To my knowledge this film was never officially distributed to theaters in the United States. A couple of film festivals in the US selected it to be screened back in the 1980s, not long after the film was produced, but apart from this the only avenue to see this film in America was to explore the independent and/or art-house cinema route. The film was never even available on DVD in the US until 2006 when Criterion acquired the distribution rights and released a 2-disc set which featured numerous extras. Given how many Criterion titles that I see among the stacks of my local libraries I didn’t think it would be too hard to find. I perhaps too easily overlooked the fact that the film waited over 20 years to get the Criterion treatment.
According to worldcat.org, there were only 2 public libraries within a 20 mile radius of where I live that held a copy. Granted, if I broaden my search to a 45 mile radius, the number of libraries goes up to 12. Ultimately I was able to check out a copy. As for streaming, one can find this film on the Criterion Channel or through a service called Kanopy. The latter is a service whereby libraries make films available to its patrons through online streaming. Unfortunately not all libraries participate in the program.
The film started with the main character Suzanne as we see her recite lines from a play. Both the director and her fellow performers chastise Suzanne for the way in which she performed her dialogue, which seemed devoid of any life or passion at all. While she knew her lines and had a sense for when to say them, her delivery came off as too perfunctory, as if she was performing a rote exercise. Suzanne turned the craft of acting into mere work, without ever giving the impression that she was truly ‘performing’ the material. While it may not have been apparent on the initial viewing, this wonderfully established a thematic template for the rest of the film to follow.
À Nos Amours ostensibly is a character study of a teenage French girl who nonchalantly goes through the motions, completely rudderless and drowning in ennui as she struggles to accept the cold banalities of life that await her in adulthood. In fact there was such a well ingrained sense of ennui in the film, that you have to question if the main character was actually searching for anything at all. Granted this doesn’t stop Suzanne from indulging in the whims of the men who are initially attracted to her beauty. But in this film such charms are only skin deep. The relationships that Suzanne has with her lovers are at best trifling affairs that involve very little emotional attachment. It’s a film that’s ultimately more about sex than about love. It’s certainly not the most original premise on which to base a film and it’s one that I don’t find particularly interesting, but if done right such films can still be enjoyable.
One of the more positive aspects about this film was its dialogue which was a bit trite in some of its lighter moments, but still incorporated deeper wisdom at the right time in order to add some depth to the characters. At its best the dialogue could be incredibly salient as it was near the end of the film. Granted such strong writing occurs within a film that barely has much of a narrative to speak of. While there’s a decent pace and rhythm to the progression of the scenes, they had no sense of direction or purpose (which perhaps further supports the overall theme of the film). The film lacked a well established narrative or even a modest plot to tie everything together, making it difficult at times to decipher what the film was even about. Often it felt too aimless, as it seemed to drift from one random situation to another.
À Nos Amours though benefits from its acting. In the role of Suzanne, Sandrine Bonnaire showed an excellent level of complexity in her portrayal. It’s interesting to note how different her character acted when around her father as compared to the rest of the characters. The way Bonnaire performed her material in this regard subtly provided insight on the nature of this relationship. Still though, the fact that her character was infected with a deeply rooted sadness prevented Bonnaire from injecting much emotion or energy into the film. While I can appreciate the acting talent that she put on display, it was not a role that allowed her to really command one’s attention.
What did command my attention were the performances from Suzanne’s family, notably Dominique Besnehard as Suzanne’s brother and Evelyne Ker as her mother. Both were immensely committed to showing the depths of this family’s dysfunction and brought plenty of energy and emotional intensity into the film. In fact Ker was especially arresting in achieving an unhinged hysteria to her character’s anger. And yet both also maintained some balance and depth to their performances. There was some modest amount of respect within these relationships even though they were incredibly prone towards a turbulence that would arise quickly and explode into physical violence. While the film is not violent in a guns-blazing action film sort of way, the violence can still be unnerving due its unexpected and sudden, frantic nature.
As for director Maurice Pialat in the role of Suzanne’s father, he followed suit with Bonnaire in being more mellow in his temperament. Albeit he played the role with a certain suave and subtle coyness that allowed Pialat to maximize the impact of his character despite the dearth of screen time that he afforded himself. In the relationship between Suzanne and her father, the film established a great deal of warmth and humanity in the story, which offered a pleasant contrast to the emotional intensity seen elsewhere.
I thought the cinematography was excellent. The camera initially showed an almost egotistical focus on the main character, often at the expense of some of the minor characters in the film. And yet it was interesting to consider that this intimacy with Suzanne slowly faded as the film progressed, conforming to the film’s thematic ambitions. The camerawork further cast Suzanne as a person of an incredibly transitory and easily fleeting interest. With the shift away from a more intimate approach, the film was allowed to display its mastery at mise-en-scène.
For one it made great use of the open spaces in the apartment scenes. The cameras were almost impeccably placed to capture sight lines that would put pertinent action in both the background and the foreground of the shot, filling the frame with as much content as possible. The ending of the party sequence was a great example of this. I also liked some of the longer more fluid scenes, especially during the fight scenes, which provided some room for the performers to have an impact on the film. In this approach there was a certain unabashed frankness to the exposition that felt reminiscent of auteurs like Cassavetes or even Fassbinder.
Overall, this is a solidly good film, but one that just doesn’t quite achieve any qualities that would make it truly great. It’s sensual, without being particularly erotic. It’s violent without being totally brutal. It’s maddening without descending into utter chaos. And it has a decent amount of intelligence, even though it sort of wonders around and addresses themes of human existence that make it seem somewhat banal.