The ins and outs of the science are never explained, but the tale moves so swiftly there’s no desire for an explanation. His attraction toward the beautiful woman he saw as a boy allows him to befriend her, and he makes visits back to her over the course of weeks. He hints to her that he is from the future, and she is attracted to him. Then, he has his last trip to the past, and is instead sent to the future, the year 4001 AD. There he learns humanity has survived, and seeks to bring the secret back to his time. Yet, the future humans see through his sophism and send him back. With the experiments done, the scientists want to terminate the man, as he is of no further use. The future humans, however, intercede, and offer him refuge in the future. He refuses, instead asking to be sent back to the past, to be with the woman he’s loved across time. They send him back, he sees her at the airport, runs toward her, but is gunned down by assassins from his own time. Witnessing this all is the boy, who would grow up to be gunned down in front of his own uncomprehending eyes.
It’s not the most original usage of the time travel motif, but it is spectacularly pulled off via the misdirections of the narration, and the images, which lead one away from the initial premise, and set one up to believe in a happy reunion of the man and his love object. In short, everything in this film works, from the black and white still photography, to the background utterances of the players, to the brilliantly written and emoted character of the omniscient narrator (Jean Négroni). And, most of all, when one recalls the film, the mind fills in the gaps of motion, and one ‘sees,’ in memory, the film as a real film, filled with pictures in motion, even though that is not so (save for one brief 2-3 second scene). Marker fully plays on the human imagination to fill in the blanks, both narratively, and visually. In short, his film trusts the intelligence of his audience.
Exhale, and then take in that bit of 45-year-old fresh air!
At under a half hour in length, Marker tells a tale of complexity that many of the bloated epic films that defined the 1960s failed to do in six to ten times the length. Let me give a slice of the screenplay, to show why the film works. Here is the starting narration:
Article comments
1 - Dave
Of course it is inconceivable to Mr. Schneider that the film may be about BOTH memory and perception.
But of course, then he wouldn't have anything to act smug and superior about whilst talking about other critics.
2 - io
couldnt agree more with the previous comment. the films are about both memory and perception.
from the moment i read him stating that vertigo is an overrated movie i knew i couldnt take him seriously.
3 - Outofyourmind
Quoting: "one can understand why I was never particularly moved to engage the films of this man; especially considering that he was French, from that nation that launched the careers of such notable filmic failures as Jean Cocteau and Jean-Luc Godard."
So you would never have watched French cinema because of a whole 2 French directors being failures? Surely that's not very constructive discrimination? That would mean that you wouldn't watch any American cinema on the grounds of how much junk they put out every week? I think American cinema is great, don't you agree?
Cocteau a failure? Please develop... compared to what? Compared to "Terminator" in terms of box office numbers (since you mentioned Terminator in your critic)? What makes you say such a gratuitous, ignorant thing? The guy invented more than most can today with more technology and everyone at the time looked at him as the way forward for the new cinema... Get your head out of your brainwashed box, forget what you learned in the all-good-thinking schools and cinema academies (what's that suppose to mean anyway?) and embrace!
4 - El Bicho
Here's one that doesn't understand that reasoning
5 - what?
Film, after all, is a medium founded and nurtured by the written word. Without a good screenplay, a film is just shadows on a wall."