Roman ciné (French Edition)

That more definitive return took place in , on the occasion of a trip to the UK: I visited the shooting of Accident by Joseph Losey. Could you describe how you perceived the political and aesthetic developments during the period —67, until you returned to Cahiers? How did that period become more turbulent and radicalised? Radicalisation arrived later, in My political culture was inherited. Cinephilia was a way to break with that tradition, although you know that when you throw that political culture out of the window, it will come back through the door.

At the same time, there was a certain idea of superiority of American cinema, as it was a question of birth or divine right, while we kept on discovering things in other places. I am not sure whether it can be said that all of this crystallised at one specific time…. On one occasion he made a well-known introduction of the New American Cinema in the presence of P. Adams Sitney, who was bringing the film cans.

He said he disliked that cinema but that even so he thought it was important to show those films. Reading Cahiers, one can clearly perceive how it was hostile to the American underground. During that time I used to travel frequently to Italy: Viva l'Italia , by Roberto Rossellini. I used to see the work of film-makers such as Cottafavi, Freda and Matarazzo.

• Alain Robbe-Grillet and the Nouveau Roman: An Interview.
• La Citadelle (roman) — Wikipédia!
• Forget Her Fast - The Powerful Techniques Most Men Dont Know About Getting Over Their Ex 11 Times Faster!.
• Fernando Ganzo?

The communication between France and Italy was uneasy at the time, and Louis Marcorelles, the director of the Semaine de la critique at Cannes, asked me to suggest films that might be suitable to show there. Hence, in Italy, one could find the most fascinating cinema in B movies, genre films, comedies, historical films, in peplums, and in action films. And at the same time Bertolucci and Pasolini were there, whose films I really liked since the beginning and whom I recommended to Langlois when he asked me to look for films for his museum.

The situation of film in Italy was like a cross-fade or an overlayering. For a number of years, American cinema, and even cinema itself, was abandoned in favour of our political activities. But those who worked at the university were on the Maoist side of things. The film was about the internal structure of a factory, but was also a film that challenged the old methods by which power had been officialised: Could you narrate the sequence of events?

What was the motivation or evolution of your critical thought during this period? We lived in a strict community. I travelled to Moscow in , but the decision to work on the Russian and Soviet avant-gardes came before then. That edition of the festival was very politicised and was very turbulent, with many antagonistic events of all sorts. He also showed us film-makers such as Yuli Raizman, thus encouraging us to work on that cinema and, on the other hand, from then we started to look for the writings of Sergei M.

Because of the opposition of the Bazinian tendency, these had largely been forgotten. With the impulse of that season, I travelled to the edition of the Moscow Festival with the aim of preparing the documentation for that issue.

We are interested in that opposition between the Bazin and Eisenstein tendencies of understanding montage, that is: To what extent were those programmes and the special issue on Soviet cinema able to change the editorial line of the journal? I never aimed to influence the editorial line. My position was that of an historian, not the one of an ideologue. They were fixed references, much stronger than Hitchcock or Hawks. In the cases of Godard and Straub, it seems unnecessary to explain. It was the idea of an art that concealed its own traces, which was not noticeable.

The Eisensteinan reaction against this idea was, actually, a political one. I am not saying that Lourcelles is politically conservative, but his form of thought is — he in fact considers himself apolitical, which is common amongst the conservatives. In one of his last texts, in issue no.

Product details

It is not only a passive reflection, but also an instrument: The reaction against the ideology of transparency aimed to politically revolutionise film thought. Which were the most influential points in taht rediscovery? They were Eisenstein and Vertov. Therefore the discussion was fraught since the beginning. It seems relatively easy to follow the traces of that will to ideologically shake the theory of montage, which arrives to its formal materialization in Two or Three Things I Know About Her 2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle , Jean-Luc Godard, , which is a very Eisensteinian film.

Yes, but it is very difficult. It is the delirium of a systematic poetic interpretation, for instance, of the critique of Bitter Victory Nicholas Ray, How could he realise so early on that the two greatest editors were Eisenstein and Resnais, or to what extent Jean Rouch was fundamental for cinema? It is strange for someone to be so much ahead of his own time and peer group, something that was also the case with Jacques Rivette. Having understood this, Rohmer had chosen another form of making films. Six Films , may renew interest. Robbe-Grillet passed away in , so there is something ghostly in reprinting an interview from decades past though he, so beloved of phantoms and ghosts in the mirror, would likely find it amusing.

The interview was conducted in Melbourne at the time of his visit and published under the title Confessions of a Voyeur: Robbe-Grillet and the Nouveau Roman in the arts magazine Tension no. However, he made it clear that he saw the novels and films in a symbiotic relationship, each flowing into the other. There is no such thing as a Robbe-Grillet school of thought! Barthes, in his articles 2 on me, reduced my first two novels into something fascinating, but something which was closer to his train of thought than to mine.

In his articles, one on The Erasers and the other on The Voyeur , he emphasised the projection onto the object, thus creating a paradox around the concept of objectivity.

Follow the Author

In this way he completely ignored the phantasms which were already playing such an important part in the works, and thus he ignored the projection onto the outside world of the personal inner world. He interpreted these two novels as representative of a literary statement, where objects were viewed purely as they were and nothing else.

Barthes viewed my work from a very subjective point of view and projected his own value system in his interpretation, which, when all is said and done, he was perfectly entitled to do as a critic. From my point of view, there never was a school; when I gathered around me a number of writers like Claude Simon, Nathalie Sarraute, and later Marguerite Duras, there was never any intention of gathering people whose outlook was the same, and whose research aimed at the same objective. What in fact brought us together was that the same criticism was leveled at all of us, namely that we did not write like Balzac.

Consequently, sharing the same criticism, we all made up the nouveau roman , or New Novel, as compared to the traditional style of writing. Each one of us had to strive in the direction each of us had chosen for himself or herself. I have always fought against the normalisation, the standardisation, of the New Novel — this is one of the reasons why I found myself in opposition to a younger generation of theoreticians who tried to structure the concept of the New Novel and excluded Marguerite Duras from the movement, for instance.

When we meet we are aware of a certain solidarity amongst ourselves, a type of brotherhood. During the last big gathering in New York we realized that we had a common language. They liked the word, but when one looks closely at what they wrote one gets the impression that phenomena are external to man, fulfilling its own life independently from man — this is not what Husserl meant by phenomenology.

Contrebandes Godard | Éditions Matière

He meant a moving consciousness, projected outward towards the phenomenon, this very phenomenon exists because of this projection outside myself. It is in this movement outside of me towards an object that the phenomenon appears. Phenomenology does not exclude man, as critics seem to imply. Barthes launched the concept but gave it a thwarted meaning. Barthes always liked controversy and enjoyed using words in a context other than the one usually used or understood. When critics looked at what I was writing, which emphasized the subject, the subjectivity of a theme, they said that I was attempting to be objective but failed.

They ended up with a complete contradiction of the original intention. From the period of the film Last Year at Marienbad 3 critics started to speak about the concept of surrealism, of phantasmagory. They spoke about the cinema of phantasms. There had been no change in my work, but the approaches to my work were divided, sometimes emphasising the subjective element, and at other times the objective element.

Barthes even speaks about Robbe-Grillet No. The texts are very well presented and wonderful to read. One person found this helpful. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime.

Film à clef

Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Explore the Home Gift Guide.

Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally.