In two evenings, I watched perhaps the longest film I’ve ever seen, Alain René’s Smoking/No Smoking (1993), with a timeline of 4 hours and 58 minutes. In principle, it consists of two parts, so you can probably call it a two-part series, but with very long series, parts can even be viewed separately. The film is based on the play by the English playwright Alan Aikborn “Inner Substitutions”, slightly shortened, Jean-Pierre Bakri and Agnès Jaoui took part in writing the script. As in the original play, all the characters (and they are in the film 9) are played by two actors - Pierre Arditi (a friend of the director) and Sabine Azema (wife of the director), whom he often shot in his films, the action takes place in England, in Yorkshire. In fact, this is not even a film, but a film-performance, shot in a small number of scenery. Both parts begin the same way - Celia Tisdale, engaged in spring cleaning with her maid Sylvie, goes to the terrace and in the first case smokes, in the second decides not to smoke. In the first part, most of the events are devoted to the married couple Celia and Toby Tisdale, in the second part of the event, mainly concern another married couple - these are Tisdale's friends Rowena and Miles Coombs. At first, we observe the development of events for almost an hour, but then suddenly we are offered another development - "Or" ... "She (one of the female characters) said", "Or" .... He (one of the men) said. Five Days Later, sometimes Five Weeks Later, then Five Years Later. And we see how just something said by one character or another often completely changes the course of events, we see several such variations, and the characters themselves and the endings of the stories change. It is quite interesting to observe all this, especially when it is filmed in such a comedic, often very grotesque way. Both actors play well, but I liked Pierre Arditi better. So I will not advise everyone to watch, but Arditi at one time for this role received Cesar, for whom Azema was nominated, René also received Cesar for best director and best film, Agnès Jaouy and Jean-Pierre Bacri for best screenplay, it was also received by director Jacques Solnier. The film has other awards.
Aesthetic scoundrel Alain Rene, whose craving for formalist experiments and postmodern exercises, was never just a pure game, unlike the much-sophisticated Rivette (despite the fact that both directors objectively perceived cinema as an exclusively purist form of art, outside of all genres and narrative frameworks), filming the play of the English playwright Alan Aikborne in 1993 in the film Smoking / Not Smoking, it only seems that everything was arbitrarily and arbitrarily interferedly with the course of events, completely before, when everything was completely distorted in the course of everything, everything was completely possible. At the same time, René’s film in its cinematic colorful color relies on the aesthetics of theatrical chamberiness to give a greater sense of vitality to its own heroes, this time not total author’s metaphors, homunculus of black magic of cinema, but quite ordinary characters, with their history and background, flesh and blood, only strung on the heels of a sophisticated author’s game in doubt and the likelihood of new realities, no longer highlighted by Alain René’s long habit of extreme philosophical exaltation. The effect of theatricality, coupled with the obvious narrative chamberility and the minimum use of elements of cinematography, is achieved in this comedy of the absurd in two faces and 12 actions only to crystallize the feeling of constant play in reality, where the true demiurge of it is the director and author of the play, who proposed in the plot the possibility of deploying all conceivable theories of probability with different finales and, in fact, conclusions that nevertheless do not complete the picture - it can be continued indefinitely, substituting all new characters and presenting them in increasingly strange situations.
Like Selina and Julie Lied and Don't Touch Me, Rivette's Smoking/Don't Smoking uses a permanent change of roles, life situations and philosophical in favor of the author's understanding of cinema as an irrational, illogical element, opposed to the almost authoritarian world of theater, implicitly speaking in the context of the film's film text about things globally humanistic, universally unifying - the family idea here is finally realized, as proven, and challenged depending on what is happening as this maneuver or plot is played out. It is enough to look at the Tisdale family itself, which in five hours of the film will have time to survive both betrayals, the breakdown of relationships, a new love, just momentary passion, and crises, crises, crises... Faith, love, conscience, and the very understanding of life, the meaning of which is impossible to comprehend, if you do not find yourself in conditions when you will have to think: “And for what / for whom this is all?” An ideal, lacquered marriage turns out to be a dubious trap, a black hole and the biggest mistake, a meaningless desire to be like everyone else, to live like everyone else, but in fact only to smolder in the inability to change anything. However, René himself makes adjustments to the personal history of the Tisdales, in which Sartre’s idea of a sense of conscience as complete freedom is only half realized. Halfway, since the heroes in their constant crisis existence never remain themselves even with themselves, loneliness turns into suicidal reflection, self-digging and self-administration, and their inner freedom looks too petty and insignificant against the background of the notorious author's freedom - they are hostages of someone else's reality, were never. With all the vitality and deliberate lightness, the heroes of "Smoking / Do not smoke" directly depend on what the author wants to change in their microworld.
However, without this viscous multi-layered and multi-word familiality, dissolved in the sulfuric acid of pseudo-London fogs and archetypal splints, "Smoking/No Smoking" literally reproduces all the scenes existing in cinema, literature and drama, of which there are just twenty, which further emphasizes the semantic connection and hypertextual link with "Don't Touch Me" by Rivetta - this encyclopedia, a catechism of the world cinema and cinema. Rivette, meanwhile, is harder, heavier, more ruthless; Rene in Smoking/Don't Smoking is mostly engaged in surgical dissection of melodrama and drama, almost not fond of other digressions on the topic. Ackborne’s inherent absurdization of the artistic canvas in René looks like self-irony over the canons and templates of melodrama. Sometimes it seems clear that "Smoking / Do not smoke" skillfully ridicules the aesthetics of soap operas with their total hypertrophy, turning almost always inevitable dramatic dystro-, and atrophy. But not in the case of Smoking/No Smoking, where absurdity dominates. This is also remarkable for the intentional insertion of “Smoking/No Smoking” into the same sweet context of the relationship between the sexes of “Men and Women” by Claude Lelouch, although projected without implicitly asking for sensuality and eroticism. In general, for Alain Rene, the theme of male-female was never too personal, although, like all newcomers, he traded personal in his film and myth-making, albeit with a sophisticated veil in his visualized cosmos, and from the height of his years in Smoking/Don’t Smoking, love, marriage and sex look identical to the meaning of life, which can only be understood when the first, second and third are subjected to multiple wormholes.
Aesthetic scoundrel Alain Rene, whose craving for formalist experiments and postmodern exercises, was never just a pure game, unlike the much-sophisticated Rivette (despite the fact that both directors objectively perceived cinema as an exclusively purist form of art, outside of all genres and narrative frameworks), filming the play of the English playwright Alan Aikborne in 1993 in the film Smoking / Not Smoking, it only seems that everything was arbitrarily and arbitrarily interferedly with the course of events, completely before, when everything was completely distorted in the course of everything, everything was completely possible. At the same time, René’s film in its cinematic colorful color relies on the aesthetics of theatrical chamberiness to give a greater sense of vitality to its own heroes, this time not total author’s metaphors, homunculus of black magic of cinema, but quite ordinary characters, with their history and background, flesh and blood, only strung on the heels of a sophisticated author’s game in doubt and the likelihood of new realities, no longer highlighted by Alain René’s long habit of extreme philosophical exaltation. The effect of theatricality, coupled with the obvious narrative chamberility and the minimum use of elements of cinematography, is achieved in this comedy of the absurd in two faces and 12 actions only to crystallize the feeling of constant play in reality, where the true demiurge of it is the director and author of the play, who proposed in the plot the possibility of deploying all conceivable theories of probability with different finales and, in fact, conclusions that nevertheless do not complete the picture - it can be continued indefinitely, substituting all new characters and presenting them in increasingly strange situations.
Like Selina and Julie Lied and Don't Touch Me, Rivette's Smoking/Don't Smoking uses a permanent change of roles, life situations and philosophical paradigms in favor of the author's understanding of cinema as an irrational, illogical element opposed to the almost authoritarian world of theater, implicitly speaking in the context of the film text of the film about things globally humanistic, universally unifying - the family idea here is finally realized, as proven, and challenged depending on what exactly happens as the maneuver or plot plays out. It is enough to look at the Tisdale family itself, which in five hours of the film will have time to survive both betrayals, the breakdown of relationships, a new love, just momentary passion, and crises, crises, crises... Faith, love, conscience, and the very understanding of life, the meaning of which is impossible to comprehend, if you do not find yourself in conditions when you will have to think: “And for what / for whom this is all?” An ideal, lacquered marriage turns out to be a dubious trap, a black hole and the biggest mistake, a meaningless desire to be like everyone else, to live like everyone else, but in fact only to smolder in the inability to change anything. However, René himself makes adjustments to the personal history of the Tisdales, in which Sartre’s idea of a sense of conscience as complete freedom is only half realized. Halfway, since the heroes in their constant crisis existence never remain themselves even with themselves, loneliness turns into suicidal reflection, self-digging and self-administration, and their inner freedom looks too petty and insignificant against the background of the notorious author's freedom - they are hostages of someone else's reality, were never. With all the vitality and deliberate lightness, the heroes of "Smoking / Do not smoke" directly depend on what the author wants to change in their microworld.
However, without this viscous multi-layered and multi-word familiality, dissolved in the sulfuric acid of pseudo-London fogs and archetypal splints, "Smoking/No Smoking" literally reproduces all the scenes existing in cinema, literature and drama, of which there are just twenty, which further emphasizes the semantic connection and hypertextual link with "Don't Touch Me" by Rivetta - this encyclopedia, a catechism of the world cinema and cinema. Rivette, meanwhile, is harder, heavier, more ruthless; Rene in Smoking/Don't Smoking is mostly engaged in surgical dissection of melodrama and drama, almost not fond of other digressions on the topic. Ackborne’s inherent absurdization of the artistic canvas in René looks like self-irony over the canons and templates of melodrama. Sometimes it seems clear that "Smoking / Do not smoke" skillfully ridicules the aesthetics of soap operas with their total hypertrophy, turning almost always inevitable dramatic dystro-, and atrophy. But not in the case of Smoking/No Smoking, where absurdity dominates. This is also remarkable for the intentional insertion of “Smoking/No Smoking” into the same sweet context of the relationship between the sexes of “Men and Women” by Claude Lelouch, although projected without implicitly asking for sensuality and eroticism. In general, for Alain Rene, the theme of male-female was never too personal, although, like all newcomers, he traded personal in his film and myth-making, albeit with a sophisticated veil in his visualized cosmos, and from the height of his years in Smoking/Don’t Smoking, love, marriage and sex look identical to the meaning of life, which can only be understood when the first, second and third are subjected to multiple wormholes.
In the middle of the last century, the territory of cinema was already well developed, many topics were revealed, and the plots were beaten to death by the ruthless fists of the classics of world cinema. In order to stand out and perpetuate their name, many directors already in those days had to refine and make films under the flag of greedy originality. All this led to the fact that the French cinema was swept by a “new wave” – a direction in cinema that characterizes nothing but the desire for experimentation and total originality. This wave brought to the viewer’s shore a lot of garbage, not worthy of any attention, but also managed to get from the bottom of the treasures that can make every movie lover happy.
So, twenty years ago, Alan Rene, the director then already well-known, swallowing the salty waters of the newfangled current, made a film so original that after so many years it is impossible to understand any audience he counted on, or any goals he pursued, except for experimentation. The film “Smoking/No Smoking” is the story of a married couple, with their problems, secret desires, fears, played in the scenery of the English outback. It is assumed that this topic will be enough to keep the audience’s attention for almost 5 hours. But as you can see, the main innovation is far from being a twisted storyline.
In fact, “Smoking/No Smoking” is a theatrical sketch show with a “non-speaking” name, which by its monotony is able to knock out the viewer better than a direct blow to the jaw. The film is divided into two parts, which in turn are divided into 6 parts. At some point, each half, entitled “smoking” or “not smoking,” respectively, reaches a point and begins to suggest different scenarios. This branched action gives rise to an attentive viewer a disorder of logical thinking. Some characters in alternative plots completely change their psychological portrait, which is impossible in principle. If the main criteria of the new inimitable French style was the unreality and illogicality of what was happening, then René managed to correspond to it by all hundred.
At first, the slowness of the narrative in combination with cardboard decorations and dressings of the actors cause any interest, but already at the equator of the first part there is a feeling that the director makes the viewer watch all the material he shot. So you're ready to go to hell, but with the persistence of the schizophrenic, the voiceover keeps asking, "What if?" Illustrated incorruptible theme of relations between the sexes is the director’s wife, actress Sabine Azema and his male muse – Pierre Arditi, who by means of dressing up performed all the roles in the film. The constant transformations that this couple demonstrates are worthy of the best reviews. But the narcissism and chivalry of the actors make everything that happens so unnatural that they negate all the joy of their acting.
One of the first questions is why the film is set in England, because there is no more misty Albion in this film than in the films of Raj Kapoor. If you associate the phrase “English province” with a wonderful tapestry, in which rocky mountains are punctuated by the sea, and meadows by forests; or with prim and mannered people, then you will ask this question. It is clear that locking the action in the framework of theatrical scenery, the author brings to the fore human relations. The lack of spectacular exteriors, of course, emphasizes the original idea of the author, but also makes the film less attractive, sleepy. The ideal way to implement the idea of multivariance of the plot would be to create an audio play instead of a film. The absence of a visual series would not harm, but rather benefit.
Smoking or not smoking, as well as watching or not watching, everyone decides for himself. Aesthetic hypocrites might be tempted to compare the film to collectible French wine, but hand on heart, it smells more like a fermented compote of cardboard and two boiled actors. Compote, the expiration date of which ended in 1993.
What I respect Alain Rene for is the constant search. The search for new, the desire to see something otherworldly in the trivial ordinary plot, the absence of academicism and the ability to return to the simpler.
Indeed, what else could a person have filmed after Marienbad or Providence? Renee could just stop making movies or indulge himself (and only himself) with some weird movie like “Love Is a Romance” every five years. But Mater refused to do so.
He was not afraid to move on to simple and unpretentious melodramas. Having achieved obvious success with Melo, Rene decided to complicate the task. And I did it in a very unconventional way. Alain simply took a fairly light and unobtrusive vaudeville melodramatic plot and made the viewer watch it many times - offering various options for the finale.
The secret is that the main character will decide at the beginning of each of the plots - To smoke or not to smoke.
The film turned out to be light and unobtrusive, in contrast, by the way, to the same Marienbad or Hiroshima. However, Renee got carried away. Pay attention to the timing of the picture.
However, Mater’s creative search is obvious and deserves respect. The silver bear for personal achievements in Rene’s career, awarded in Berlin in connection with the screening of this film is additional proof of the secondary value of this film in relation to the talent of the director.
In the end: Alain Rene again experimenting with making a very long movie. Sabina Azema shines in the lead role. The viewer can only wait for the end of the picture and draw their conclusions about the artistic features of the film. It seemed to me that Renee was too self-confident – making films with such timekeeping you need to take the viewer more seriously.
6 out of 10
But if you have a pack of cigarettes in your pocket.
British playwright Alan Aikbourne on the misty Albion is best known for his traghifarces, distinguished by originality of presentation and difficulty of execution. For example, the plays “House” and “Garden” according to Ackbourne’s plan are played simultaneously, by one actor on adjacent venues, which creates a lot of various “looles”. The play "Internal Replacements", based on the film "Smoking/No Smoking", is a fantasy on the theme "And what could be if". The plot has several ways of development, and all this action ends 12 times with varying degrees of quality. The problem is complicated by the fact that all the characters were played by only two actors.
In the 90s, the famous French director, honored classic of world cinema Alain René drew attention to the work of his almost namesake, seeing in the “Inner Replacements” the background for creating another brilliant film. On a hot summer day in a village near Yorkshire, Celia Tisdale, the wife of the headmaster of the local school goes out into the garden and smokes or does not smoke. Depending on this circumstance, she is visited by a family friend whose marriage is on the verge of collapse, or a gardener who is in love with the Tisdale maid, and secretly with Celia herself, too, etc. There really is something about it.
One of the important features of Rene-director is a passion for experimenting with his characters, for which, probably, the director, who does not belong to the New Wave, is considered one of the creators of it. One way or another, Rene always liked to play with his characters, like Barbie, stolen from his sister, that is, slowly tears off his head, arms, legs, but only to find out what is inside. Until 1993, the master had films that directly used the concept of live experiments, the most remarkable of which is “My American Uncle”, where the characters are represented by experimental rats, and everything that happens to them is the initiative of God, that is, the director. Partly “Smoking/No Smoking” is copied from “Uncle” but in terms of elegance of implementation achieves more, even if it loses in the comprehensiveness of the idea. While “Uncle” explores the components of the heroes’ entire life, “Smoking/No Smoking” focuses more on the problems of the relationship between a man and a woman at different stages in varying degrees of intimacy. And if you think about it, it turns out that the best way to talk about marriage problems is “what would happen if.” And all 5 hours on the example of two completed and one possible family shows how a relationship can develop if it is not possible. Of course, the story(s) are quite schematic, but full of truth, simple everyday truth. And the truth, which, however, does not open to the viewer, preferring to wander somewhere nearby, as often happens in the theater, is born somewhere between words, in dialogues that often seem stupid.
The fact that all the roles are played by only two actors creates another corridor into which you can take your thoughts on the topic of the sacred “what exactly the director wanted to tell us.” You can take this literally, in the sense that, despite their distinctive features and individuality, they are all the same, or go farther and find an even deeper interpretation for this. You can just enjoy the skill of execution. Sabine Azema and Pierre Arditi are actors not well known to the general public and for the most part held by René, but how easily they cope with the most difficult task: to play several characters at once, not forgetting about the peculiarities of each of them. In the appearance, character, behavior of any of the characters is something peculiar only to him. The actors themselves emphasize the images seemingly random strokes: replicas, gestures that could not be.
Alain Rene only a couple of times in the entire film career he wrote the script for his own work, but is widely considered the creator of author's cinema, moreover, a personal movie, concerning his one, inadvertently hit the screens of the world. How often did Rene sit in the director's chair, risking being misunderstood? The stranger turned the success of “Smoking/No Smoking”, filmed in a family atmosphere. After all, when only two actors are involved in the film, one of whom is the director’s wife and the second is a friend of the family, it is difficult to assume that such a film is created for profit and gilded toys. Nevertheless, Rene’s output was already waiting for success, as evidenced by the approval of critics, the recognition of colleagues, and the love of the audience. The secret of success, however banal it may sound, most likely lies in the proximity to the viewer. The action does not take place in some clouded consciousness or existential haze of a pile of images, but rather resembles a sitcom, a comedy world where tragic characters have fallen, among which, however, there are neither Hiroshima architects nor Marienbad aristocrats, but only real people with real problems, who are very easy to solve with the question “if only”.
Ave, Caesar!