Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
51 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Thoughtful but difficult
cafescott21 February 2013
I recommend people read "Excruciating" (federovsky, 8/30/12) and "Much Ado About Nothing" (Milan, 4/15/2012) if they want to know what they are in store for. "Celine and Julie Go Boating" is difficult, frustrating and over long. However, it is also the kind of film that after seeing it, you wonder what other people have to say about it.

I didn't enjoy it much. Visually, it is not terribly special. The relationship between the two women and the "haunted house" is what keeps us watching, but the scenes come very slowly.

Several people have said it unfolds like a dream. Others have pointed out the lesbian/feminist side to it. Another possibility is that the two women represent two personalities of a schizophrenic nurse who committed an unspeakable crime. That would explain the repetitive cutting between one woman as the nurse and then her counterpart switching in. The two sides of the same madwoman angle possibly explains why the story includes the woman who is a performance amateur subbing for the experienced magician.

Between "Celine" (Juliet Berto) and "Julie" (Dominique Labourier), I think Labourier is the strongest here. Labourier has a lot of charisma; too bad Rivette has her often just laughing directly into the camera.

The characters in the "haunted house" are interesting. Marie-France Pisier is a favorite of mine, and she is very mysterious here.

If the scenes didn't unfold so sluggishly, and if the narrative were tighter, I think it would have been great. Unfortunately, it is too much work to recommend.
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Put on the Mysterious List
Hitchcoc18 June 2021
This is an endless film. I guess I understand a script which pulls us back and forth with nary a real reason, other than to confuse. I see this as one of those movies that has enough substance balanced against images left to our own designs. Making "magic" the centerpiece allows for a lot of hit and miss without much explanation. I guess we are suppose to accept the joyfulness of the two women without much foundation. I did stay with it to the end and some of the images are stuck in my head. But I agree with one of the reviewers, one needs to see films that are considered significant just to be able to discuss them. I would never bother again.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Summer Afternoon Games
Eumenides_015 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
On a hot afternoon Julie, reading a magical treatise on a park bench, decides to follow Celine, a stage magician, as she hurries through the park and keeps dropping her belongings. The two develop a friendship and become involved in a mystery involving a house where the same day seems to repeat itself and where a child is murdered.

It's a strange premise for a strange, semi-plot less movie where either/or logic and narrative causality are less important than the repetition of scenes, the symmetry between the heroines' actions, recurring symbols, memory-inducing candies, cats, dreams and magic.

Jacques Rivette seems to revel in breaking all the rules of film narrative and inviting the viewer to experience cinema in less traditional ways. This is a movie appreciate with a meditative, wandering mood. Scenes, situations, gags and slapstick just flow from scene to scene without nexus and purpose. Depending on the viewer, it can be frustrating or delicious.

Juliet Berto and Dominique Labourier give wonderful performances as the eponymous heroines, transmitting a sense of fun and pleasure in every frame. From a technical perspective, the movie is quite good, with Rivette's camera capturing a colourful, sleepy and peaceful Paris on what seems to be a never-ending afternoon of childhood games.

Watching Celine and Julie go Boating is almost like returning to that world of imagination and boundless fun we all inhabited when we were younger. Few movies transmit that feeling.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Did I dream it, or was it real...?
ella-489 November 2006
As a teenager in the 1970s, I was a frequent visitor to an art gallery in Liverpool called the Open Eye. When they started a film club, promising to show all the stuff I had read about but would never otherwise get a chance to see, I signed up like a flash.

It was a humble affair: a bare room with temporary blackouts on the windows, a makeshift screen at one end, a projector at t'other and a dozen or so ill-assorted chairs inbetween, but I loved it. For me it was a magic grotto: a portal to another place of endless fascination and discovery. It was here that I had my first exposure to the works of Buñuel, Renoir, Fritz Lang; Dziga Vertov's "Man With a Movie Camera"; the experimental shadowgraph animations of Man Ray; David Lynch's Eraserhead – and, unforgettably, "Céline et Julie vont en bateau".

Even for one as keen on "Art" cinema as I was, Céline et Julie was a bit of a challenging prospect: a low-budget French thing about god-knows-what, by a director I'd never heard of, that we were warned would run over three hours without interval. Little did I know, as the opening credits rolled, that from then on time would mean nothing and I would be held captive; enthralled; the hours slipping by unheeded, as when dreaming.

It is this quality that, for me, makes this film so special. European (especially French) cinema is full of works that lay claim to the label "Surrealist". I have to say that in my opinion most of them have little to do with the truly surreal at all. More often than not they are simply a cocktail of absurdism and social satire.

Céline et Julie, on the other hand, is a genuinely surreal film – possibly the ONLY genuinely surreal film ever made (!) - insomuch that its narrative (and hence the experience of watching it unfold) is uncannily dreamlike. From the outset the viewer is drawn inexorably forward by a teasing sense of curiosity. Frequently along the way there seems to be far too much going on that is unexplained, and little hope of fitting it all together, yet one cannot help but remain in the story. In time, we become aware that our mixed sensations as viewer are mirroring those being experienced by Céline and Julie – and thus we find ourselves in that familiar condition of the dreamer: of being simultaneously both onlooker and protagonist in our own drama.

Afterwards, I was left feeling curiously elated, yet struggling to recall its details with any precision. The impressions it had left behind were powerful and thought-provoking, yet intangible, and recalled but imperfectly, in the manner of one who has just awoken: with a frustrating uncertainty as to exactly what had occurred, to whom and in what order. Any attempt to explain it to a third party was equally doomed. Just as with a half-remembered dream, the very act of telling caused the peculiar para-logic of the narrative to disintegrate, and I'd be left speechless.

It's been part of me ever since. Over the last 30-odd years, the themes and images of this film have, in the nicest possible way, haunted me: lurking in the shadows of consciousness, beyond the clumsy reach of rational query, quietly informing my imagination, to appear, unbidden, in subtle and unexpected ways in my own creative output.

The whole strange business has been made all the more uncanny by the fact that, throughout those 30-odd years, the film itself has been lost to me. Having experienced it the once, I was never able to find Céline et Julie again, nor any reference to it, even in the pages of famously trusted and supposedly 'comprehensive' movie guides. Likewise, whenever I mentioned the film in conversation I could never come across anyone who had ever heard of it. Having worked its mischief, the contrary creature had melted back into the half-light, leaving no trace of its existence.

Then, in October of 2006, a miracle: there it was, right in front of me, listed in the TV schedules! Film4 was showing it – at the suitably unconscious hour of 3am. Unwilling to risk losing it for another 30 years to the vagaries of my video recorder's dodgy timer, I sat up, my finger hovering nervously over the Record button...

A few days later, having found an afternoon in which we were free of commitments, my partner and I settled in to watch it: she with some scepticism that she would be able to maintain her interest for the whole 3 hours, and me both a-quiver with anticipation and privately praying that, in the hard light of reality, this thing of treasured half-memory would not prove itself to be The Worst Load Of Pretentious Tripe Ever Made.

I needn't have worried. No sooner had I hit "Play" than that fragrant, familiar magic began weaving itself all over again. I am delighted to report that Céline et Julie is just as powerful an experience now as it was in my youth.

What I had forgotten, or perhaps never noticed at all on first viewing, was just what a rough-edged, homespun creature it is in technical terms. It was shot entirely on location, on 16mm and with a very small crew, and it shows. The soundtrack is patchy in places and frequently prey to whatever ambient sounds were present when the camera rolled (usually Parisian traffic noise). Now and then the acting is self-conscious, and some of the reaction shots are clumsily done. In the end, though, none of this matters a damn. Indeed, it is the film's very lack of studio polish that gives it much of its special flavour. Céline et Julie is an imperfect creation, but an honest one. It is also charming, playful and frequently hilarious. As such, I recommend it unreservedly.
85 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Magic Candy Moment!
Damion-214 July 1999
Last year, at a crisis time of imminent homelessness, I went to the video store with the idea of renting some banal new release to distract me from my troubles. Waiting in line holding a video starring Tom Hanks (or was it Kevin Costner? Maybe it was Julia Roberts. Such a blur is Hollywood today) something in the foreign section an aisle down caught my eye. It was the video for Jacques Rivette's 1974 masterpiece, Celine and Julie Go Boating.

Immediately upon seeing the cover image of Juliet Berto (Celine) posed as a magician, her Dietrich hauteur kinky and comical, I knew it would be my kind of film. I was also pleased to see it was such a long film it had to be contained in a two-video set. It had long been my suspicion that all secrets of life would be revealed in a film over three hours long and in French.

Indeed, Celine and Julie is just that film. But it conceals as it reveals, which is to say that its great mysteriousness results from its floribundance of revelation. Yes, my friend, a floribundance! I never even thought of such a word until seeing Celine and Julie.

Critics have been unable to explain what it's "about". I cannot. I can't explain the plays of Shakespeare or the poems of Emily Dickinson, but I am moved by them. Attempts to understand them can lead to intense mental spasmodics, but the pain, if the work is good, can be great.

Those who've seen the film will remember the hard magic candy the women savored on their own path to understanding. Vision giving, the candy became an addiction to them. Once is never enough and hasn't been for me. I have seen Celine and Julie three times and thought of it many more.

My favorite scene is where Celine performs her weird magic act in a nightclub where, as far as I can tell, the customers are all convicted poets. The atmosphere there is fascinating. Time stops while she does her act, which is beyond words, indescribable. The whole feeling in that scene of a kind of super sophisticated moment of comedy and sex and mystery all shared by a group of people in silence is one that I find marvelously inspiring. Surely some clever entrepreneur in San Francisco, where I reside, could open such a club. Oh, I suppose it won't happen, but at least one can dream.

Really, it's the importance, power and pleasure-pain of dreaming that this film reawakended me to when I saw it months ago. To be like Celine and Julie with their minds moved by candy is a state I aspire to daily.

When I was briefly without a place to live, I thought of this film and was taken to a sunny day in Montmarte, a house where the living and unliving mingle, a library where stalkers and smokers meet. I savored that magic, the effect of great art on the mind, and I knew I was not truly homeless.
80 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
What we miss most about our childhoods, distilled in a movie
Asa_Nisi_Masa231 August 2006
A PERFECT, SHARED IMAGINATION: something we become entirely incapable of evoking in our adult lives. As children, it's still possible to create an all-engrossing, parallel existence played out in symbiotic harmony by two individuals calling themselves best friends. With an uncluttered and unfettered creativity, these friends are sucked into their inner story to a point that time, place and the mundane habits and duties of one's routine no longer exist, or rather, are incorporated and/or adapted to fit what then becomes one's main existence - the imagined one. What makes this movie so convincingly evoke the yearning for the magic of childhood is exactly this: the fact that this imaginative world is shared so perfectly by two friends, and not just cultivated within an isolation and individuality typical of adult age. No other movie has made me think back at my childhood best friends as vividly as Céline and Julie Go Boating!

Hours spent in a room surrounded by familiar objects turned into so many powerful talismans. Earnest "magic" rituals punctuated by benevolent, mutual derision in the little moments in which one risks getting too serious or devoid of irony. Convulsive giggling fits which end in snorting noises. Relaxed, spontaneous, touchy-feely languid poses making two friends feel like they fit each other's company like a glove. Living the present so perfectly that one is momentarily, blissfully freed of any baggage from the past or the insecurities for the future that stunt one's spontaneity in the present. This isn't just a definition of perfect, child-like friendship, but also of a simple, uncluttered state of pure happiness. Rivette captures the spirit of all these things - childhood and happiness - in a movie unlike any I've seen before. Or rather - the movie may have seemed familiar thematically, but the execution and spirit of it was something else altogether.

As other users have commented here, Céline and Julie Go Boating is inspired by both Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Henry James, as well as being reminiscent of Buñuel - not just his "surreal" movies but also That Obscure Object of Desire. In the latter, Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina play the same character interchangeably. Céline and Julie do the same when they both, interchangeably play the nurse in the closed-circuit, story-in-the-story involving the man, the blonde woman, the brunette woman and the little girl in the "haunted" house - this story's plot is being played out over and over again in the two protagonists' heads as they strive to both figure its intrigue and the dark heart of its mystery out, all the while deriding the stuffy rhetoric of its melodrama (delightful!). There are clear echoes of Bergman's Persona as well, as Céline and Julie stand in for each other - namely, Céline pretends to be Julie when she meets her childhood sweetheart and cousin Guilou, while Julie stands in for Céline when she attends the magician's audition. Touches of Buñuel and Fellini are also evoked by the dream sequences, with their typical, fragmented rhythm which mixes in dreams, reality, thoughts and imagination. Though innovative and timeless, Céline and Julie Go Boating does also belong to the decade in which it was made, as it has a recognisable 1960s/70s surrealist aesthetic and an interest in "inner landscapes", not for their own sake but for what they say about the psychic goings on of human beings.

Purely thematically, this movie also brought to mind Peter Jackson's 1994 movie Heavenly Creatures. However, though the latter was made exactly 20 years later than Céline and Julie, it is decidedly more "misogynistic" in spirit, to be fair perhaps not consciously or intentionally so. Why am I calling Jackson's movie misogynistic? Because ultimately, unlike Céline and Julie Go Boating, it treats the symbiotic, shared, female imagination that's allowed free rein as something negatively irrational, uncontrollable, dark and finally, destructive, the lesbian undertones becoming morbid rather than light-hearted, humorous and feel-good as in the Rivette's splendid and highly original movie.

What this Céline and Julie Go Boating told me was that in some cases, guiltlessly cultivating, salvaging and exploring one's inner and imaginative life is far more important than meeting the expectations of one's day-to-day, material duties. Therefore, solving the mystery of a "haunted" house is more crucial than, say, furthering one's career (for example, succeeding in an audition for an important, international magician's tour - Céline should have attended it but Julie does so instead, to very amusing and disastrous effect! I loved, loved, loved actress Dominique Labourier's droll histrionics during that scene!).

I have never seen a movie treat with such humour and gaiety a subject as serious, complex and potentially heavy-duty Freudian as exploring one's unresolved childhood issues. Much of this movie is about Julie's (and perhaps everyone's, to a degree) inability to assimilate the past completely (her tarot reading by a fellow librarian reveals this at the beginning of the movie - "Your future is in the past"). To put it stereotypically, the "inner child" needs to be freed before one can truly become an adult - a happy, healthy, sorted, serene, childlike adult. This process of healing is punctuated by the two protagonists by playful role-playing (both Céline and Julie have a ball taking on different identities by also donning different costumes throughout the course of the movie), an endless string of occasions for giggling fits and what is essentially a cheerful use of childish "drugs" (candy and home-made magic potions) to evoke that crucial, life-giving shared imagination. In a sentence, the psychic ailments typical of adulthood are cured with the spirit typical of childhood.
51 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A celebration of childlike imagination
Corwin-328 December 2001
Movies would seem to be the ideal medium for surrealism, yet there are almost no good surrealist movies. There is the venerable "Un Chien Andalou", and there is "Celine et Julie vont en Bateau", and that might well be the lot. "Celine et Julie" has been one of my favorite films since I first saw it in the 1970s, because it is hypnotic, thought-provoking, mysterious, and funny, all at once. Its overall style could be described as magical realism, in which the quotidian life of Paris serves as a mere background for the magical fantasy life of the protagonists, two young women on a psychic journey, which may or may not end in madness ("vont en bateau", which literally means "go boating", is also slang for "go crazy").

The film is made of moments that seem to happen outside of time. In fact, the passage of time, the succession of events in everyday life, becomes an intrusion on the increasingly shared inner life of the two women, and each takes (hilarious) action to prevent those intrusions from continuing. They determine, in effect, that they must return as adults to their childhood in order to change the past. This may sound like a boring Freudian nightmare, but there is no heavy-handed psychologizing in the movie; it is all play, lighthearted yet beautifully composed. The sound-track is particularly effective, almost hyperrealistic, with no background music. The click of heels on pavement, or the motor of a taxi, loom out of the silence as in a dream, which the movie may be, at its heart.

I give this one a 10. You probably know already whether you would like it. If so, see it in a theater if you can, and on video if you must, but don't miss it.
32 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Luis Bunuel + Lewis Carrol + Laverne & Shirley?
zetes22 January 2002
What an indescribably bizarre film this is. I couldn't relate the plot to you who read this. There really isn't one. Only at the very end of the film did I recognize a bit of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland as being a framework. That novel is mentioned once or twice during the film, but only the last scene rang a bell in my mind. Otherwise, this film is comprised of a lot of random and only peripherally connected sequences involving the two main characters, who are lesbian lovers, apparently. The film is three hours and nineteen minutes long. The available VHS is split into two tapes, of course. The first tape, about two and a quarter hours long, didn't seem to have any internal structure. I very well might just have missed it. But, anyhow, these early and middle sequences are all interesting, some better than others, but they never seem to equal anything. The second tape, however, being a little more than an hour long, is much more coherent, as far as that word can be used to describe anything in this film. Eh, it's really pointless to try to figure this film out. My final assessment is this: it is a very interesting film, but often far too slow and definitely far too long. Too much of it is incoherent, and the characters are unreal, as they are meant to be, but you can't really attach yourself to anything in the film. It's easy to grow bored of it. I like a ton of New Wave films more than this one. However, it is rare that a film beckons me to view it again. Like I said, this is a three hour and nineteen minute long film. When I feel not only the need but also the desire to rewatch it, that has to be taken as some sort of endorsement. 7/10 for now.

P.S. Although I did not get a chance to watch it again, I know I will come back to it someday...
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Two Beautiful Troublemakers Go Boating
Galina_movie_fan10 February 2006
Praised by the critics as "delicate , mysterious, and exiting", "an original and entertaining metaphor for film-watching and, perhaps, film history", and named "The most radical and delightful narrative film since Citizen Kane! The experience of a lifetime" by New York's critic David Thompson, "Celine and Julie Go Boating" (1974) is all of the above but first of all it is incredible fun to watch. This magic candy of a movie tells the story (or rather plays with the story) of two friends, Julie, a librarian and Celine, a magician. The film starts one sunny summer day in Paris when Julie follows running through the park and losing her stuff all over (a scarf, a shoe…) Celine exactly like another girl in the English country side one sunny summer day had followed a White Rabbit into a world of her imagination. Two girls became friends and soon with the help of a magic memory-inducing candy, they both will be the observers and participants in a bizarre soap-opera like drama that takes place in a mysterious house. It involves two stunningly beautiful women, a blonde and a brunette, who are in love with the same man. The man is a widower with a young daughter who had promised his wife that he would not remarry as long as their daughter is alive. When the blonde and the brunette become desperate enough to try to do something about the situation, it is up to Julie and Celine to come up with the plan and to rescue the young girl. Will they go boating? Well, you will have to stay with them for all 193 minutes to find out. Yes, Rivette takes his time but his movie never seems slow or boring. Playful yet complicated, mad and funny, "Celine and Julie" is a magic movie. It grabbed me from the opening scene - which is of course the opening chapter of "Alice in Wonderland" - and it never let go. Buniel would love this movie, I think. It also reminds me of "Mullholand Dr" and even "Persona" but in the absolutely different mode. Simply DELIGHTFUL.
26 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Celine & Julie
M0n0_bogdan31 July 2023
What's not to love here? The pretentiousness, the length, the abstract nature of it all, the meandering, the strange editing choices, the psuedo-meta-experiment nature as well. Strangely, these are the exact reasons to love this, for some...for me, they are not.

This film forces you to engage with it, either way you lose cinephile points. But it's forcing you to do that with no conclusion at the end. With no feeling at the end (or throughout) except the one that you witnessed some sort of cinematic art that is "layered" and filled with "meaning". Its only value is that it creates discourse.

My biggest argument against this is: if there is a young director who makes the same kind of empty "cinematic art" today his film will be instantly shut down by all.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Much Ado About Nothing
mim-815 April 2012
Having read about this movie I decided to give it a go, even though the plot didn't seem to exist in any way that could keep you interested for 30 minutes, let alone 195. I like distinctive and different films, sprinkled with surrealism, as much as I like popular classic cinema, but there has to be something that drives the story, and keeps a viewer follow it through. If the story hangs on a thin line, there has to be something other truly mesmerizing (photography, set design, etc.),that pushes a movie to another level. A series of self indulgent drama class exercises, that drag on for more than three hours, testing the patience of best-intentioned and most willing viewer to it's outer limits, is what happens in Celine and Julie. This is a sort of a movie, that has so little to offer, that your mind keeps wondering to all other places but the screen. Two leading actresses play with each other, and it drags on and on, in most parts looking like a student film of an overly ambitious but less talented student. The trick is, they keep student films to under one hour in duration, and it should have been done with this one, it might have improved it's quality. Story of mysterious house in which strange things happen is marred by silly pastiches of unexplained and often absurd actions two leading ladies undertake, in an effort to solve the mystery that has a self serving purpose, same as the movie which is trying too hard to be incomprehensible, in order to be different. And it succeeds. Whatever frenzied gallery of scenes that have no meaning for the general audience, is shown to you, and the least you understand the intentions and ideas of so called "auteur", more it will be considered by many outside of their intellectual capacity, thus, probably representing something really extraordinary.

Borrowing heavily from Sedmikrásky (1966), Vera Chytilova's pearl of the Czech new wave and world cinema, Jacques Rivette, couldn't emulate it's freshness, playfulness and cinematography, simply because he didn't have the ability, and because he lost any direction he could have had, when he passed the magic mark of about 76 minutes, after which, these fountains of ideas turn to stone. Difference is coherent uniqueness, difference is Kubrick, Teshighara, Clouzot, Truffaut, Kaurismäki. Surrealist is Bunuel, Cocteau, Ferreri... Distinctive is Polanski, Allen, Melville, Hitchcock, Welles. This one is not. No plot, no cinematography, no ideas and several pretty scenes is all there is. Nothing to justify three hours of your life. Avoid.
37 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Phantom Ladies Over Paris
EdgarST3 June 2006
I saw "Céline et Julie vont en bateau" a few years after watching "3 Women" and Claudia Weill's "Girlfriends." The next day I saw it again, and then again and again... This was a time when I was very interested in the depiction of modern women in films: some were quite original and revealing, and this was indeed one of them, dealing with the creative process, and women's imagination. Made in 1974, it had a similar origin as that of "3 Women", in which the female cast (Juliet Berto, Dominique Labourier, Bulle Ogier, and Marie-France Pisier) worked with director Rivette and writer Eduardo de Gregorio on the script. It is also a story of female bonding and solidarity, but instead of relying on dreams, it uses magic and literary sources, Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" being the first to come to mind. Librarian Julie (Labourier) becomes intrigued by weird rabbit-like magician Céline (Berto), but soon one is after the other. They become friends (or sort of) and exchange roles in each other's life, but nobody seems to notice the difference. Then Céline reveals she frequently goes inside an old house where a melodrama is repeated on and on (based on Henry James' "The Romance of Certain Old Clothes" and "The Other House"), enacted by two women (Ogier, Pisier) who are both in love with a very pale man (filmmaker Barbet Schroeder.) In the old house there is also a little girl (Nathalie Asnar) who is in danger, so Céline and Julie become the "phantom ladies" of the title (including Fantômas outfits) to rescue her. This post-modern movie is a puzzle, and the audience is intellectually involved in the making. Critics went crazy and called it "the most important film made since 'Citizen Kane'." I don't know if it is, but I love it: it is funny, demanding, entertaining, and sometimes boring, in the best tradition of Satie's repetitive "Vexations". Reworked as "Desperately Seeking Susan", without acknowledging it.
24 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Experimental, funny, bizarre, one of Rivette's most reputed films
Falkner19764 July 2023
After the immense Out 1, Rivette repeats with Juliet Berto in this fantasy and magic comedy, which is among the author's most valued films. But here it abandons the character of improvisation, although it continues to take advantage of the inventiveness of its actresses in the creation of the story and the elaboration of the dialogues.

Again the nods to Feuillade and Lewis Carroll, if possible more explicit, but also more superficial, than in Out 1. Again a film more than 3 hours long. Again the bizarr and absurd humour.

Personally I find it somewhat disappointing, especially in its second half, where the effervescent tone of the relationship between the two friends is lost, and the film seems to weigh heavily.

Celine and Julie are two girls who seem lost in a time loop that inevitably leads them to meet in a park: once it can start with Julie reading her magic book when Celine appears running and dropping her belongings one by one, and getting Julie to start chasing her; other times it can be the other way around. The film focuses on one of the repetitions of that loop, in which they invent their mysterious relationship with a haunted mansion, where a day more than 20 years ago, when a terrible crime took place, is repeated endlessly in a new time loop. . Or it may be that every time they meet they make up a story about that house they remember from their childhood.

Bulle Ogier, another regular at Rivette's movies, appears as one of the characters in that subplot at the mansion.

The film, as almost always in Rivette, has a certain whimsical and playful tone, much of a formal experiment, and although it seems to want to be faithful to its own rules, the truth is that those rules are so hidden that often there seems to be no rule. Al all.

This is the 1970s, the most experimental phase of Rivette's career, which can be hugely irritating or hugely satisfying, or both.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Long, Slow and Silly
rpjones-1612526 March 2022
Yes, it's playful. Yes, it's pretty. Kind of like an abstract painting that no one can make sense of, yet some people insist it's a masterpiece. The difference is that you aren't forced to look at an abstract painting for three hours and thirteen minutes. Scaled down to 90 minutes, Celine and Julie Go Boating may well have been an enjoyable experience, but at this running time the story loses any sense of structure, the characters become annoying and some viewers may begin to feel like they're wasting a lot of time.

As an exercise in turning on a camera and making it up as he went along, the director Rivette proved that playful self-indulgence has its limits. Listening to Celine and Julie scream and giggle their way through the last hour of the film, like two 12-year olds at a pajama party, becomes excruciating long before the final credits - at long last - begin to roll.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Excruciating
federovsky30 August 2012
Some directors use less than 2% of their footage in the final cut but Rivette must have used 92% of his to make this - perhaps he used absolutely everything, including, apparently, out-takes. Tedium sometimes has a point, but not here. This is annoying-tedium for every scene seems calculated to test our patience. There's no humour or verve or flair or great lines or classic scenes, not even sad attempts at those things, only a forced drollerie that falls flat in every scene There is endless silly giggling, scenes such as those in the nightclub that are just tiresome to watch, fantasy sequences that are presumably meant to look like a corny TV sitcom, but, lacking any scrap of humour, the point is entirely lost and the actors flounder. The girls try far too hard to be cute, and only succeed in being cloying. And I'm waiting for a director to grasp this simple truth: that giving the actors free rein does not make the action more spontaneous and natural, only more strangulated, more self-conscious, more unnatural and cringe-inducing than if they were following a consistent and meticulous script.

After a while you realise Rivette is just playing silly buggers. Fluffed lines are left in, characters glance inadvertently-deliberately at the camera. Rivette will be saying: 'Regard, c'est un film that is pas un film, we're deliberatement toying avec your illusions'. I'm saying: Vous etes un wankeur.

Why three hours? A Senses of Cinema article is eager to explain: 'The tradition of rigid adherence to the 90 minute to 2-hour time frame, enforced by the laws of free market capitalism, is exploded by Rivette. As a filmmaker, Rivette refuses to confine himself to these arbitrary lengths, or to the even more arbitrary, if unspoken, rules about demands on subject matter and mise-en-scène in films of epic length. Instead, Rivette extends the lengths of his films to a point beyond necessity, where it is understood that the film's length in and of itself is a statement about the system he works in and rebels against.' 3 hours simply to defy (capitalistic??) convention? Wankeur.

The audience are the dupes here - poked fun at for trying to apply reality to what is self-consciously only a film. This is not New Wave. I'm gazetting Rivette as a hanger-on, a copyist. He wants to shoot in the style of Rohmer, but he hasn't got Rohmer's indefinable deftness. He wants to break the rules like Godard but he has not got Godard's indefinable style or charisma. He wants to say something meaningful in an offhand way, like Truffaut, but he hasn't got that indefinable intellect for it. All he can do is try. You can feel him trying. It boils down to a single lame joke that isn't funny and a single idea that isn't clever. Three hours of film-flam, tiresome beyond belief.
44 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Lavrene and Shirley In Hell!
hokeybutt13 February 2005
CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING (5 outta 5 stars)

Wow... one of those really great, really strange movies that I love so much! Over 3 hours long but I got so absorbed in the story that I didn't even notice it was that long. I wanted it to be longer, in fact! Kinda hard to describe... sort of a cross between a Bunuel and a Rohmer movie... starring a French Laverne and Shirley. The plot takes its time getting started... but once the premise became evident I was totally hooked! Our 2 heroines take turns going into a strange house. They emerge some hours later, totally disoriented and with no recollection of what happened inside. Later they are able to recall certain events... but not the whole story. This goes on day after day... the exact same scenes take place with the 2 women taking turns playing a nurse to a sick child... who, it turns out, may have been murdered by someone else in the house! But who? The girls keep going back into the house to find out the secret. The 2 women who play the leads are EXCELLENT! They start out not knowing each other but become close friends as the events unfold. They are both slightly kooky and enjoy playing pranks on each other... at times taking over the other person's life while that person is busy in the house. Some of the later scenes in the movie... when the 2 girls go into the house together... are HILARIOUS! I was actually laughing at loud at stuff... but I fully admit that normal people don't always see the humour in the same things that I do. 8) Wow, I need to see this movie again! Will someone PLEASE release it on DVD with a decent picture? This grainy bootleg just doesn't do it justice.
30 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Celine and Julie show us that magic is everywhere
sianc7 May 2006
For over 30 years I have been calling this my favourite film. Like Céline and Julie I was young in 1974, there was magic in the air: dressing up with floating scarves and feather boas brought performance into everyday life, fashionable dalliance with the magic symbols beloved of the Surrealists contrasted brightly with the still fairly recent, drab post-war world. Rivette's film had more than a little of "l'air du temps". So would I be disappointed over 30 years later, seeing the film (subtitled in English) in London's National Film Theatre in May 2006? Emphatically, no. Rivette's genius is to recreate a timeless magic which weaves seamlessly through city streets and gardens and which is to be accessed in a more condensed form in the cinema (symbolised here by the rather more wooden and conventional story within the film) .

This is a film for those who can sit for hours on a park bench in Paris, or at a café table, unaware of the passing of time, but entranced by the details of the surrounding architecture and the glimpsed lives of passers-by. Over three hours long, it is not a film for the person impatient for the plot to race to its conclusion, when every question is answered and every mystery solved.

Magic is the magic of Paris itself. Lingering shots of cats hold our focus on the magic of the prosaic, while also reminding us of witches' familiars. Magic exists in the performance of the magician Céline. The viewer is also reconnected to the magic of childhood. We see Céline in the children's section of the library, and it is with the solemnity of small children that the two girls are happy to substitute the perfume "L'Air du Temps" (ultimately just air) for the element of air in their magic potion. The whole adventure can be seen as a return to childhood, an old photo in a toy box giving us a clue as to the origins of the mysterious house in which the girls alternately act the part of the nursemaid.

It is a film with layer upon layer of allusions. The magic sweets echo the madeleines with which Proust's Marcel regained with immediacy memories of his childhood, just as they echo the magic potion in "Alice in Wonderland".

Humour abounds. Try, if you understand French, to follow the word-play in the original (sometimes necessitating inaccurate translations, as when the punning pair of words "persil" (parsley)/ "esprit" are rendered as "clover"/ "clever"). Delight in the natural exuberance of the two girls as when, fearful of being discovered as one and the same nursemaid in the mysterious house, they almost literally fall about laughing as they try to disguise themselves as mirror images of themselves.

Mirror images and symmetry shape the film, and are extremely satisfying to the viewer. This time round I noticed many details that I hadn't noticed before. In the penultimate scene, for example, both girls are wearing identical boating jumpers. We have to wait for the last scene for the patterns of identity to come full circle.

I think this will always be my favourite film.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
!
findkeep13 March 2002
Halfway through CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING my opening line for this review would have been something like this; "a drawn out, poorly photographed mish-mash of uninspired surrealistic images. However, gradually as the film drew me further into its unescapable web, I began to realize that the films images weren't uninspired, they were simply detached, in the logic of a dream. True to that statement, CELINE AND JULIE is the most realistic demonstration of a dream state I have ever witnessed. It is drawn out, but it's also meditative, not to mention fascinating, and strangely, as in dreams, realistic. Gradually you don't notice the irrationality, like a dream you simply feed off its aestheics. And as the "swiss cheese" plot begins to fill in, your excitment grows as you long for a better understanding. Now, Freuds will no doubt aply their psuedo-symbolism to a film such as CELINE AND JULIE, I myself find it to be a film about a search for inner childhood (notice the "haunted house" plot is the womens attempts to rescue a small girl). It is a film that demonstrates the way imagination gives our lives a needed purpose.
20 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic
Adrian Sweeney28 December 2006
Anyone bored with the mundane in cinema or life should get hold of this by hook or by crook. Enchanting and exhilarating, the film defies precis but revolves around the two adorable loons Céline and Julie, captivatingly played (and brilliantly semi-improvised?) by Juliet Berto and Dominique Labourier - Berto is possibly the most entrancing comedienne/sex goddess since Carole Lombard, but Labourier runs her close here and their chemistry is fantastic. I don't think that most lovely and carefree of things, female friendship, has ever been better captured on film.

The style is somewhere between a slight surrealism and cinema verite - in its blend of the everyday and the utterly bonkers it reminded me a bit of the book 'Zazie in the Metro' - and in many places it's laugh-out-loud funny. The two heroines are drawn to a haunted house, whose ghostly inhabitants recurringly unfold a neurotic melodrama from an earlier epoch, contrasted with and subverted by Céline and Julie's joyous free spirits.

Be warned that you should abandon any modern fidgetiness before embarking: the running time is over three hours, the opening is protracted, and the main plot takes a back seat for around half the duration. If you don't like art-house you won't like this. But somewhere in the universe there is a planet of film-lovers where this is the Christmas movie on every channel in every country every year. I wished it would go on forever and it made me feel reborn.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Celine and Julie Go Boating
jboothmillard10 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
In the book of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die there are some easy titles to remember, and also some titles that mislead or confuse you into what they may be about, and this French film had a bit of both, and I did watch it, from director Jacques Rivette (La Belle Noiseuse). Basically Julie (Dominique Labourier) is reading a book about magic spells, and a woman, Celine (Juliet Berto), walks past dropping various possessions, and she follows her picking them up and seeing where she goes, at one point she loses her, but they catch up with each other. Eventually Celine has moved in with Julie, and they go out to various places using each other's identities, including Celine meeting Julie's childhood sweetheart, and Julie filling in for a cabaret audition for Celine. They are also seen separately visiting a quiet and walled off mansion, seemingly empty, and these visits become repetitive, each entering and disappearing for some time, one of the times they somehow get a special kind of candy. This candy enables Celine and Julie to transport into the house and an alternative reality, seeing the lives of supposedly the house residents, and as they suck the sweets and try to solve a mystery concerning the people. Besides seeing all this stuff Celine and Julie relax by going boating on a placid river with young girl Madlyn (Nathalie Asnar), but by the end of the film you find out that Celine did not leave the bench she was sitting on at the beginning, it was all an Alice in Wonderland style dream, and Julie does walk past again, so she picks up her possessions and presumably it will all happen again. Also starring Marie-France Pisier as Sophie, Barbet Schroeder as Olivier, Philippe Clévenot as Guilou and Marie-Thérèse Saussure as Poupie. Lebourier and Berto give interesting performance, my only problem with this film is that I had pretty much no idea what was going on, it was really confusing; it is only afterwards I can see some of the resemblances to Alice in Wonderland, and I can't agree with the critics' five stars. But there were certainly moments to catch your eye; I would say this is for those who really pay attention to things, but it is not a bad experimental supernatural drama. Worth watching, in my opinion!
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A wondrous trip and a stunning piece of original cinema
MrSqwubbsy29 December 2006
I approached this movie for the 1st time with few preconceptions. The title was vaguely familiar and I'd recently seen Paris Nous Appartient which at least set me up for Rivette's obscure and allusive style of film-making. That was a film which I admired for its atmosphere and direction rather than its now-dated cold war paranoia schtick. The chief drawback for me is its treatment of the lead characters, none of whom one can really feel any engagement with or interest in. When the action peters out, one is left intrigued but ultimately rather empty. Perhaps that was Rivette's commentary on the blankness of the society of the time - the grim late '50s. It's evident that with certain directors, a "macro" perspective of their movies serves one better than attention to matters of plot and character. It's certainly true of Celine et Julie vont en bateau. Don't look for a tight narrative, plot exposition or credible character motivation, you'll find all that in dime-a-dozen movies that will be forgotten before the popcorn's been cleared away. Celine and Julie is a child's adventure, enjoyed by two adult (and rather beauteous) women. It's not a lesbian love story although the intimacy of the characters would normally suggest this. Indeed sexuality is noticeably eschewed and even scorned here. Naturally, because it has no place in the imaginative world of the child which requires freedom not the slavery of innate bodily desires. I found it a pure delight - original (ok,but for dollops of Lewis Carroll), human, engaging and fresh with only a vague taint of early 1970s whimsy despite its age.

As with many of the other posters here, watching this movie was a revelation, like the first time you taste a really good wine or hear Nick Drake. And after 3 and a half hours of patience you feel so glad you didn't get served a typical denouement and that you have, like the main characters, been treated to such a wonderful,wonderful experience. Never mind that all of it is illusory. After all,what else is a movie but an escapist jaunt around another's imagination. Undoubtedly the film's principal theme is childhood innocence and how the child's imagination transforms mundane reality. Inherent in Rivette's treatment is an understanding though that the imagination and reality cannot co-exist for long. One is essentially the enemy of the other and C and J become progressively removed from reality, ending up closseted in their darkened room with their transforming psychedelic boiled sweets and magick potions. Their mission is to save the young girl in the mansion from harm but this is surely heavily symbolic, really they are intent on preserving their own "inner child", their innocent separatism from an evil and unattractive "adult" world (peopled with sleazy club impresarios and Julie's "bandes de maquereaux"). Feeding one's imagination thus (even a deux) is basically masturbatory however, it has no life of its own and the reality it feeds on soon sickens and dies, just as visibly do the 3 characters in the ghostly love-triangle who have become grey and mute by the end of the film. C and J's gauche and unpractised interventions in saving the imperilled young girl remind us that we cannot enter our own dreams without seeing their fundamental flimsiness, they are our creation but are less sophisticated than us - simplified and unreal. The blue-remembered hills are much greyer when seen close-up. The joyous finale tells us that, nevertheless, another adventure always beckons, even if it does simply recycle old elements for new. I'm not sure if Rivette's is a sad or an uplifting message - what do you think?
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Way too slow, no tension or compelling story telling
JumpingCineFile12 August 2022
This film is over three hours long, and is a flaccid drawn out tale of magic.

A story within a story that is retold many times but is presented in such a flat, distant way with static cameras, soft focus shots that it is hard to sit through to the end.

This film came out the same year as "The Conversation", "Godfather part II", "Chinatown", "Blazing Saddles", "The Mirror" and "A woman under the influence", as well as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Watch any of these rather than this film.

Hasn't aged well.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
a film for aging children......
ali-171 October 1999
When I first saw this film I was amazed by it. The freshness and the imagination of the two protagonists, the way in which it recognised the magic (real magic) of Paris, and the strange parallel worlds it created in which Celine and Julie are both deeply involved and creating, and then acting, their own parts. On re-viewing it more than ten years later though, I was surprised to be a little disappointed. The magic is so thin. Celine and Julie have taken the, very conscious and explicit, decision not to grow up, and as a result, although they are beautiful adults, their world is a child's world. Their imagination is child-like, in its imagery (sweets, plastic "dinosaur eyes", rather thin puns), in its chosen surroundings (cases full of dolls), its disasters (a grazed knee), its aims (largely disruption of the concerns of surrounding adults), in its ridiculing of sexuality and its steadfast refusal to admit that fantasy is sometimes, necessarily, dangerous. Without any danger or any desperation, it seemed on second visit a charming but slightly futile game.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A must-see for cineastes
lasttimeisaw29 September 2013
This Jacques Rivette's genre-defying opus is an unsung hero upon its release in 1974, but 40 years later when we are all stumped in light of the cornucopia of derivative outputs, this masterpiece attests that it is never too late to burrow into historical archives, advocate some hidden gems and introduce them to the fast food generation, and CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING could overtly widen one's filmic horizon by its unprecedented storytelling and the contagious jovial aura.

We are like in a blind man's bluff, the film begins with a head-scratching hide-and-seek tailing between Julie, a librarian and Celine, an amateurish magician, we will never know from the context whether they are acquaintances before or the first-sight attraction draws them closer, after a chirpy episode of putting out feelers, they lives together in a small apartment, where Celine casually mentions of her unpleasant experience working as a nanny for a mystified ménage-à-trois family, it intrigues Julie's curiosity, from then on, a very unique ghost-house yarn has been ingeniously unveiled through Celine and Julie's multiple impersonations as the reserved nanny in a boudoir drama.

The film is such a pioneer in its blending liberal modus operandi of whimsicality (the first half looks like everything is done impromptu) with elaborately calculated ad hoc murder scheme, Celine and Julie's laid-back and bubbly kindred spirit permeates the film and modulates its rhythm and pulse up to a labyrinthine fantasy, utterly absorbing and an influential progenitor to many future rule-breakers (MEMENTO 1999, 10/10 for instance).

It is a diptych in its cinematographic style as well, the insouciant nouvelle vague influence vs. a multi-angle observation indoors, which magnify Berto and Labourier's disparate temperaments, intensify Ogier and Pisier's distinctive mystique and functionally wrap us up into this whodunit during the long-haul.

Meanwhile, Rivette adequately leaves viewers many open threads to chew on, like the jumpy inter-cutting of the shots in the house during Celine's magic show, is a perplexing maneuver to lure us into the mystery, and it works. Also, one snippet when they let a coin to decide whose turn to visit the mansion, Julie cannily says "head I win, tail you lose", one should not miss the ephemeral stimulation which plainly gives more credits than its ostensible spontaneity.

At first glance, its 193 minutes running time looks daunting, but as I watched it separately in two days, it turned out pretty well. It is a film can wholly alter one's notion of story-telling in an anti-cinematic methodology, and Rivette pulls it off effortlessly, a must-see for all thirsty film gourmets plus, it has a sterling ending which will make all its time worth the wait.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
wonderfully odd, layered, mysterious, funny, mirrored revisiting the past
netwallah2 February 2006
Wonderfully odd—Julie (Dominique Labourier), a librarian, sees a frazzled Céline (Juliet Berto) hurry by dropping things, and follows her to return them, but before long the presence of the pursuit shifts, and then shifts again, and Céline is staying with Julie and the story blurs. Somehow one of them has the address of a house, 7 bis Nadir des Pommes, and when they go there (separately) they inhabit fragments of some sort of fraught mysterious past. Gradually the two women, as they inhabit each other's lives, also discover they are in turn participants in the melodrama, which they recover by various sorts of magic, until they manage to observe the plot as a whole, revisit the site and take over, rescuing the intended victim, a little girl. The most charming parts of the movie are the pacing (fragmented and slow) and the repetition of the melodrama scenes, intense and scary at first, and then funny as the two women observe and giggle about the overwrought language, and then hilarious as they prance together through the scene once they've mastered it. Rivette plays constantly with following blind leads and verbal jokes and setting up tableaux from different angles, and mirroring—disguised as her friend, Céline dispatches Julie's suitor (and rightly so), while Julie blows Céline's audition for a seedy magic tour to the middle-east – and in the last minutes of the movie, Julie races past Céline in the park, dropping thing, and yes, the chase is on again. The mirroring may have something to do with the most charming part. The inexplicable bond between the two, the way they inhabit each other's minds even as they are just beginning to know each other
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed