inframan This is without doubt a very challenging movie to watch. To watch intelligently, with concentration, attention & focus. It is the very antithesis of American TV fodder & most Hollywood product. No quickly identifiable yuk-yuk archetypes: you know, the NERD, the BABE, the HUNK, etc etc.Not even any references, subtle or otherwise, to The Honeymooners or I Love Lucy or Casablanca. No (gratuitous) use or mention of IPods or CellPhones. Good grief. How are people supposed to IDENTIFY? Sorry gang. This one might even demand that one be a bit familiar with Pirandello or Ingmar Bergman (I'll bet Woody would give his eye-teeth to have made this) to say nothing of some fundamental understanding of the basic underpinnings of Western Culture (well, they did used to teach this things in better colleges not that long ago).But that's the whole problem. It's a cerebral movie, as are most of the best French films going back about 80 years or so. It does take patience & focus to appreciate. But that's why I love it. It ain't fast food. It's not instant gratification. I don't mind watching it in segments. Even going back & replaying scenes.It's almost like Reading A Good Book! I look forward to watching this film another half dozen times, at least. The way I do all the best movies, from Top Hat to Children of Paradise to Woman of the Year to Seven Samurai. Or as I listen to Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Mozart. Or reading Murakami or Saramago or Banville.I guess this is a film for grown-ups. Which I guess could be a marketing problem for its distributors.

tnrcooper Some of the reflexive anti-French vitriol below is regrettable-opining that Rivette may have been on the government payroll all his working life (un peu jaloux, non?) and in suggesting that French films are made solely for their director's enjoyment and that they are "overly intellectual". Interesting. Very rarely here about anything being "overly destructive" or "overly violent". Cependant. I can never understand anti-intellectualism. Is it bad to be intelligent? You don't often hear people lamenting movies for being excessively dumb. OK, sorry....just read all forty comments so far and the vitriol is running strong about this movie, not sure why. I agree, it's not the best French comedy. In fact, I think calling it a comedy is bit disingenuous. This really is a farce, in the best sense of the word. There aren't huge laughs to be had here, more nods and chuckles of recognition and appreciation. I would give it about 8.4/10. If you want good recent French comedies, check out The Dinner Game, The Taste of Others which are both very funny. But this is nevertheless a well-made, competent film about the complexities and complications of peoples' love lives and how the actions of two will pinball and spin off and effect others. Wow, Dominique (Helene de Fougerolle) is a stunner. OK, got that out of the way. Fine performances in particular from the somewhat neurotic, insecure actress Camille (Jeanne Balboni) who reminded me of some of Diane Keaton's classic characters in her personality and also her put-upon-and-pressured-and- stressed-wants-to-do-the-right-thing-but-it's-not-easy director and co-star in their production, not to mention her boyfriend, Ugo (Sergio Castellito) who seems like a fundamentally good guy who is, as I mentioned, stressed out and totally in lust with Dominique (and who can blame him?) but seems to want to remain loyal to the flighty and confused Camille. Rivette seems quite accomplished in that one's loyalties (if one can stay awake-I agree, some more judicious editing might have been in order) switch during the film and one finds one's affections for the film's characters shifting. Initially, one seems sympathetic to the scholarly philosophy professor (Jacques Bonaffe) and perhaps a little antagonistic toward Ugo for his impatience with Camille and the sense that he might be a little boorish. And one seems sympathetic to Sonia (Marianne Basler) also as she seems the least neurotic of the four main characters and as, perhaps the character to ground the others in reality. However she turns out to have her own skeletons and isn't what one might at first expect. And, well, let's just say you probably won't think quite as highly of Pierre by the end of the film while Ugo seems more honorable and straight forward. I liked that Rivette allowed Camille and Sonia to work together a little bit in spite of Sonia's quite reasonable distaste for Camille. Rivette-characteristically for French films as against US films, at least generally speaking-allows us to have mixed feelings about characters. That's how things are in real life anyway, right? People are not all good or bad.However, a couple of serious questions, and I'd love to read any future commenters answer these questions for me.1. How does Arthur (Bruno Tedeschini) know Sonia has a nice ring? 2. Why is Arthur content at the end of the film? 3. Why would Sonia be so amenable to Pierre at the end?Those three significant questions aside, still really enjoyed this film. Yes, it is overlong, but if you can hang through the first 25 minutes of the film and you see where the film is heading, and if you like a film that allows its characters to develop and reveal different sides, and find out that folks often aren't as they seem, this could well be a very enjoyable film for you.

seeb This is an interesting, yet at times boring movie. It is not boring necessarily because you get bored while watching, but it's because you don't get attached to any of the characters for a long time. There are two stories going on. They are intertwined. The story of the play that we don't understand much about, except seeing the possible alterego of our main woman character and also of course there is the story of these six individuals, three men and three women. They are all in search of something literally or symbolically.While watching this film, you might pause, have some dinner, go back, continue. The phone rings, you forget about it, start watching again, and fall asleep. The next morning, you wake up, decide to watch, you think of looking it up at IMDb and you just do that. Throughout the film, there is a huge amount of feeling going back and forth, but we all (together with the director, the movie cast and the crew) watch it all happen as if it's not even happening. In a way, the movie is too French-cool, which also makes it unique. This attachment I am talking about, because of its non-existence, you might just end up finishing the film in three days, but maybe the more crucial thing is that no matter what, you do wanna go back and see what's haunting you. You can't let go. In a way, that's exactly what the main character feels. She can't let go either. There is something calm about her, something serene. We are not impressed at first, but slowly she becomes a goddess of determination and genuineness. Yet, there is something that triggers her mind and it steals her peace.Luckily as time goes on, we observe her internal-peace-movement. In this sense, this movie is either very successful and it gave me the exact feeling, or maybe I am overly empathetic : )It did take me 3 days to watch, with numerous interruptions of daily life, and I even stopped watching now and started writing this review.Yes, I do not know the ending yet. Do watch it, if you are someone who does a lot of thinking about the complexities of interpersonal relationships (especially about romantic ones), but make sure you are patient, interested, and ready to think.

GasperUK Having read many of the comments of "Va Savoir" here, (admittedly mostly from the other side of the Atlantic), I was surprised by the amount of hostility towards this film.Whilst I admit that it may have benefited from a little judicious editing, perhaps down to around two hours, this seems to me to be a well acted and entertaining slice of french life. The fact that the main characters are involved in the theatre is entirely secondary since their "real" lives depicted here are infinitely more interesting than the characters being portrayed in the Pirandello play. Perhaps that was the point. There are enough sub-plots and unanswered questions relating to the fully rounded, three dimensional characters to keep the average viewer engrossed for the length of the film. They do not conform to stereotypes and it is not possible to pigeon-hole them. We find out much more about them as the film progresses. This is a film about people, their interwoven histories, and the formation of new relationships.Jeanne Balibar's performance, seemed to me, complex and mature. Initially, I found her portrayal cold and unemotional, but this I believe was intentional and as the film progresses, she is revealed as a complicated and enigmatic character, capable of intense emotions but also of granting sexual favours just to create a diversion.There is also a fine performance from Sergio Castellitto as Ugo, entirely convincing, except perhaps in his refusal to bed the truly delicious "Do" played by a ravishing Hélène de Fougerolles, (surely another French actress destined for greatness). Indeed, Jacques Rivette seems to have nurtured excellent performances all round.Whilst this is not a perfect film, it offers more than enough to warrant a few short hours of your time. This is a fine French film, which will remain in your memory for sometime to come and compared with much of Hollywood's current output, is a mature and thought-provoking piece of film making. Open a good bottle of red Bordeaux and settle down with its cinematic equivalent.