What did you think of the periodic time markers that were the framework of Cléo's story? Did it heighten the suspense? Build a feeling of finality or doom? Was Varda, a documentarian, giving it a "real time"?
At one point I thought the film was running in "real time" -- that it would conclude at exactly 120 minutes when instead it finished at 90. Since innovative narrative techniques are a part of New Wave cinema, I was a little disappointed to find that was not the case.
But of interest -- the break in the film when Raoul shows Cléo and Dorothée his short film is at the 6 p.m. mark -- supposedly halfway through the story -- and he refers afterward to an "intermission."
7 comments:
I wonder of she tried to do all 120 minutes in 120 minutes. This would have been hard since Cleo would not have been able to travel very far around Paris without using a lot more time. But I was impressed that travel time was the only thing that was cut. Each social interaction was brief, but complete without any internal cuts that signaled passing of time. Packing so many interactions into such brief scenes without making them feel rushed created an intense film. It seemed longer than it was. It might have seemed longer than if it had really been 120 minutes.
"Each social interaction was brief, but complete without any internal cuts that signaled passing of time."
You know, I hadn't noticed the consistency of where the time was noted. It would have been distracting. I think the social interaction was intensified as well by the leisurely periods of filming in which there is no dialogue -- Cleo walking the streets, the park. Performing her exercises while kittens run about in the background. It felt more real-time to me because of those respites from action that in other films directors don't think they can spare.
I've also read it was characteristic of New Wave film to cut away from a writer's storytelling (chiefly dialogue) and give the director more power to narrate the story with the use of camera. The storytelling in this film better reflects the latter technique.
Varda! (I'm changing it right now.)
I wasn't sure what to make of the marked time. I found it interesting how it was noted by the person's name she was with and how many minutes their interaction lasted. One can imagine marked time for a life, only instead of minutes it would be measured in years, like the film was a microcosm of life.
Despite the title, the film was in real time and ended at 6:30 p.m. The final time marker said 1815 to 1830.
Or did I miss something?
And I was a little confused at the moments when the time notation appeared. Sometimes it seemed like a definite change of scene, but it often happened in the middle of something. It made me feel like it was sometimes just there to jolt the audience. Jolt it toward what, I don't know.
Post a Comment