1953 comedyRating: 18/20
Plot: The most awkward man who ever lived vacations at a beachside resort and ruins the lives of nearly everybody else.
Gotta love a movie that can meander so aimlessly and shuffle along so pointlessly for an hour an a half. Nothing about this is uproariously funny, but there is a lot that makes me smile. It's fragile slapstick, and although the title character is always at the center of things, there's enough going on with the fringe characters to make them interesting, too. I imagine this is a like-it-or-hate-it type flick, but even those who aren't put under the spell and instead are put to sleep would have to admit that it's got a uniqueness that makes it endearing. There are ingenious sight gags that stick with you, some which will make you wonder how they were pulled off, and new pleasures reveal themselves with subsequent viewings. This is my second favorite Tati movie.
Quick gripe: Why is the American version of this thirty minutes shorter? If it turns out I'm missing a Hulot sex scene, I will likely write an angry letter.
This is a good movie that is like a silent, but an 18 seems VERY generous. I loved the lighthearted feel and many of the funny bits were very creative, but Hulot did not exude any individual personality (unlike a Keaton or Lloyd) that made me understand or sympathize with him. He was more of an instrument of chaos and gags. Some of the set-ups seemed a little labored and I didn't get the resolution of his relationship with the girl at all. They like each other (although who knows what Hulot is thinking), and they are going to ride horses together. Then after Hulot's troubles with the horse, some stranger is on the horse. At the end, when everyone is leaving they don't even see each other. Was there a missing sex scene and he bungled it up, ruining their budding relationship? This is a sweet-feeling film with a lot of funny moments worthy of a 15, maybe a
ReplyDelete16, but an 18? Hmmm.
I think the beauty of Hulot's character is that his personality isn't in your face. He's more submerged by his surroundings and the characters around him. He drifts, meanders, and blends in a lot more than anybody else who gets his name in the title of the movie. Although obviously influenced by the Little Tramp or other silent stars, he's not nearly as much of a presence, and I actually like that. He's an everyman, and I think part of the movie's philosophy (although my brother vehemently disagreed with me) has to do with the subtle effects an individual's actions can have on those around him. At the same time, I also like how he's a hapless soul, a creature bouncing around because of predestination rather than a guy in control exercising free will. Because of that, I think he has more in common with Keaton than Chaplin or Lloyd.
ReplyDeleteMy brother didn't like 'Holiday' much because it was "plotless" and, I think, storyless too, but I disagree with the former and don't care at all about the latter. Interestingly enough (maybe?), he liked 'Trafic' better than I did.
'Holiday' succeeds in making me happy. It's such a quietly unique atmosphere, and that little vacation spot fills me with nostalgia even though I'm 1) without a soul, 2) much too young to be a part of the times, 3) not French. The movie flows, freeform and shapeless. It's like a dream that you don't remember when you wake up the next morning but feel much better the next morning anyway.
Nope, cory, it's an 18. And 'Playtime' is better!