 'stamping' end shot where there is a zoom in, freeze frame of Doinel almost like an obituary photograph.
Supposedly the guy who played Doinel was continuing this character in Godard's Masculin, Feminine. Whether this is a myth I am not sure, but it is a tragic story of misguided youth and of how a misunderstood child can get cast away in the undertow of society.
Good post
Nathan
Comment by Jarrah
Back to the Eighties
I ran into my screenwriting teacher last week and she actually gave me this! She said it was vey similar to my film from last year. She said it reminded her of me.
I guess I'll have to watch it soon.
Glad you put this up.
- Jarrah
Back to the Eighties
www.backtotheeighties.net
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Jarrah
Back to the Eighties
Its called 18 to LIfe.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
400 Blows affected me deeply as a child when I saw it...now the more I watch it the more the filmmaking technique and script astonish.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
JD, you saw it when you were a child? I think it might have tipped me into uncontrollable rebellion...
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
I wrote a dissertation paper criticsing this train of thought and making the case for a true auteur being neither a writer nor a director, but rather a writer/director.
Obviously in most cases this applied perfectly to Truffaut himself anyway, but I still to this day disagree with his sentiments about a Director taking complete ownership (and therefore credit and crticism) of a film.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
An interesting fallout from the auteur theory is now, everyone transfers credit and scorn on the director, even when they're just a little puppet in a big budget monstrosity.
What examples are there of a movie where the director should not take ownership?
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Any Alan Smithee film is a good place to start Cib
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
I argue that Truffaut is actually a bad example of his own point. It's easy for Truffaut to give the sole credit to the Director when, as you correctly point out, he only really directed his own words.
I suppose I just think the writers are being short changed. Is it not the case that a film cannot exist without a script, whereas a script can exist (and be enjoyed) without a film? Does this not then mean that, by Truffaut's own definition, the writer is the true auteur?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
They cite Hitchcock who never wrote his scripts as a true author. One of their points is that the film takes on a new life in the filming- separate to the script. It is the decisions of the director- the composition, the performances, the casting, that make or break the film.
A script can exist without a film but it has not reached its potential, or even its reason d'etre.
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
Good points, well made. Though the story and words can come from a writer, visually the piece only takes shape in the hands of a director. That said, a director without a script is useless.
Which leads me, rather nicely, back to my earlier point that a true auteur must be a writer/director.
'Luckily' for Truffaut, he sits perfectly inside this definition too.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Fun conversation and one I've had many times with film friends....So Stanley Kubrick wasn't an Auteur under the restriction of writer/director? Would Fight Club and Sven have been the same film in anyone else's hands but David Fincher? Brazil and Terry Gilliam?
Personally I agree that if a term like Auteur is applied to a filmmaker they are writer and director most of the time....I think the writer is the "author" of the story on the page (unless based on a novel), but the "auteur" is the one whose vision puts the story on the screen.
I think teh Auteur theory also applies to Directors who put there own individual stamp on films like Lynch, Cronenberg, De Palma etc, granted most write their own film but there are also exceptions.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
The strange thing about the movie is that Truffaut virtually adopted Jean-Pierre Leaud from this point on; certainly he acted as a kind of mentor to him. Whether this was good for the young actor is debatable; he'd also had a muddled upbringing, and Truffaut was a more stable adult to him than his own parents, as I recall. However, when Truffaut died, quite young, Leaud, was left an 'orphan' and for a time his life literally fell apart.
He's a great actor though - in spite of the fact that he's almost always played himself!
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
The debate over the auteur theory is an interesting one... certainly, great directors can turn a script into a very personal film, a magnificent achievement.
But, to me, there's something a little extra pleasing about a movie that was written and directed by a filmmaker.
When I watched "The 400 Blows" or Jia Zhangke's "Platform", it's such an intensely personal work that it's like a rare glimpse into the life of someone else.
I'm not saying that Kubrick, Lynch, the Coens, are not auteurs, but directors that pen their own scripts has a bigger impact on me.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by Wooderbeen
The Daily Sydney
The State Of The Game
Love in over!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I can understand why some of you believe true auteurs are writer/directors, and I used to agree but then what of Ken Loach and Michael Winterbottom? You can't say that those directors don't own those films. That they don't have that director's stamp all over them.
I think that the New Wave theory of the auteur is essentially that the end result of the film is in the hands of the director, regardless off who penned the script. It is all about how the vision is realised. The same script by two different directors can (and should) be wildly different.