StyleSk8r
At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.
Ogosmith
Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.
Freeman
This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.
invaderJim
When he officially abandoned the New Wave, Godard said that he no longer wanted to make "political films" but instead wanted to "make films politically." In Grin Without a Cat, Chris Marker manages to do both by presenting a Weberian genealogical analysis of revolution, and in doing so creates a more perfect kind of documentary. Focusing on specific events and individuals in an overarching context, he attempts much more than most political documentaries. He doesn't ask the question "How was the revolution successful or unsuccessful?" (although this is addressed), but the main inquiry is instead "Where does revolution come from, and once it's here, what function does it serve?" The breadth of the film is incredible, chronicling popular revolts in France, Vietnam, Cuba, Prague, Chile, Bolivia, China and others, but as many who have seen the film note, it moves incredibly fluidly, and the time spent watching it never seems to drag. There is also no lack of the flair of style seen in Marker's most popular works, Sans Soleil and La Jetee. In short, anyone with an interest in the documentary form will tremendously enjoy this film, though it is a bit depressing. Like politics itself, there are no heroes presented, only victims, oppressors, and the idealistically misinformed.
kaljic
This is a film montage, a sweeping documentary of the political movements and personages in the 1960's and 1970's, a stirring and engrossing narrative of those turbulent times. Many of the faces and persons in this film will be unfamiliar to American viewers. This should not be a deterrent to purchasing and viewing this documentary. The film documents events of a very important time politically and socially. 1968 represented the fulcrum of when the post-WWII structure crumbled and fell apart. New political alliances were being made, and many of the post-WWII leaders -- de Gaulle, Nixon, Mao -- either fell from grace or were on the downward path. On one side were the new generation of students, on the other were the establishment political leaders. The urgency of the student leaders are clearly apparent in the film, as is the paralysis of the Old Guard. Stuck in the middle is the working class, divided to whom they should support. In this respect, it does not matter that the student revolts are given a French perspective. The dilemma faced by the world at that time was truly universal.Chris March -- who passed away recently in July 2012 -- allows the newsreels and the events and persons in the footage speak more or less for themselves. March adopts the approach taken in an earlier film about the Senate McCarthy Hearings of letting the newsreels tell the story. Here, while there is narrative it is kept to a minimum. The effect is dramatic.The film is long, 180 minutes, but the viewer will not notice the time passing. The film is divided into two parts. Part I is entitled, "The Fragile Hands." It contains archival images from the following: 1. Che Guevara, including interviews from American operatives responsible for assisting the Bolivian government to track and kill Che and his followers.2. Student demonstrations from Paris, London, Germany, the United States (including images from the Columbia University student demonstrations), but primarily French civil unrest; 3. Vietnam (definitely unembedded); 4. Chicago Democratic Convention demonstrations.These events are intermixed with the passionate political debate and commentary from French intellectuals, political leaders, and working class members.The historical figures depicted include momentary images of Salvador Allende; Pinochet; the Shah of Iran; Rudi Dutschke, a leader in the German student movement; Daniel Cohn-Bendit; and Fidel Castro.Part II is entitled "The Severed Hands." It contains archival footage of the following events: 1. The Russian invasion of Prague. The prominent features of this treatment are the poignant images of young Prague students pleading with their equally young Soviet soldiers to leave the city and a filmed statement of Fidel Castro, who, while giving lip service to his political support of the invasion followed with a vehement denunciation of the illegality of the act.2. The Mexican Student riots of 1968.3. The Olympics, Mexico, 1968.4. China, the Cultural Revolution.5. The Watergate Hearings.6. The 1967 March on the Pentagon and subsequent police riot.7. Paris Student street demonstrations of May 1977.The historical figures shown include Salvador Allende (prolonged footage of his speeches); Richard Nixon; Jacques Mitterand; George Pompidou; Fidel Castro; For those unfamiliar with the faces and events, this film should be considered a historical document, an accurate recordation of political events from across the world.While there were cultural differences, the revolutionary furvor, both in Continental Europe was the same and very evident in this film.For those who lived during those times or in those events, it will doubtless bring back memories. In either case, it is required viewing.
carlitaantonini
As always Marker give us a breathtaking beautiful movie to shake our minds and think about the world around us. Its sad to realize through the images that even when the movie is about the history of 50 years back now, the ideologies, the problems and the unfairness of the world remains pretty the same. The compilation of images, documents, videos, interviews is excellent. How can Marker be everywhere and always in the right moment? Just because is Marker I guess. Excellent movie for people of any age or nationality in the mood of caring about the society and enjoying Marker's mastery using the video as a real communicator of deep thoughts.
palmiro
I saw the English-language version, so I missed out on the wonderful voices of Yves Montand and Simone Signoret. Still, the film has provocative images (makes you think how difficult it really is to "make the revolution" in advanced capitalist countries) and my attention never flagged. But for someone who does not approach the film fully equipped with all of the political-cultural paraphernalia of the French left, the film is a bit bewildering. It's not at all clear what the director's point of view is, and this is unfortunate for a film that attempts to make sense of a relatively well-defined political phenomenon: the new left of 1968 and beyond. Is he simply trying to say that the movement strayed too far from its working class ally, and therefore was a superstructure without a base (hence, the title)? If so, the film is not organized in a sufficiently coherent way to bring that point home. And even so, one could hardly say that the French left really had a chance in '68 to "smash the bourgeois state," given that the violent instruments employed by the state to perpetuate in extremis the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"(the army and the police) never showed signs of cracking. And even if there had been a "revolutionary socialist breakthrough" in France, the country would have been crushed first by the economic sanctions imposed by the other capitalist countries (a la Chile) and then militarily (had the "revolutionary government" sought to align itself with the USSR). Very humorous interlude involving Fidel's obsessive massaging of microphones, but on the whole not very flattering towards him (but neither towards Guevara and Regis Debray, for that matter). Maybe I missed something, but I thought Georges Marchais (PCF) came off the best--judge for yourself.
