Small Change (1976) User Reviews

yes! yes!yes!

[hknakna · 8/10 · 25 March 2002]

I've watched many of Truffaut's films and have found most of them to be really quite wonderful. This film has solidified his status in my book as the best of the French New Wave. I've waited to actually say that in print until I'd seen a good number of the offerings from the movement. Godard is too gimmicky, Chabrol too one track(though still well loved), Rohmer too static(but charming),Demy doesn't have the filmography and neither does Resnais or Varda(Demy's wife). Truffaut's films have a sensitivity, an intimacy and a simple quality that speak volumes to me.

Small Change(Pocket Money)has all of those qualities and more. I laughed and I cried but I never once felt that this great director had manipulated me. Sometimes films with children have a tendency to make me feel used. My heart strings pulled in every direction and twisted into every shape. Truffaut had no intention of mauling the senses instead he lets the childrens lives unfold naturally with the joys and sadnesses of all children. It was my very own memory of childhood for there is some child in this film who represents all of us.

The Perpetually Panoramic Playground...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 24 January 2023]

A perpetually retold tale, of preadolescence and how life fails, of how you're story is affected, by your parents, how you're directed; there's no equality in formation, in creation, it's all causation, most horizons are all shaped, by those whose habits, in which you're draped, and there's nothing you can do, no escape, you can't eschew, but you won't know until you're older, when it's too late, the forge just smoulders.

This is a film about parenting, the effect those who bring us into the world have on us, for better or for worse, and the outcomes of those effects. We can all relate to a certain degree on a lot of the themes the film introduces us too, from our own school days, and the ways society might deal with them today, but behind closed doors, when the world is looking away, kids are still as beholden to the powers, of the ones who conjured, their birthday.

One of Truffaut's masterpieces - a brilliant film

[eguirald-1 · 8/10 · 12 August 2001]

This a very French film, with generous helpings of humanity, humour and a sense of poetic realism. It is unpretentious and simple, yet very accurate and witty on its depiction of the realistic/surrealistic world children inhabit. There are several brilliant sequences; for instance, the scene where a rather shy boy (who lives a secluded life with his handicapped father) displays a healthy appetite while sharing a dinner at a schoolmate's home is poignant yet reassuringly lively and optimistic. We are also reminded that children are very resilient (watch the sequence involving the little Gregory and his cat.) With this film, François Truffaut reaffirmed his mastery as a film-maker and urban poet.

Truffaut at his best

[Junker-2 · 10/10 · 19 December 1999]

While Francois Truffaut made many wonderful films, he was always at his best when dealing with children. In "Small Change" he handles many of the same themes as he did in his classic "The 400 Blows." But this time he is capturing the joy of childhood, not the pain. One could say, in fact, that this is "The 400 Blows" with sugar frosting on top. It is a pure delight from beginning to end.

Scenes to watch for: 1) Little Gregory's adventure at the window (a scene that would make Alfred Hitchcock proud), 2) The double date at the movies, and 3) The teacher watching the birth of his first child.

Francois, why did you have to leave us so soon?

Enjoyable slice of film about childhood

[Paul P · 4 May 1999]

Small Change is a movie about the many children in a French town. It will irritate those who want a strong plot line. Although there are a couple continuing threads, particularly about a boy facing physical abuse at home, the film is mostly episodic and jumps randomly among dozens of children and unconnected events. In that sense, it is sort of like the way we tend to remember our own childhoods. I liked the approach.

There are several memorable sequences. I enjoyed the girl who wants to go out to dinner on her own terms and the spur of the moment "double date" at the movie theater.

One of the strengths of Small Change is that doesn't try to play up the cuteness of the child actors or overly-sentamentalize its subject matter. It is about the frustrations as well as the small joys of childhood. The adult characters are also very realistic, some of whom like kids and some of whom don't. The school teachers are the most sympathetic, one of whom seems to articulate the film's theme in a strong a monologue near the end.

Moments of Childhood Closely Observed

[jasonay · 10/10 · 22 April 2006]

Small Change unfolds like a poem - it's a collection of moments, thoughts and experiences, all clustered together to add up to a very significant outcome. What it amounts to is one of the most thoughtful reflections of childhood I've ever seen, given from the perspective of many different age groups.

The film has many scenes that are used as a vehicle to illustrate the differences between children and adults - usually comparing the former favorably to the latter. This is illustrated in a scene where a girl and her father watch two seemingly identical goldfish swimming around in a fishbowl. "That's Plic" says the girl. "And that's Ploc." But her father can't see the difference. A child's superior eye for detail has rarely been so clearly exposed on film.

Most of the vignettes are funny. Some demonstrate childhood resilience, such as a scene where a toddler falls nine stories but is uninjured. Another shows children's uncanny ability to make the best of a bad situation, when a girl left alone at home thinks of an interesting way to draw attention to herself.

But among these funny episodes a more serious situation develops. The movie slowly but sharply draws a contrast between the children who come from loving families, and one child (a youth of about 13) who does not. Moments of this abused child's life are also closely observed - the pain of rejection, the joy of finding coins on the ground at an amusement park, and the innovative schemes to get by and survive. Julien's childhood is shown as a painful period, but an occasionally magical one nonetheless.

What is so pleasurable about viewing Small Change is its simplicity. Most of the scenes are remarkably uncluttered, just like childhood itself.

Unbelievably, this film was rated R upon its original release, then rightfully changed to a PG upon public outcry. A PG-13 would probably be the most appropriate rating, but this classification wouldn't come into effect for another 7 years. Aside from one use of foul language it is completely appropriate for children, but does seem geared primarily towards adults. Because the language is quite simple, it could also be viewed as an ideal movie for second or third year learners of French. Not just for fans of Truffaut, I couldn't recommend this remarkable movie more.

Nice Moments But Not That Sweet Altogether

[jayraskin1 · 6/10 · 1 May 2010]

This is a series of about 20 vignettes about children in a class in a small French town in the 1970's. Five or six of the vignettes are quite nice, but the remainder don't seem to have much substance or make points that may have been easy to decipher by a French audience back then, but is now difficult to understand. This is slightly better than Truffaut's 400 Blows, which I found quite overrated, but not nearly as good as "the Wild Child." The problem is that one is looking for the connection between the vignettes, and although, occasionally, some characters do link up, each episode is really self-contained. Truffaut is distancing us from his subjects, the children. He is almost presenting this as a sociological study of the world of children. Yet, there is no real thesis to take from the movie. What about children is Truffaut trying to say? Or is he trying for some kind of objectivity and not worrying if the material ends up saying nothing? Again, there are some nice moments, (the flying child and the make-out scene in the cinema are my favorite), so see the movie. I just did not find it as engrossing as many other Truffaut films.

clever portrait of children

[madrig80 · 8/10 · 14 January 2004]

Instead of characterizing children as angelic creatures without personality or true emotions, Truffaut portrays them as they are: young people with their own dreams and everyday problems. This movie is funny and touching, never slow and always enjoyable.

Truffaut's child-world

[AndreaValery · 7/10 · 31 July 2005]

SOME COMMENTS COULD BE CONSIDERED SPOILERS

Only François Truffaut could transmogrify a series of banal, almost humdrum, scenes from the lives of children in a small French town into an experience that gains in enjoyableness with each viewing.

He is a master of the ordinary, the quotidian, using everyday events to piece together a patchwork of commentary, reprimands, warnings and frustrations in such a way as to hold our interest and stimulate discussion.

There is, however, little that is original in this movie. He does not so much break ground as get things off his chest. It is autobiographical in the sense that Truffaut was traumatized by his unhappy childhood and so idealizes children, attributing to them a likableness and an incongruous maturity that they may not have in real life. I do not mean to denigrate children, but from the first scene to the last, the viewer is being lectured on how to raise children.

There are three instances of parental neglect. Two of them - where kids are left alone in the house - are treated lightheartedly. I presume this is because he did not want his film to be a tragedy and so opted for happy resolutions.

Mr. Richet and Miss Petit say the most commonplace things, both in the classroom and to one another. When they discuss exhibitionism, Truffaut turns a dreadful classroom problem into something easily solved through the magic of an understanding and wise teacher. Would that it were that simple!

Likewise, the initiation of children into the chaotic world of eroticism and rivalries is depicted as being relatively easy to accomplish. These scenes of children trying to be adults in love were the least successful, in my opinion, because they were too obviously a contrivance.

The breast-feeding scene, despite its delicacy, cannot escape the inevitable trap of being both cloying and didactic. We can almost hear him pleading with us to recognize the beauty of motherhood. Again, I must emphasize that I do not disagree with him, But I was aware of being preached at.

Mr. Richet's soapbox speech - the film's culminating scene - reveals to us the director's inner motivations. Instead of stressing the need for firmness, discipline or realistic goals in the raising of children, he delivers a hackneyed cliché from the school of progressive pedagogy - that children should have their own political representation! Then, they could enjoy so many benefits, such as exemption from punctuality. One can only assume Truffaut was never called upon to resolve the contradiction inherent in this movie - that children should be cared for and loved on the one hand, and at the same time given whatever they desire. He has allowed his own personal suffering and resentments to cloud his judgment.

Despite these reservations, the film has great class and elegance. The actors (or non-actors) are wonderful.

There is perhaps one comment made by Mr. Richet that merits special attention. He notes the emotional regression suffered by boys who are switched from a boys' school to a mixed environment. At one time it was normal to separate the sexes. This was done not out of prejudice, but out of the realization that many problems can be avoided this way.

Finally, this intimate glimpse of rural France of 30 years ago stirs up much nostalgia, since the troubling and possibly unsolvable social problems of today make the capers of the kids in this film seem like...well, small change.

Charming! Wonderful!

[jeek · 10/10 · 20 September 2002]

I watched this movie with my girlfriend one night, and she commented on the fact that the children never change clothes. At first I thought she was referring to the poor, abused child. But I noticed that the costumes for the other children remained the same. I studied film in college, and I thought for a long while why Truffaut would want to keep the costumes the same. My theory is that Truffaut wanted to capture these kids at one certain point in there lives where they don't change. Children grow up so fast, they become teenagers, then adults. By the time adulthood sets in, they've become somewhat jaded by the world around them. By keeping the kids in the same costumes, I think Truffaut is trying to capture the moment in there lives where they remained the same. Although first love and heartbreak is inevitable, at least, for one brief period, we see these kids in a state of grace. I think this point is also strengthened by the fact that Truffaut used the children's real names for their roles.

This is the type of film parents wished were made more often, except when these films are made, nobody goes to see them (Another good example of a family film that bombed is "Searching For Bobby Fisher"). This is the perfect family film. It's charming, touching and filled with laughter. No wonder Steven Spielberg suggested it to Truffaut.

If this film doesn't touch your heart, you probably don't have one.

a rambling yet involving story of children's lives

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 26 August 2006]

This is one of the more free-form movies I have ever seen, as the movie is less a traditional movie and more a long series of often non-connected as well as inter-connected episodes from the lives of young children in a French town. It looks an awful lot like a documentary without narration and is highly reminiscent of the Italian Neo-Realistic films (that starred non-actors in ordinary situations). So, if you are the type person that MUST have a traditional plot or actors who seem like actors, then this is NOT the film for you. Instead, the many children act out so many normal parts of childhood that are never really discussed in other films--ranging from the mundane, to the funny to the very poignant. I didn't mind this episodic aspect of the film and the movie's focus on the kids, their teachers and the school reminded me of other wonderful French films, such as IT ALL STARTS HERE.

Some of the moments are pretty cute. I particularly liked the stubborn little girl who was left home by her parents after they refused to see her logical "need" to bring her filthy elephant purse with her to the restaurant. She sure got back at them!!! Her father was the local police chief and she used his bullhorn to announce that she was hungry and all the neighbors mobilized to feed the kid--and thereby punish her well-respected dad for leaving her at home! The most poignant part of the film involves a lost soul who is placed in the school by the welfare authorities towards the end of the school year. Although this boy looks disheveled--wearing the same dirty clothes day after day--no one seems to notice. That is until late in the film when it is discovered, accidentally, that he's been horribly abused and neglected. This leads to a somewhat preachy conclusion where the school teacher accurately assesses the way many adults and politicians ignore kids' plights. This is PURE Truffaut, as he himself was a "lost soul" from a broken home and was a product of the welfare and court system. This is a VERY frequent theme in his films--particularly his Antoine Doinel films (starting with the semi-autobiographical THE 400 BLOWS).

A very unusual and interesting film that might not appeal to everyone. But, nonetheless, a very satisfying film.

One word of note: There is a very brief topless scene in the film. While it is appropriate to the context, parents may choose to either not let their kids see the film or just skip past this scene in the playground.

Children's realm.

[dbdumonteil · 8/10 · 15 August 2001]

When this film was released,one French critic,Gilles Colpart wrote that TRuffaut did better when he focused on a main character,Antoine Doinel,for instance.At least here,we do not have to stand Jean-Pierre Léaud's mannerism.The people who watch Léaud's movies dubbed in English cannot imagine how lucky they are.Gone is Léaud,gone is Truffaut's sometimes smugness and pretension.Here we find what Truffaut does best:a movie about children played by children (he had brilliantly succeeded in the very hard task of bringing Victor the "wild child" to the screen)A lot of humor (a quality that is not generally Truffaut's forte),a lot of plots and subplots masterfully intertwined,no stars ,and a lot of spontaneity too.These vignettes are often delightful:the reluctant student declaiming Molière,the girl who "has already slept with a boy"(What did he do when you were in bed?her best friend asks-Oh,he read a comic strip, was the answer),the boy who says to his friend's mother "thanks for this frugal meal" after having swallowed a whole lot of food.But Truffaut,present in the movie through the schoolteacher character,does not give up more serious topics:here mistreated children.After he discovered one of his pupils suffered such physical cruelty,the schoolteacher explains this problem to his school mates with delicacy and intelligence,as if they were adults.Don't miss this simple,yet heart-warming movie.

Gregory fait boum!

[kyrat · 6/10 · 25 April 2010]

Saw this film in Jr. high french class decades ago. At the time we thought the "Gregory go boom" scene was the funniest we had ever seen and we quoted it for years afterwards.

I checked this film out from the library because it was Truffaut and had seen it on some the Friends section of Netflix. I didn't even realize I'd seen it until Gregory appeared using his baguette as a walking stick - and then that scene came rushing back to me.

The film is a bit slow. But an interesting coming of age vignettes combined with a view of 70's small town France.

Worth watching if you like French films or coming of age stories.

Les enfants ennuyants

[LCShackley · 5/10 · 2 July 2009]

If you read capsule plot summaries about this slow, meandering film, you might think it was about a teacher who helps an abused child. Well, that story is hidden somewhere in here, but it's surrounded by lots of cloying, cutesy scenes about childhood that don't have much to do with anything at all.

There are some humorous moments, but they are few and far between. There are far too many "aww...isn't that sweet" moments that might please those who get emotional in a Hallmark Card store.

A couple of the amateur young actors are strong enough to carry a scene, but most of them aren't, which becomes annoying after awhile. And speaking of annoying, Charles Trenet, who once sang the immortal song "La Mer," delivers one of the most banal, trite movie songs ever written. Other low-budget features, such as the stuffed doll substituting for a falling child, and the poor lighting effect of people watching a movie (in which it's obvious that the movie is being projected right on their faces), seem to indicate that the production team just wanted to get this over with as quickly and cheaply as possible. After all, they had to watch all the footage BEFORE it was edited, which must have been sheer torture.

Truffaut has done SO much better so many times; why bother with this one?

Almost Perfect

[whiterat1 · 19 August 2000]

This is a beautiful movie. It portrays the drama of childhood very realistically and accurately captures the workings of children's minds as they try to make sense of a world that seems tremendously confusing at times. The film deals with all aspects of childhood, from school cafeterias to child abuse, without much adult interpretation of the events. For the most part Truffault is an observer who simply takes the world of these children for what it is: an incomplete, thus innocent, mysterious reality to be figured out by the children in due time. The only time in the movie where he does not do this is the speech by the teacher towards the end of the movie about childrens' rights and the formation of a childrens' political party or some such nonsense (very French--I suppose all French movies must have a "French" moment or two, so all is forgiven).

That having been said, this movie is brilliant and Truffault remains a master, in my eyes.

Pocket Money

[darth-chico · 10/10 · 2 October 2001]

I have a love for movies with no real plot. Small Change is a perfect example of this. Instead of relying on a story to express his ideas, Truffaut uses small vignettes, sometimes hardly related to the main body of the film at all. What this creates is a portrait of the small town in which these people lives. Truffaut captures the entire spectrum of human emotion. 10/10

Sweet, funny and relaxing

[Artêmis · 9/10 · 13 May 2000]

I must confess that I wasn't expecting much about this movie. I decided to watch it because it was from the very critically acclaimed François Truffaut. And, somehow, because it's French, and I really like the way European movies are, specially French, Spanish and Italian ones. These languages and Portuguese have many points in common, being most of the words derived from a similar in Latin. So, you have a idea of what the characters are really saying. Sometimes when you watch a movie without knowing anything about the language, you can't judge the acting, know if the character is happy, angry, being ironic. You must trust in what's written in the captions.

In less than 20 minutes I was completely involved and interested in the history. There isn't a big or strong plot line, being it about a small group of children in a small town in France. We can say it's a mix of comedy with drama although most of the times we watch a pleasant or sweet situation. Some of them are extremely funny.

If you don't like movies where children are the main characters, stay away from "L'Argent de Poche". But if you find them cute and sweet it's highly recommendable. And if you at least respect them, it's a must watching movie too (remember: it's Truffaut's!!!). As a movie from a good director, the photography, art direction, the camera movements, etc, are perfect. It's, definitely, a pleasant and light movie to watch.

Graded: A-

Fun! French!

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 22 April 2016]

In the town of Thiers, summer of 1976, teachers and parents give their children skills, love, and attention. A teacher has his first child, a single mother hopes to meet Mr. Right, another mom reaches out to Patrick, a motherless lad who is just discovering the opposite sex.

When released, "Small Change" amassed critical acclaim. It was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. Vincent Canby called it "an original, a major work in minor keys" and Pauline Kael described it as "that rarity, a poetic comedy that's really funny." Roger Ebert named it his favorite of the year, calling it a "magical film" and singled out the windowsill scene as "Truffaut at his best." Leonard Maltin gave the movie four stars (out of four) and called it "wise, witty and perceptive." The film was also entered into the 26th Berlin International Film Festival.

Indeed, it is a pretty good film. What strikes me is how very American it seems. This means either that Truffaut was emulating American independent film of the 1970s or that the 1980s American film was influenced by "Small Change". I am not sure which.

Simply great

[zoemanning · 10/10 · 8 October 2004]

I watched "Small Change" on DVD at a single sitting, which is rare for me because I usually can't sit still for the duration of a DVD movie. The story got my full attention, and after less than 30 minutes, I have already bonded more or less with the characters. The entire cast was excellent, especially the children who are really delightful to watch.

It would be unfair to say that the plot lacks fluidity, but I was more taken with the many individual moments of brilliance. Some of the scenes (SPOILERS) are really simple and yet memorable. My favourites are Little Grégory and the cat, Sylvie with her father's megaphone, the children's pulley system that would have made MacGyver proud, and the setup for the kissing finale. I can't imagine such scenes being filmed today without being overly-pretentious or condescending.

All in all, Small Change is a great movie which reminded me of the silly things I've done in my childhood. It's definitely worth watching again.

Times they are a changing

[georgejmyersjr · 7/10 · 21 October 2005]

I read this film was actually a documentary/social psychology film. At the time, or the time it relates to, France was going coeducational after many years of different classes for boys and girls (see the psychiatrist Lacan, Foucault's "History of Sexuality" volumes, etc. English attributes sex to "French" for some subconscious reason, does it not?) and the film, which I saw at a University, was much better than "Goodbye Mr. Chips" or "The Lady Vanishes". The toddler falling out the window unhurt makes the film even seem surreal, like a long patriarchal myth, an enjoyable one though, (for a change, no?) I enjoyed it as a wonderful story, a chance to go to France for a couple of hours and "meet you at Mao".

C'est Magnifique!

[Sylviastel · 10/10 · 6 December 2003]

This film is one of the best French films that I have ever seen recently. It is no wonder that French filmmakers like Francois Tuffaut are brilliant and terrific storytellers. Despite being released in 1976, it still has the ability to remain fresh and wonderful today like a brand new film. The story is wonderfully told with great acting and writing. If you don't know French, you don't have too to see this film. You could learn from watching the wonderful visual scenery and the children's acting ability. They are all natural. This is a great French film and a wonderful film overall. I bought it for $5.00 in a local supermarket. It's worth more than that. The children in this story grow up as we do.

The Wild Child's.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 7/10 · 9 April 2018]

Knowing about a French and 1970's challenge coming up,I decided that I would cross both,by watching a double bill of titles from auteur François Truffaut. While trying to decide what movies to go for,I was surprised to see a DVD of this appear in a local shop,which led to me giving out some small change.

View on the film:

Spending most of his credits following outside rebels, co-writer/(with regular collaborator Suzanne Schiffman)directing auteur François Truffaut takes a complete left-turn,with his warmest,most optimistic creation. Reuniting with cinematographer Pierre-William Glenn, Truffaut & Glenn build on the experimentation in their A Gorgeous Girl Like Me and Day For Night team-ups (1972 & 1973-both also reviewed) with fluid, documentary- style camera moves creating an incredible personal atmosphere.

Keeping the camera at a child's height, Truffaut displays a playful side via darting tracking shots capturing the mischief the kids make for the adults. Not limiting themselves to one child, the writers thread vignettes with amazing warmth and humour that span the playground and the dining table,to the children saving their small change.

Best movie I've ever seen

[zachsaltz · 10/10 · 6 August 2003]

"L'argent de poche (Small Change)" is one of the most wonderful, joyous, beautiful films ever made. It is Truffaut's finest film, a flipside, of sorts, to his epic "The 400 Blows".

The film is about childhood, plain and simple. The pains of adolecence, the enchantment of learning, the tediousness of school, kins, foes, the discovery of the opposite sex. Like "The 400 Blows", Truffaut sees his young protagonists not in a satirical or sarcastic way, but with genuine sincerity; these are people, too, and they're not stupid.

There is very little story. The story exists in the day-to-day adventures of various French children: Julien, an outsider from an abusive household; Patrick, the helpless young Don Juan who is still unsure of girls; Sylvie, the scheming daughter of the police chief; little Gregory, full of the zest for discovery; and the parents and teachers who play important roles in their lives.

There are many times when we, the adult audience, do not know whether to laugh or cry. We laugh because the children are cute and funny doing the silly things they do; but we cry because we remember doing those same things. And then there are the scenes involving the various adults, particularly the Prof, which remind us why adults are so important in the lives of children, even if it may not entirely seem so.

I would like to point out a few scenes which are among the finest I've ever seen in modern cinema: when Patrick and his friend attend the cinema with some girls; when little Gregory chases a cat outside his apartment; when one of the boys tells a dirty joke, but doesn't quite fully understand it; when Sylvie uses her father's blowhorn to turn the tables on her parents; when Richard is given a haircut by his friends; and when Patrick buys flowers for his friend's mother, of whom he's slightly smitten with.

But there is one scene here that captures the agony, wonderment, beauty, obliviousness, hilarity, and enchantment of childhood to its fullest: it is the last scene, when Patrick finally finds true love. The way Truffaut sets up the scene, the cinematography and the facial expressions of the children, make this scene rival the final scene of "Casablanca".

"L'argent de poche" is probably the best movie I've ever seen. Maybe it's because I'm a softie or that I'm nostalgic or that I love children, but this movie is life-affirming and represents everything wonderful about the cinema.

Charming

[Morten_5 · 6/10 · 28 December 2017]

The seventeenth film directed by François Truffaut, "Small Change" (1976) is a charming depiction of life in a French town in the 70s, focusing on a group of children and their everyday lives.

/Mårten Larsson

The Real Skinny: A Boring, Unrealistic Film

[pierremichel7 · 1/10 · 4 September 2005]

Truffaut is supposed to be some sort of genius director, therefore it follows that every film he made was a little masterpiece, right? Wrong!! Pocket Money is a really bad film. It fails in almost every respect.

It pretends to be realistic, but there is nothing real in the children as portrayed in the film. Rather, Truffaut was kowtowing to his critic friends by showing them what they wanted to see rather than make an honest movie.

The acting was also really bad, which people tend to gloss over because these are child actors and children for the most part can't act. But still, it's painful to watch their stilted deliveries. Then again, Truffaut was never one to see the difference between good and bad acting as evidenced by his reliance on Jean-Pierre Leaud, France's answer to Freddy Prinze Jr.! But the worst is the the movie fails to entertain. It is a boring chose to watch it. If you want a good Truffaut movie, Watch Farenheit or Day for Night.