Confidentially Yours (1983)

2/5

Truffaut's Confidentially Yours is certainly a whimper of a final film. The plot follows Julien Vercel (Trintignant), who is being accused of murdering Massoulier with a shotgun to the face. We soon find out that Massoulier was sleeping with Vercel's wife (Sihol). When she ends up dead, even Vercel's lawyer (Laudenbach) cannot help him. He goes into hiding with the help of his secretary (Ardant). She's the only one who believes he's innocent--and she's willing to lie, cheat, and steal amidst the seedy underbelly of France to expose the truth.

Just about every facet of this film is mediocre or subpar. The acting is awkward and unconvincing. The shifts in mood destroy what little tension Truffaut is able to manage. Poor lighting and poor writing make the film impossible to enjoy. Half the scenes are too dark for me to tell what's going on and the other half seem intentionally obfuscated to keep it "mysterious." While I was intrigued and engaged initially, the unsatisfying ending absolutely ruins the rest of it. The "explanation" just doesn't make much sense and there are a lot of loose ends that never get tied up. A supposed tribute to Hitchcock, Confidentially Yours only serves to show us that it takes more than studying a master to replicate his genius.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086551/

Love On The Run (1979)

3/5

Truffaut's Love On The Run is the final piece in the Antoine Doinel series. And how thankful I am for that! The Doinel movies were always hit or miss with me, occasionally funny, sometimes provocative, usually amateurish, but never boring. Like The Man Who Loved Women, the protagonist is a womanizer who writes a book about his experiences with women. This story begins with a divorce. As he ends his marriage to Christine (Jade), Antoine (Léaud) bumps into his old flame Colette (Pisier). While reminiscing on a train about their past together, they are reminded of the harsh truth behind why they never worked out as a couple. His current girlfriend Sabine (Dorothée) dumps him, and he bumps into his mother's old lover while wandering the streets in despair. The movie continues on in this way, essentially reviewing the life of Antoine Doinel through flashbacks that are nothing more than scenes from Truffaut's old Doinel films. It was like a clip show at the end of a TV series, and it probably means more to the creator than to the viewer. Very nostalgic without any new content. Watch it to end the saga, but don't expect to see anything too inspiring.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078771/

The Man Who Loved Women (1977)

3/5

Truffaut's The Man Who Loved Women is a fascinating character study of a man who has dedicated his entire life to seducing and bedding women. Although the bulk of the movie consists of him attempting the aforementioned (and often succeeding), it's more than just a series of sexual encounters. It delves into his thought processes, his theories on man-woman interactions, and his troubled past. It's not exactly the most organized of movies, as it manages to introduce and expand on all those varied tasks somewhat haphazardly, but it does accomplish more than the plot summary might initially suggest. Part of the charm of including such disparate parts of this man's personality is that it makes it feel less written and more real, more honest. As the film progresses, the sexcapades almost intrude on the more intriguing characteristics of the man pursuing them. Unfortunately, the directing itself is as lost as the protagonist, giving the film an episodic, tumultuous feel. If only more thought had been put into the story's overall structure, I think this could have been a great film. Unfortunately, it is merely adequate.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076155/

Small Change (1976)

3/5

Small Change is in many ways exactly what you'd expect from Truffaut after seeing his entire oeuvre. It focuses on the childhood experience, on sexual discovery and other coming-of-age aspects, and it does so with lingering cinematography and awkward editing. But it broaches some difficult topics that seem to me a fascinating departure from Truffaut's typical fare as well. While watching the film, I presumed "childhood" to be its theme (although my teachers loved telling me that a single word can never be a theme). But actually childhood is more the idea--the mood, the atmosphere--than it is the theme. It is the setting in which events take place, events that happen haphazardly without a plot to lead them along. And that is one of the film's strengths: it reproduces the feeling of being a child, strung along by random events with no control over or prediction of tomorrow. It is episodic and unrelenting, without a beginning or end in sight. You are just stuck in the middle as life happens around you.

Unfortunately, that is also the film's weakness. The lack of a plot made a lot of the movie painfully tedious. Not knowing what will happen next turns even the shortest of movies into ones that are too long. There are some memorable moments (an infant by an open window ledge on the 9th floor) and other moments that stir up memories of ourselves and the stubborn refusals, incorrect assumptions, and rebellious behavior of our own childhood. But we cannot relate to all the moments, so some just pass us by and feel like wasted footage. Although Truffaut gets the mood right, he didn't get the movie as a whole right, at least for me. I don't go into a movie hoping for a yearbook so I can relive my past. I go for the possibilities of the future. I go for concepts that stimulate my brain or events that force a visceral reaction out of me, be it tension or heartbreak or joy. This movie did not do that. It may be the perfect film for some people, but it is not for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074152/

Day for Night (1973)

4.9/5

Day for Night is one of three or so Truffaut movies that were independently identified and recommended to me. And correctly so. This is by far his best movie, and one of the best movies I've seen about making movies. This movie is the complete opposite of almost all of his earlier movies, but the funny thing is that it draws from Fellini and Altman more than from Truffaut himself. It doesn't really feel like his personal style of movie, and I am extremely thankful for that. The plot follows a director (Truffaut) on the set of his new movie, Meet Pamela, starring Julie Baker (Bisset), Alexandre (Aumont), and Alphonse (Leaud). The movie they are making is a tragedy, and we fear that the movie we are seeing may suffer a similar fate. We see a fragile actress who had a nervous breakdown on her previous film, a dependent actor immediately and obsessively in love with a freewheeling spirit, and a secretive actor who makes nightly visits to the airport for reasons nobody knows. There are moments where dedication and sacrifice are needed, where creative thinking and improvisation are essential. But despite the problems on set, there are moments of happiness and fluidity. And it is for those moments that people dedicate their lives to making movies.

The filmmaking in this movie shows some New Wave flourishes, but it is subdued in favor of brevity and efficiency in plot and style. The colors are bright without being oversaturated, the camera movements are meaningful without lingering, and the editing is brisk without being curt. In this movie, Truffaut fixes almost all of my complaints from all of his previous movies. But not quite. He still overuses zooms, still writes dialogue that sounds like it's written, and still uses bizarrely jarring cuts. But those annoyances are few and far between in this one. Day for Night is a tremendous film, and one that I can see watching time and time again. It is made by a true lover of film for true lovers of film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070460/

Two English Girls (1971)

1/5

Two English Girls is a terrible movie, just like most of Truffaut's movies. I truly wish I had never burned the 15 movies of his that I had access to without first watching one or two. The plot follows Claude (Leaud) and two English girls (Markham, Tendeter) with whom he falls in love. Their love is instant and without explanation; it is less love and more melodrama and angst. I don't know what century this movie takes place in, but the movie plods along as if from a much slower era. The dialogue is stilted. It sounds better written than coming from the mouths of French and English actors who over-articulate as if they're learning new languages. An obtrusive and unnecessary narrator describes people's internal emotions instead of having them act it out, which also makes for an overly talky movie. The cinematography and editing are both poor. The colors range from far too dark to supersaturated; the film lingers on unrelated and unimportant shots like a stairwell or countryside landscapes. And there are a slew of unnecessary plot points that could have been excluded to make this movie shorter. (Or better yet, maybe Truffaut would have decided to exclude the whole thing and I wouldn't have had to sit through this movie at all! In fact, I wish that had happened for all of Truffaut's terrible movies.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066989/

Bed and Board (1970)

4/5

François Truffaut's Bed and Board is a playful and touching exploration of the life of a young married couple, Antoine (Leaud) and Christine (Jade), and their continual learning and maturing process. It examines the joys of a new child, the trials of adulterous desires, and the aches of separation. It is a simple yet well-made film that is filled with vivacity and infused with love for its inhabitants.

The editing is efficient, almost too efficient, never letting us take a breather from the whirlwind that is this couple's new life. The acting is capable, but the script often feels a bit written or staged. And some audiovisual quirks and idiosyncrasies stand out as bizarre or strange to people unfamiliar with Truffaut. This is in part due to Truffaut's history with New Wave, although here it is more refined and less experimental than in his earlier works. Truffaut does not always make good movies--and he has in fact made some terrible movies--but his Antoine Doinel ones are fantastic. And trust me when I say that this is one that I fully enjoyed from beginning to end and highly recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065651/

The Wild Child (1970)

3/5

The Wild Child is based on the true story of a young boy found in the woods of France and taken in by a doctor who wants to educate him. I went in with little interest in the subject matter, but found the movie to be surprisingly engrossing. I was impressed by the remarkable child acting by Jean-Pierre Cargol in the titular role. Although there were some missteps and errors, it was a very solid and endearing performance overall.

In addition to writing and directing this piece, Truffaut also acts in it as Dr. Itard. Unfortunately, his acting was terrible, as if he were reading from a script without emotion or complexity. It's rare that you see an adult actor put to shame by a child actor, but here you have it. Normally I would say he should stick to directing, but that's not really his forte either. We have an abundance of lingering shots and boring scenes. The pacing is atrocious. While the content is always interesting, it doesn't ever build up to anything. It just keeps going on and on. There is no climax and the ending is abrupt. Nothing really impressed me, but the film is actually quite engaging to an attentive audience. Don't go out of your way to find this, but if you catch it on TV, you might be hard-pressed to change the channel.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0064285/

Mississippi Mermaid (1969)

3/5

Mississippi Mermaid started out with an interesting premise, and from there it spiraled out of control. It was wholly unpredictable and for the most part better than I expected. I came in not knowing what it was about and found the experience to be quite engaging as a result, so I don't want to ruin the plot if anyone decides they want to see it. However, the story sometimes strayed into banality and boredom. Due to sub-par editing, nearly every single shot and scene went on for far longer than it needed to. I really liked the acting, but thought the script's dialogue was for the most part quite uninteresting. The cinematography actually surprised me; its quality is far superior to the rest of the technical aspects involved in this movie. I thought the music itself was fitting, but because of how the film was edited together, the music seemed off all the time. It kept me interested throughout, so if you're into Truffaut, this one might interest you.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0064990/

Stolen Kisses (1968)

4/5

Despite the hatred I spewed after seeing Fahrenheit 451 and The Soft Skin, Truffaut's Stolen Kisses is actually a really entertaining film. What makes those crappy movies different from this one is the mood and the purpose. Instead of taking on serious subject matter, he has fun in Stolen Kisses. It's very reminiscent of Godard's Breathless in that you can see the director enjoying everything he's doing. I thought the pacing and the development of story and characters were exquisite. Loose ends were tied up (or at least explained) more so than I expected out of a Truffaut movie, which made it an extremely pleasant experience overall. I really liked the ending, and thought it was a great foreshadowing of the future Doinel series, where love is not so much a transitory fling but a long-lasting emotion. Hopefully Truffaut will carry that philosophy over into his future Doinel movies.

There are some startling cuts and amateurish cinematography, but overall they don't mar the film too much. The joy is infectious and totally blinds the viewer from these flaws. Highly recommended for anyone looking for a fun romp through young love and all its errors and successes.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0062695/

Fahrenheit 451 (1966)

1/5

In Truffaut's bizarre vision of Ray Bradbury's dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag is German. I presume it's because they got a German actor and for no other reason. This futuristic world is not so much futuristic as it is impossible. They've created a new salute and handshake for the movie, which look ridiculous. They drive a fire truck that looks like a toy and they can slide up the fire pole. Technically, it's a mess, with obtrusive editing, garish colors, preposterous dialogue, and hammy acting! Which all make it so severely dated. This movie is the epitome of all that is ludicrous. Which makes it hilarious, in the same way Plan 9 from Outer Space is hilarious.

To be fair, it did look much better than the movies Truffaut made before this one. There were actually some pretty impressive shots. The filmmaking techniques are much more traditional than they usually are, which makes the movie easier to watch. Also, the story itself draws you in and keeps you interested. It's a shame that it starts off with such insane details that distract from Bradbury's brilliant story. Despite these relatively scattered positives, you just can't ignore how bad the rest of the movie is. Don't waste your time.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060390/

The Soft Skin (1964)

1/5

The Soft Skin is a simple story of a man unfaithful to his wife. It is boring, unoriginal, and tepid. Not only in terms of the plot, but also the cinematography, editing, music, dialogue, acting, and directing. Some of the work is just plain shoddy and amateurish. The rest can best be described as salvageable. Save for one sensual scene and a finale that deceives you into thinking it is heart-pounding due to the trite events that preceded it, there is no reason anyone needs to watch this.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0058458/

Shoot the Piano Player (1960)

4/5

Shoot the Piano Player manages to mold two separate moods into one. It is French New Wave mixed with film noir. It can be powerfully dramatic and poignant (the extended flashback to Charlie's earlier life as a concert pianist) or deliriously witty and fun (the car ride with Charlie, Lena, and the two bad guys). And it switches effortlessly between the two extremes. I love the scene where Charlie is walking Lena home and is contemplating how he should ask her out for a drink. He is so caught up in his thoughts that when he finds the right way of asking, she's already left without him even realizing it. It's this sense of humor when it comes to film styles (specifically film noir's voice-over narration) that makes this movie stand out. Truffaut understands film intimately and loves it enough to playfully twist it around for his own purposes.

However, there are some flaws. Being French New Wave, the technical skills are extremely lacking. The sound is poor and the camerawork is amateurish. There is no lighting; some shots are almost pure black, despite there being two people in the frame. Not that I expected any of these to be positive aspects of the movie. The reason I am not giving this a higher rating is that I walked away afterwards and just said, basically, now what? What did I get out of it? It was a difficult question to answer. It is fun though, and very much recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0054389/