Original subtitles

Braunberger had a great sense of humour.

There was never a dull moment with him.

I remember, for example, that when we were filming Tirez Sur Le Pianiste,

we were shooting in Levallois and the first week he arrived with the cheques

and he said, "I'm shocked!

"I heard we were filming in Levallois so I assumed Levallois was paying,

"whereas in fact, I've got to pay!"

I remember the music over the opening credits.

Aznavour was playing under the line-up there.

Someone brought him a piano.

He tried it out and then he started playing the first thing that came into his head.

And François said, "That's not bad. We can use that for the credits."

And I remember, he called his agent

and said, "I'm doing the music for the credits."

- So that's Aznavour playing the piano? - Yes.

That's an example of New Wave-style filming.

To shoot that sort of thing in the streets, you'd need a large generator

and we had these large reflecting lamps

used by amateur photographers and we hung them in the trees.

Normally, they should have given us enough light but as it was raining,

the rain blew the bulbs in the lamps so the light got dimmer and dimmer

and since François didn't want us to waste time changing the lights,

we shot long passages in the dark.

It's very daring, I think,

to start a film with such a dark scene.

But in reality it's also part of...

Classical directors would never have made a film like that.

You can't see that guy there.

The idea used to be that you had to see all the acting.

You were paying good money for it so it had to be well-lit.

Like in the French cinema of the '50s.

That's right, so...

There they're emerging from the darkness because some of the bulbs had blown

because of the rain.

And now this bit is lit.

I first met her at a dance.

- That's Joffé there. - Yes, that's Joffé, the film maker.

That was a big feature of New Wave cinema,

for directors to have a number of their friends appear in the film

as a tribute to the Cahiers Du Cinéma.

The Cahiers Du Cinéma comes up a lot.

Yes, take A Bout De Souffle. Jean-Pierre Melville plays a part in that film.

It was the only scene in the film to be shot with synchronised sound.

The scene with Melville in it.

At the airport, with Jean Seberg interviewing him.

We had no idea what Melville would say.

What did you do before you started working...

I used to be a press photographer.

We were in Indo-China

and Pierre Schoendoerffer was working as a cameraman.

And we worked together for the newspapers

which were run by the army and the government.

When he made his first film,

he asked me if I wanted to be his head cameraman.

I had no idea what the job involved but I agreed to do it.

- Was that Pêcheur d'Islande? - No, it was La Passe Du Diable.

About the French in Afghanistan.

I think that if I had known what being head cameraman involved,

I would have chickened out.

But seeing as I didn't know, I said, "OK, I'll do it."

I got to learn a lot along the way.

- So that was in '56, '57? - It was in '55, I think.

CHARLIE KOLLER DANCE EVERY DAY

This is a scene...

The whole film was filmed in Levallois

because the houses there had been earmarked for demolition

so we could film there without too much trouble.

With what sort of lighting?

Those were photoflood lamps,

reflecting lights.

They had 500-watt bulbs and lasted six or four hours.

That was their lifespan.

How did Truffaut approach you about making Tirez Sur Le Pianiste?

It was his second film and the first time you had worked with him.

François came several times to screenings of the rushes for A Bout De Souffle.

He was quite fascinated by the way Jean-Luc was making his film.

I think he wanted to make a film like that.

But Jean-Luc worked without sound or light.

The idea with A Bout De Souffle was to make it seem like it was a documentary.

So it was quite light and very easy to shoot.

So François asked me if I'd be interested in working on his next film.

I liked the idea of working with Truffaut.

But in fact, when we started filming,

he wanted to make a film that was technically like A Bout De Souffle

but he was also attracted by the idea

of making a film that was both groundbreaking

and a classic at the same time

where there was live sound and scene setting

and long rehearsals with the actors where he often interjected,

which Jean-Luc never did.

And there was this almost chaotic side to the filming.

At the same time, it was moving more in the direction of this new cinema.

Lots of the people involved had never made a film before.

On the special effects team, only two people had any experience.

The other two were draughtsmen,

friends of François, I think.

They had agreed to be involved because they thought

there would be more money in it.

But pencil-pushing is not the same thing as lifting a camera that weighs 80kg.

So we had a lot of problems with those people

who didn't have the physique for the job.

And we had other problems, too,

technical problems.

Truffaut wanted the sets to be natural so we shot everything in natural settings.

But our projectors were too big.

Sound-wise we had major synchronisation problems

because cameras in those days were fairly heavy...

We had a 300mm Cameflex camera which weighed 60kg

with a stand that weighed just as much.

They were hefty things.

They were hefty but they were the lightest available at the time?

They weren't the lightest available at the time.

But there was no other option if we wanted synchronised sound.

Because you needed a camera that didn't make any sound

which could be synchronised with the sound.

In those days, quartz motors didn't exist.

And so the technology was pretty heavy.

I think it's the same technology he used when he made Les Quatre Cents Coups.

Perhaps in the excitement of making his first film he didn't notice.

But you sensed that it irritated him to have to return to booms.

That really annoyed him.

But we didn't have any choice because if we wanted synchronisation,

the boom was essential, however problematic it was to use.

So there was nothing that could be done about that problem.

It's not top-of-the-line tonight.

No, whereas last night...

It was "first-class quality."

Look, over there!

The sound isn't direct in that scene. Would you agree?

I think it must be.

- I couldn't say. - I don't think it was.

I don't think the sound was synchronised.

I'm not so sure. I can't remember.

We shot a lot of live scenes in this bistro.

Damn! Here they come!

- It's your business, nof mine. - I'm done for.

Go through that door, hurry up!

Daniel Boulanger was in all these scenes.

How come?

He was quite friendly with Jean-Luc

and François and Chabrol.

Boby Lapointe was a guy who performed

at the Cheval d'Or on the rue Mouffetard.

It was a meeting place for people like François, for cinephiles.

It was complicated working with him because we had to record him.

He never sang the same lyrics twice.

So there was no question of saying,

"We'll synchronise," because he didn't always sing the same lyrics.

He had a very original singing style.

Very original. But he could sing the same lyrics in that style.

He just never did.

Braunberger felt you couldn't really understand him.

The first time you hear him, it's hard to make out what he's singing.

Now it's so well-known.

Boby Lapointe has become...

Now's he's dead, he's a star.

Exactly. Sad to say, but true.

It didn't take him long to figure out what to do.

When we were making the next film, Jules Et Jim,

we didn't always have synchronised sound.

Only a few scenes were shot with synchronised sound.

- The song. - There was the song, Le Tourbillon.

And then the interview about the guy...

- It was really slated. - That's right.

- I expect it was Apollinaire. - Apollinaire, that's right.

So this was a radical change in the method of filming

which was what he was looking for with Tirez Sur Le Pianiste.

He can't have found it completely satisfactory

because straight afterwards when we made La Peau Douce

we went back to a more classical way of filming.

François was more... to my mind, anyway...

His attachment to the French New Wave was quite strange

in that he was quite traditionalist in his technique.

And he was more interested in what was going on internally, emotionally,

and he wanted to show what he was feeling.

I don't think he ever really got the hang of the technical side of things.

I wish it were me she was looking at.

If I'm in the way, I'll move.

Don't worry. I'm not her type.

- I'm nobody's type. - Till tomorrow.

Come now...

Why did colour come so late to New Wave films?

Colour came late firstly because New Wave films were low-budget films.

And it cost five times more to make a colour film

than to make a black-and-white film.

Five times more?

The whole budget for the film?

For the whole film, yes.

A roll of colour film was extortionate,

processing was extortionate.

And colour film was so ridiculously sensitive in those days,

you needed ten times as much lighting.

And for that you needed more staff.

But with Godard...

Jean-Luc had a very different problem.

Jean-Luc's problem was. ..

When you shoot a film in black-and-white, you're using Academy ratio,

in other words, 1.33.

If you make a colour film, it's in CinemaScope.

If you weren't using CinemaScope, you were filming in black-and-white.

I didn't want to ask in front of the others. Could you lend me some money?

There, for example, you can see the break with tradition.

Will you walk with me a little?

Because...

With this kind of approach...

- Can you see the camera going past? - Of course.

That's all because...

When you repeat that, if the travelling is late,

you're in the wrong place for the spotlight that's on the camera.

The shadow of the camera should be out of the shot.

There was so much going on.

When I started shooting, I didn't pay too much attention to these things.

It was pointed out to me at the rushes stage by which time it was too late.

There's another point where he's in a corridor

where you can see a camera lens

which we hadn't noticed at the time.

Did it bother you or did you just think, "I'll watch out next time"?

I put it down to experience.

When you take a gamble and get stung

you take better care the next time around.

She's not snooty, she's dignified.

What about this scene?

That was shot with one flood light opposite them.

- Shining on them. - On them, yes.

It was on...

We had a sort of trolley on wheels

that we drove in front.

In those days there were two problems.

The film we had wasn't very sensitive

and then we had lenses that weren't very open.

The maximum was two, for those who know what that means.

Now you can have lenses which open to two and film that is twice as sensitive.

- What was it? - It was 120 ASA.

Now you can have it much higher than that.

Yes, easily.

On A Bout De Souffle, you had more, didn't you?

On A Bout De Souffle? That was on one very specific bit.

We could only get that because we were shooting without sound.

When we shot A Bout De Souffle,

we used Ilford HPS film.

We were able to get 800 ASA.

The only camera that could cope with that speed was the Cameflex.

The Cameflex is a reflex camera.

The pull-down perforation isn't graded at all.

And this was for very short distances?

Yes, very short distances because these were rolls of film that were sold

to be loaded into the cameras of amateur photographers.

They were little 20m reels.

20m shot 40 seconds' worth.

We used the HPS film again

for Alphaville.

In those days, Ilford made film for the cinema.

So we had 300m reels

with standard perforations for sound negative films.

I have the impression that with this film,

François Truffaut was doing the opposite to what he did with Les Quatre Cents Coups.

He's trying to make a much more fluid film, a more New Wave film, as you said.

Les Quatre Cents Coups was a more classical film, don't you think?

He liked the idea of simplifying things

to arrive at something more akin to A Bout De Souffle.

But at the same time, he encountered all these technical problems.

Even doctors were taken in.

Then I twisted my ankle.

It's tough being an artist.

I'm sure that sound was synchronised.

Yes, it seems very clean.

It must be synchronised because it is set in such a small room,

that it would have been hard enough getting the camera in.

In those days, a camera like the Cameflex 300

took up over three feet of space.

The camera was 27.5 inches long and you had the cameraman behind.

- There are lots of people on the set. - Much more than usual.

That was difficult for him, too, because there were four cameramen,

four special effects men,

five or six electricians.

There was the sound team.

So it was a film that was quite heavy on crew.

You don't get that impression from watching it.

No, of course not.

With some American films there are 150 people on the set

but you can't tell from watching it.

You never get to see how many people there are working behind the scenes.

Television is a cinema

That you can see at home

Move over.

- That scene is quite vulgar. - That was very daring for that time.

Showing bare breasts like that.

- It wasn't done. - No.

I saw a film this afternoon.

It was characteristic of the New Wave

to say we're not going to merely suggest any more, we're going to show you.

Not at all, my little chick.

You'd get this situation where there is a light there

but you're not at all aware of it in black-and-white.

That came from American cinema,

shots where the light was turned out.

That produces that effect there.

We don't really know what that was about because there's just white light.

If it was in colour, we'd be able to see better.

- You'd be able to see a lot more. - There's a son' of flickering.

Don't start, Clarisse! My trousers!

Here we go.

What are you looking at?

Nothing.

Do up my zip.

Go back home! See you tonight.

Fido! Time to get up.

We had a lot of trouble with colour

because colour in those days meant 25 ASA.

So it was much slower.

But nowadays it's almost easier to film in colour than in black-and-white.

Black-and-white filming has hardly changed since then,

whereas colour has changed radically.

Apart from getting the balance of colour right,

there's no real problem with colour.

Now it costs more to make a black-and-white film

because the television pays less for them.

See you tonight, Charlie.

You said it cost five times as much to make a colour film.

How did Godard manage to make Une Femme Est Une Femme in colour in '61?

He had his reasons for being able to do that.

There was the success of A Bout De Souffle

and the fact that Jean-Paul Belmondo had become a star.

There was something else, too.

When Jean-Paul made A Bout De Souffle, he signed a contract

for about five films with Jean-Luc, I can't remember the exact number,

with De Beauregard,

and they fixed a price, like they did in America at the time.

And then when he came to make Une Femme Est Une Femme,

Jean-Paul refused to film under those conditions.

They had to change his contract.

- He had become a star, he and others. - Yes.

So that meant he could command a bit more money.

And seeing as we were filming with Godard's limited funds,

it was less expensive to make than some classical films.

Why did Truffaut take so long to move into colour?

His first colour film was Fahrenheit 451. Was that deliberate?

I have no idea. I really don't know.

I suppose he must have been happy with black-and-white.

It's hard to imagine Jules Et Jim in colour or La Peau Douce.

- Or La Mariée Etait En Noir. - That was the first film you made with him.

- No, the last film you made with him. - The last film.

- And it's in colour, isn't it? - Yes.

Momo, climb in the back with him. Here's our friend in common.

- Who's that? - That goose over there, the waitress.

Mrs Charlie.

No need for introductions.

- Where are we going? - Ask that man of yours.

- He's not my man. - We're going to his brother Chico's place.

The guy last night, with the black eye?

They've done their homework. They found out he was my brother.

They found my address. And yours, too.

- Who told them? - I have an idea, but I'm not sure.

I'll enlighten you.

That's...

I mean, it's...

That's a device taken from classical cinema.

The three screens which allow you to show three different scenes at once.

Plyne is a swine.

- Ernest, watch where you're going. - Who's driving?

You, but watch out all the same. Drive safely.

You sense that he was experimenting a bit there.

Yes, he was trying stuff out.

But not so much in his later films, except for Jules Et Jim.

Jules Et Jim was even more experimental than this one.

With Jules Et Jim there was practically no sound at all.

So...

But later... For example, when we made La Peau Deuce,

we had more or less returned to a classical style.

It's intentionally classical, that film.

Moreover... For example, if we're talking about La Peau Douce...

It's strange it was never successful. I think it is a very well executed film.

There was this need to do things...

All the gestures are shot in close-up.

The key in the lock, the telephone, etc.

At the same time...

He was perhaps influenced by Hitchcock.

Perhaps, but at the same time there was the fact that...

He didn't manage to do it as much as he would have liked.

Strangely, it seems like nothing,

but these close-ups, which are inserts,

they take a lot of time to do.

A guy gets into his car,

he turns the key and starts the engine.

That takes as long as it takes.

Doing a close-up of a guy putting his key in the lock

you have to install a camera in the car,

unscrew the seats...

It's frightening what's involved.

It takes so much time, it's often left until last.

Jean-Luc specialises in that,

inserts, bits of text, tiny details.

When you film with Jean-Luc, he reserves two days at the end for the inserts.

We'd spend two whole days tinkering, along with the special effects team.

François tried to do it as he went along but it took up a lot of time.

Why not socks like us?

A girl with socks up to her knees, that's great!

A real little Natasha.

One day, all my pants were in the dirty laundry.

I borrowed my sister's little silk knickers. I can't tell you how I felt.

That was a reference to the Cahiers Du Cinema.

I'd like to pay tribute to two people.

When we talk about the French New Wave, we think of François, Jean-Luc, Chabrol, etc.

I'd like to talk about two producers without whom the New Wave wouldn't exist.

They are Georges de Beauregard and Pierre Braunberger.

Without those two,

I'm not sure the French New Wave would have existed.

In their different ways,

they were both promoters of the movement

and the ones who were prepared to take a risk.

Braunberger was involved in a load of other things

whereas De Beauregard was at the start of his career as a producer.

But they are the people who...

It's Braunberger who is responsible for Lelouch's career.

He'd made four films before, which had failed.

And he was refusing to make a fifth because he was haemorrhaging cash.

The fifth one being Un Homme Et Une Femme.

The only one he should have made.

He shouldn't have made the others.

Anyhow, De Beauregard and Braunberger,

they were both...

If you like,

looking for what... I can't remember now who said this,

"The only way to earn any money in cinema, is to make a very good film cheaply."

He's not wrong. Even now.

But it's not that easy!

Now it's Charlie hammering it out at Plyne's.

Before, it was something else.

Isn't that so, Edouard?

Isn't that so, Edouard?

Before...

Before...

Excuse me.

- Sir? - Do you have crème caramel?

- No, it's not on the menu. - I see.

Georges de Beauregard had lots of experience.

He had worked with lots of different people.

He'd helped people who had once been stars

and who now,

for one reason or another, had fallen on hard times.

It was De Beauregard who brought them back.

He did the same thing for Chabrol.

I can't remember which film it was now but after it failed

it was Georges who helped him get back on his feet.

I can't remember which film it was.

There was also the fact that,

and this is something we don't see any more,

all the producers, and I don't just mean De Beauregard or Pierre Braunberger...

The producers wanted to make a particular film, not just any old film.

They tried to work with a particular director

and to try and get specific actors on board.

Obviously they had to find the money to do that

and there would be times when they had to say,

"We can't do it with that actor. It would be better with Charles Aznavour.

"He's a bit more well-known..."

And it wasn't just for the public.

It was also to get money from the distributors.

In those days, films were financed in a completely different way than they are today.

You went to see the distributors

who then said, "Yes, that looks interesting."

"I can guarantee such and such a number of box office sales."

So they'd back the film up to a certain amount.

They either advance the cash or they'd sign a paper

guaranteeing box office sales, meaning the producer could borrow from the bank

based on that guarantee.

Films weren't sold to TV.

Television barely existed in those days.

There were sales abroad.

That's how the financing worked, quite different from today.

Another advantage was that because the distributors had a vested interest,

they defended the film.

Cinema owners and managers have written into their contract

that if they don't sell enough tickets, they can take the film off.

Then distributors could say, "OK, you want to take the film off,

"then you won't get James Bond," etc.

Or "Keep it on for two more weeks."

They could apply pressure to make the film work.

Sometimes cinemas panic a week after a film comes out,

whereas a film might do well if it was left to run for longer,

say by the second or third week.

So the producers wanted to make a particular film.

And they'd stand their ground to get that film made.

That part of the film is reminiscent

of what Truffaut was trying to do with La Peau Douce.

It's experimental.

To go back to the producers,

producers don't talk about films, they talk about products.

"That product could work."

- For television... - For anything.

They won't usually launch the product unless they have the backing.

But if Braunberger's film flopped, he wouldn't fall flat on his face.

- And the film was a flop. - Yes.

Tirez Sur Le Pianiste wasn't a success.

In other words, people took risks.

With the last films I made, however,

the film got made because the producers had enough cash

with enough left over to pay the secretary.

And to pay themselves.

Yes, they only paid their secretary once they'd paid themselves, naturally.

Stylistically, the lighting in this part of the film is very different from the beginning.

This part is lit in a classical way.

Because there was room.

And we had enough power and the set was wider than the others

so the lighting was a bit more successful.

Same thing there. You used the same lighting...

No, that bit was lit with torches.

The story is different here. It's the story of Saroyan as a concert pianist.

- Before he falls on hard times. - And ends up playing in a bar.

And the lighting is different.

Yes, there's a time lapse there.

And the CinemaScope. Truffaut...

Why was the New Wave so fond of CinemaScope?

It was very fashionable in those days.

- Because of American cinema? - Yes.

And it meant they could make a complete break

with the Academy ratio

as early as '66.

In '66, yes.

That was Dyaliscope there.

What's that?

There was CinemaScope, which was the system bought by the Americans.

Dyaliscope was the French system.

There was another called Franscope.

With CinemaScope you use a normal lens, called a spherical lens.

And then there is the lens which flattens the image

called a cylindrical lens because it's cylindrical

and it flattens the image.

These are two separate units.

So you have to set the camera up for the spherical lens and for the cylindrical lens.

With Dyaliscope these two elements were coupled together.

That avoided the relatively complex problem for the assistant

of having to set up the two machines at the same time.

It was something we used on this film but it was quite problematic

because we had problems with the minimum distance.

We didn't have the focal distance we needed.

Lucky man! What success!

You must be delighted, and your wife.

You never set out to be a cinematographer.

- You came to it almost by chance. - If you like.

But for a very long time

I regretted not continuing with my career as a photographer.

Much more than...

You were more interested in being a photographer than a cinematographer.

At the same time, you were one of the major cinematographers

- of the French New Wave. - Yes, of course.

You broke new ground.

But at the same time, I think it was my experience as a photographer

which allowed me to do things that a conventional cinematographer

wouldn't have dared to do.

For example, I'm sure...

Take Decaë, for example.

He was capable of doing what I did but he never did it.

Because of his experience?

No, I think he must have felt

there were too many intangibles.

When you work with a classical director,

you're hired to bring your way of making pictures

and for being safe.

In other words, when you say it's good,

the following day at the screening,

it's good.

- You shoot it and it's good. - Yes.

And it's still good the next day.

There can't be any hitches.

But when you film with Jean-Luc,

he says, "We're going to do this like this."

At which point you're obliged to say to him, "if we do what you're asking,

"this is what will happen, the picture will look like this."

Let's take an example, we're near a window,

there are people talking in broad daylight

and inside the room there is no light.

If they're in the window, they'll be well lit.

And when they go into the room,

you won't be able to see them any more because they're in darkness.

There are two solutions. Either we light the room...

And if he's in a bad mood, he says, "it doesn't matter, we'll shoot it like that."

First at the window, then inside the room.

In the dark.

He says, "Let's see what happens."

And the next day, if it was no good, we'd shoot it again.

But another director wouldn't shoot it again.

If it's bad, it still goes in the film.

Thérèse

- Do you remember Nicole Berger? - Yes.

She was a great girl.

She was very committed as an actress.

She was lovely to work with.

I make you unhappy, don't I?

I know it's wrong of me. I can't help myself.

When you are deep inside the night, you can't stop the night.

It's getting darker and darker.

There's no way out, no knowing what to do.

There's only one thing left for me to do. Only one.

When you work with a director,

you don't know if you'll be asked to do something acrobatic

and if he'll take on the risk involved.

Because to perform acrobatics,

there needs to be two of you.

When you throw yourself off the trapeze, you need someone there to catch you.

If not, you fall and smash your face in.

Some people won't do it

because they're sure that if it doesn't work,

they'll never get to do it again and the picture will be ruined.

Which means...

But that was Jean-Luc's way of working.

He can spend two days achieving nothing.

He catches up at some point.

For example, when we shot Passion,

we reshot some scenes four times.

Because on a whim, if the room was lit by a lamp, he'd ask for a 20-watt bulb.

Then he'd say, "Let's shoot it again.

"That's no good.

"Let's shoot it again with a 40-watt bulb."

And then a 100-watt bulb.

And that would be too much so we'd shoot it again with a 60-watt bulb.

That was his nature. He wanted to see something

not necessarily clearly expressed.

That was his thing.

But he took responsibility for the experiment.

- Truffaut wasn't like that at all. - Truffaut didn't think like that.

Here, for example, the style is classical.

It's like something...

Do you think?

No, I mean in the way it's been cut.

Not in the way the scene has been set.

These are acted scenes, that could have been shot by Autant-Lara.

Do you think? For me it's more Bergman.

Yes, or Bergman. But it's classical cinema.

It's not New Wave cinema.

It's New Wave cinema when you look at the film as a whole.

But not when you look at certain isolated scenes.

If you showed that to film students who didn't know it was made by François,

it looks like it's been cut in a classical style.

Do you think Autant-Lara would have done the same?

He might not have done the same thing but the principle was the same.

This style with the close-ups, the cuts etc. That's very classical, all that.

He goes out and he shuts the door.

This is why I don't want you to touch me.

One thing that I think is important to mention, and you can confirm this perhaps,

is that both François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard stuck to their budgets.

- They didn't like to overspend. - It was a question of survival for them.

At the start it was a question of survival.

If they had allowed themselves to go over budget,

there would be no film.

Cash flow was important to both of them

but compared to, I don't know, Jean-Luc, for example,

it was definitely what made Truffaut successful.

Chabrol was the same. Compared with Ducaë, he played it very safe.

If he had a month, he'd take a month.

If the film had to be delivered on a certain day at 2:15 p.m.,

he'd deliver on that day at 2:15 p.m.

On the other hand...

That's not at all the image we have of the New Wave.

No, I agree.

But when you look at the New Wave now,

there aren't many left.

There's Rohmer.

There are those who make what we call New Wave cinema

and then there are those who made New Wave films but we don't call them that.

If you were to take, for example, Pierre Schoendoerffer or De Broca,

they were born at the same time but they're not part of the New Wave.

- Why? - Because they weren't in the Cahiers gang.

What did the Cahiers gang mean for you?

For me, at that time,

it didn't mean much.

In those days, I wasn't into the cinema,

so I wasn't that interested in those people.

I liked the cinema but...

It wasn't something I...

So the Gamers gang was Rohmer, Rivette, Chabrol,

Godard, Truffaut, maybe Jacques Demy.

- Doniol. - Doniol, of course, Jacques Doniol-Valcroze.

- Pierre Kast, too. - Of course.

- You worked with Pierre Kast. - Yes.

So for you, the New Wave is much broader.

Yes, in other words, all those who were using new methods to make films.

De Broca definitely...

It's true that De Broca makes conventional films.

But at the same time, he does what he wants to do.

There is no end to his talent.

And here, for example,

those images of the kiss are superimposed.

François was experimenting with that kiss.

It was shot back to front.

We unwound the roll of film

and we shot it back to front.

In other words,

we started at the end.

François said to himself, "Let's see how it differs from a normal kiss."

But in the end you don't really notice the difference.

- You're the only one to know! - Yes, he didn't use that method again.

The backwards kiss!

I saw you looking at me.

So I looked at you, too.

What were you thinking when we walked together in the street, last night?

Did you like me from the start?

Do you remember the night you said...

When I took your arm,

I was scared you would think me too rash.

What you were saying just now was maybe a little unfair because

what strikes me about this film compared to La Peau Douce or Jules Et Jim,

is his treatment of the flesh.

He was the first to film actresses like that.

- Their skin... - No, but...

if you like, the main difference between classical cinema and New Wave cinema

was in the make-up.

And she's actually applying her make-up there.

What was happening with make-up

was that it had to be realistic.

Make-up was no longer...

Very stylised.

That posed huge problems.

For example, when we made A Bout De Souffle,

Jean-Luc decided there would be no make-up artist.

And poor Jean Seberg had to bring her own powder compact

and apply it herself.

After working with Preminger, that...

It wasn't at all what she was used to.

You're shy. You respect women.

You can really see it in the films.

Yes. ..

There was a desire to get very close to the people you were filming.

At the same time, these were people you could do that with.

Of course...

- Marie Dubois was lovely. - She's a beautiful woman.

But at the same time, there was an advantage to doing it this way.

With this approach, the actress or actors had to have agreed

to be filmed under these conditions.

For example, when we shot Jules Et Jim with Jeanne,

and Jeanne was gorgeous in those days,

she agreed to be filmed without being too made-up.

I'll wake you up. You'll be Edouard Saroyan again.

Why?

Not "why" but "for whom."

For me and for you, too. For both of us.

I grew up in an orphanage. I'm used to fighting.

You will practise, go to auditions, and give concerts.

At that time, there was a strong belief

that these young directors were in possession of the truth,

compared with everyone else.

- Do you believe that... - I do, but I also think that,

for example, when you see Catherine Deneuve

filming with...

- Lars von Trier, no? - No, wait...

With Garrel.

She called him to ask to work with him.

At one point, lots of people were phoning Jean-Luc to ask to work with him.

Because they felt there was something missing on their CV.

Like Delon, etc.

When you don't love me any more, tell me.

SECULAR SCHOOL FOR BOYS

When we made... Prénom Carmen.

Godard had another actress in mind for Prénom Carmen.

But Jean-Luc decided...

We had this camera which wasn't a prototype but was among the first examples,

the Aaton 35...

Jean-Luc paid Beauviala to make this camera for him.

And inside the magazine,

he wrote, "Jean-Luc thought of you. What about you?"

So each time anyone loaded it...

But it was lost because no one could read what he'd written.

Never mind.

- See that actress there? - Alice Sapritch.

She was a complete unknown at the time but has since become a star.

So we had these two machines, these two cameras

which were as small as a 16mm camera, I'd say.

He had this Peugeot 305.

He'd decided that all the material and the crew would go in this car.

The sound, the lighting...

So there was the head cameraman,

the guy who sets it all up,

the sound engineer,

a sound assistant and another assistant.

We got to the lnstitut Pasteur,

we started to unload and the leading actress arrived

and watched everyone unloading the camera.

She didn't say hello, of course. They never spoke to the crew.

And there were five of them,

her, the hairdresser, the make-up artist, a girl in charge of shoes,

and a wardrobe assistant.

She arrived with her own technical team.

We shot some scenes.

We waited for her to get dolled up.

And then he went to get her and I arrived with a camera on my shoulders.

There was no technician so I had to carry everything myself.

And I set the camera up

on a little landing.

She was down in the courtyard and the garden.

So I've got all my gear.

Jean-Luc came up to explain to me what was going to happen.

Then he said, "OK, let's start filming."

So I came down to where she was and said hello.

And I took the cartridge out to take away some of the light

and she burst into tears

and said, "I'm not filming."

The key grip was in charge of the lighting.

So we stopped filming.

And Maruschka Detmers took over the role.

And the other girl?

There were discussions.

It was explained to her.

She didn't understand why I was carrying the equipment.

And it was a puny little camera.

It was a 16mm camera, which was really small.

She didn't want to film. "I want to be beautiful."

We kept telling her she would look beautiful.

"Not with that! I need more light."

And of course, there was her whole entourage who were saying,

"Don't let them make you do it."

So Jean-Luc said, "OK, let's do some takes."

But there was the question of money, too.

If she left, he'd lose money.

- That's not in the spirit of the New Wave. - No...

The New Wave actors were different.

At the same time, it was her own fault.

She must have known when she agreed to be in the film

how Jean-Luc worked.

She should have said then, "Yes, but..."

And no actress has ever looked ugly in a Godard film.

No.

Bastard.

You touched her, admit it.

You've defiled her. I'm going to thrash you!

Let's drop it.

You don't want to fight any more?

- Let's forget it. - No way.

- There has to be a winner. - Let's say I chickened out.

No, they saw me run away. I need my revenge.

They have to know. They mustn't believe what she said.

Hey.

I don't love her any more.

She used words that are unworthy of her.

If she had a soul,

she wouldn't be so vulgar.

She's a bitch.

She's no maiden, she's no woman.

Because a woman is pure, delicate, fragile.

What strikes me about this film is...

With the methods...

He's filming the truth, something quite genuine,

in terms of what the actors want to say and show.

Yes.

And the technique he uses helps them.

It's true that it's a new approach. This one was a bit different.

The more you get into François' way of working,

the more you find yourself in a more classical type of cinema.

At the end.

But what strikes me is that there is always a slightly amateurish element.

I don't know if...

I'm sure François didn't tell you what to do.

No, there for example... Some things were done with...

All that was shot with a hand-held camera.

We were using methods that weren't always successful.

- There was no Steadicam in those days. - Of course not.

The effect of that was this...

Slight shakiness.

The pictures weren't exactly perfect.

But that was part of the whole thing.

If you look at Jean-Luc's films,

he soon got rid of the system...

The system of using hand-held cameras.

He quickly moved on to using a Mitchell.

- Are you talking about Godard now? - Yes, Godard.

We soon moved on to Mitchells on these little trolleys

called "Western dollies."

But it was us who invented them,

these trolleys on wheels.

And as soon as we felt the camera shake,

we had to film from these trolleys

whenever we were filming a panoramic shot.

And when the weight of the camera changed, the tyres went flat

and the camera started shaking.

What was the relationship like between Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol...

In those days, they were good friends.

- They respected each other's work. - Yes, they were friends at the time.

Things deteriorated a bit later between Chabrol and Jean-Luc

and then between François and Jean-Luc.

I don't know why, however, because...

François chose not to speak about it. And as for Jean-Luc...

Did they share information about their techniques,

their way of working...

Yes, they discussed that.

Fido!

Fido!

- What do you want? - You scared me.

I'm sorry, miss, I'm looking for Fido Saroyan.

There's no more Fido. Disappeared!

- Abducted by two bastards! - Are you drunk?

- How did you do that? - The camera was fixed to the bonnet.

The camera was attached to a plank.

When you shoot this kind of thing,

you mustn't use too much light

so as to give the impression of the town in the background.

I know lighting isn't your speciality

but you bring out a bit of greyness in the background.

With very little light in the car itself, a bit above it.

- So... - For the faces.

There was always a big discussion

about whether to make it look as if there was light coming from the dashboard

or whether to put it up above

as if it was coming from somewhere else.

There it's coming from the dashboard.

Seeing as he was wearing a hat,

if we had the light above him, we'd have had...

And it actually looks quite sophisticated because...

You can see the light diffused by the windscreen.

- Yes, that's right. - It's manufactured but it looks real.

But it is real.

The car isn't standing still.

It's not stationary.

- The car is moving. - Yes, we're on the road there.

But we reshot that several times.

There were several takes.

The problem in those days was that there was no video transfer.

Now when you shoot that sort of thing,

the director can review the scene.

But in those days you couldn't.

Here the director had to be in a car in front

from where he tried to see what was going on,

and listen to the sound that had been recorded.

Then he decided if it was OK or not, and whether to reshoot it.

It's me, Léna.

Come quietly.

Ouch.

There again the light sources are...

At the same time, it's true that... This sort of thing is very...

It's very New Wave in that we didn't set out to light it in any particular way.

- You didn't light the whole set. - That's right.

And we didn't try to light it so as to enhance the actors.

These are things that break with the classical tradition.

But the camera operator can't do that unless the director agrees.

Did you enjoy doing it like that?

Yes, it wasn't bad, it was quite interesting.

The problem with shooting these films...

The main problem was...

No matter what the film was, the problem was the continuity

in a film with 300 or 800 shots.

And it is a film, after all.

The whole has to hang together.

You can't have some bits looking brighter than others.

So when you're shooting, you've got a choice to make

according to what you think the film will be like once it's finished

and according to...

Those elements of the set that you could change.

When you shoot in natural surroundings, some elements can let you down.

So it's important that at the end

you're left with something comprehensive

that...

That all hangs together in the film.

For example...

Take Z for example.

If the photography had been too elaborate,

it would have spoiled the effect.

The image would have been competing

with the intention of the film.

The film by Costa-Gavras, Z.

The photography shouldn't be about the cameraman showing off.

You can spot that straightaway.

Yes, and there are lots of films like that.

It's just one of a whole number of things that...

At the time of the French New Wave,

there were lots of things that you could do.

There was this idea of...

The idea of destroying the old way of making films.

There are lots of veiled references.

Is the radio working?

I don't know. Let's try.

That's wonderful, look.

There was also the idea of the American film noir.

Not American-style, because this is very French.

But this is based on a book by David Goodie after all.

It's true that there was a trend for doing things in a certain style.

In The Set-Up, for example,

there is an element of mixing happiness with tragedy.

- That was Robert Wise. - Yes.

Truffaut likes his songs.

He likes songs, he likes music.

Are you using filters here?

No.

Do you think this way of working with lights has influenced American cinema?

- I don't know. - I think it has.

Lots of filmmakers...

The technique has become much freer as a result.

But that would have happened anyway.

Take Mean Streets, Scorcese's first films...

You feel that they want to change the rules of the game, too, and the technique.

François explained it at the time.

There was this German woman who explained

what elements were necessary to make a good film.

She explained that you had to do this and that

and then you have to relax the pace a bit.

It's good to have scenes where nothing happens and to have a backdrop.

There, for example, you have shots of the road

with a lovely song

which allows you to relax completely,

to take stock

and focus on other elements.

- And it was a German woman? - I don't know who she was.

It was funny.

One film that was made according to those principles is La Famille Trapp.

A very old film.

For a long time it was the film that had the most box office success.

It's a great film.

- There's no light source there at all. - No.

It was a difficult place to film. We had to bring a generator.

It was terrible. It was freezing cold,

it was slippery...

Was it Grenoble?

Sorry? Near Grenoble, yes.

- Just above Grenoble? - Yes.

Truffaut did a lot of filming there.

La Sirène Du Mississipi.

La Femme D“a Gôté. He shot lots of films in the area.

There, for example... What would another film maker have done?

- He would have introduced more light. - Lit it artificially.

Just the fact that you don't leave actors talking in the dark.

The only person who would accept that was Charles Aznavour.

Not long ago I did this thing, I won't say who with because he's a friend.

But this character had the title role.

At one point he goes into this room

where there are several characters, and someone switches the light off.

I thought that would be quite entertaining.

When the lights go out, there's just this chiaroscuro effect.

And the character is in darkness.

The main character.

And it's his fellow actor who is lit.

I suggested this to the director and he said, "OK, why not?"

And at the rushes stage, the guy wasn't happy.

- The actor? - Yes.

Since it was a friend, I went to talk to him.

We know it's you because...

Only we can't see it's you!

Who cares if you're in the dark? Everyone knows it's you.

But he wasn't at all happy.

The dough. That's why I was in Paris.

All brand new, registered notes.

They're going to be tough to flog. We need a scam.

If we look at your collaboration with Truffaut as a whole,

why did you stop working with him after La Mariée?

I was obnoxious to work with during the filming of La Mariée

because I had decided to stop smoking.

And I pissed everybody off

and François wasn't...

He wasn't pleased.

So you had a bit of a character transformation.

More than a bit. I was a nightmare to be around.

I pissed everyone off, I was unpleasant...

It wasn't a good atmosphere.

And the cinematography wasn't good on La Mariée.

- Do you think so? - Yes.

I couldn't have done better than that.

And after that...

With him I did Le Pianiste.

And I did a sketch called L'Amour A Vingt Ans.

Antoine Et Collette.

La Peau Douce, Jules Et Jim.

Jules et Jim is a wonderful film.

I remember when he first mentioned to us that he wanted to make this film,

and everyone had read the book,

and we all said, "How on earth are we going to make a film out of a book like that?"

Then he gave us a copy of the script

and I remember all his friends saying, "You can't make this film."

And it did seem...

And it's one of the few films...

Of all the films I've made, the film always seems to be...

More often than not, the film isn't as good as the script.

At best, it's as good as the script.

And there are a few exceptions

where it's better than the script, and Jules Et Jim is one of those exceptions.

It's one of those examples I'm always quoting...

When they come out of a film, in general, people are full of praise for the actors

or they loved the music and the songs

but they thought the dialogue was terrible or the cinematography was good.

But when people leave the cinema after Jules Et Jim,

no single thing stands out.

You come out of this film dumbfounded.

You can't say, "The actors and the cinematography were great

"but the sound was awful..."

Because the whole thing is wonderful.

And it's wonderful because it works as a whole.

Everything can be individually wonderful without being wonderful as a whole.

Here you are, a murderer in a family of thieves. Not a problem.

Yes, there's a problem. This madness,

who do you get it from, you and your brothers?

Not from Mum and Dad.

And there you have a shot that moves around.

It's a strange shot because he moves in front of the light.

...doing the perfect scam and holing up just like you are now.

One could write a poem about it. A comic poem.

That useless gun.

"I leave it with you. Man's best friend."

To say that to you.

You hate firearms.

Truffaut was fascinated by the way the snow mutes the sound.

You can't hear...

He loved that.

And the dialogue in the film...

Truffaut wrote the ending while you were filming.

- Didn't he? - Yes.

You're cleared. Self-defence. The neighbours were great. Told the truth.

You had thrown away the knife. Plyne tried to strangle you.

You wanted to prick his arm. Just an accident.

I wasn't expecting that. And the car?

It's over there. Come.

I can't go yet. I have to tell them. Wait for me.

Are you really coming back?

You know it.

"When I shall hate you, I shall wear my cap."

We had a bit of a problem with the lab.

There was a power outage when the lab came to develop the film.

And the last scene there,

that scene got stuck in the machine.

The time it took to set up the emergency generators

meant that the negatives had carried on developing.

People always seem to forget...

Working in the cinema is like doing photography

except that you're working on an industrial scale.

If a photograph is overexposed,

you can simply leave it in the enlarger a bit longer.

But you can't do that in the cinema.

You have a limited number of prints

with which to achieve your end result.

The lab said they'd had this power outage so we asked if we should reshoot the scene.

"No, we can fix it."

So they made a print by modifying the settings for printing.

It was fine for one scene.

But when we came to put it all together

we had to get the negative...

It was that bit there.

And it's quite grainy.

The lab had to make a number of copies

to integrate this bit into the film.

I really like the scene we've just seen

both aesthetically and technically.

It's very delicate.

It's strange because you have the impression those are children playing.

- It's almost amateurish. - And that hut with the smoke.

It almost looks like a little model.

And that car, an American car, front-wheel drive. It's all a bit...

There were lots of American cars in those days.

Front-wheel drive cars like that?

- Of course. - In 1960.

There's something very moving about it.

You're right, they look like children there.

That's the bit that got stuck in the machine.

This is only Truffaut's second film.

- He was only 27 when he made it. - Indeed.

François was a very talented guy.

But what was quite funny,

when we were filming he was always talking about his next film.

- Already? - Yes.

He was talking about the film he was going to make afterwards,

a film he never made

called Le Bleu D'Outre-Tombe.

With Jeanne Moreau.

- But he never got round to making it. - It was about a schoolteacher.

And when we were shooting La Peau Deuce,

he was already talking about Fahrenheit.

That image is almost subjective.

It's not very clear-cut.

But it's the last shot before the credits.

Yes, you see. That's why the picture seems so strange.

For the end credits.