Circa 1974, Amos Vogel wrote that Philippe Garrel was "one of the most unknown important new directors" but "like Werner Herzog, he is too original and self-willed to become popular." What a difference thirty years makes: Herzog's the self-promoter of his folk-art persona, so successful that anyone with a passing interest in cinema knows him, though his work dropped off two decades ago. Garrel's fulfilled Vogel's prophesy—and while nobody's been paying attention, he made one of the Nineties' best movies (J'entends plus la guitare) and, with Regular Lovers, constructs something that spires over this sickly decade in film.

Click here to read more of Nick Pinkerton's indieWIRE review on Philippe Garrel's Regular Lovers, which is, lo and behold, getting a New York theatrical release....

An appropriately impassioned piece about an exemplary film, and I'm very glad it'll be getting a NY release, at least. Caught it at TIFF two years back, and little has left me - the floating, casual texture leaves its mark even as specific incidents pass into forgetfulness, and its beautiful, minimalist depiction of the May days gives the lie to the exploitable nostalgic tripe of Bertolucci's Dreamers. Garrel never frames the "defeat" of the May veterans in the supposed reason of hindsight - and it's telling that the protagonist's ultimate "defeat" is brought about more by an unfortunate whim rather than the dictates of History, particularly as it arrives at the moment of the movement's resuscitation.

Nick's two reviews of "Regular Lovers" (along with a Serge Daney piece on Garrel's "The Secret Child") will be on tomorrow's (1/18/06) Links for the Day at The House Next Door.

Happy, too, that this is getting a release, though as a defender and proponent of Bertolucci's - to my mind - decidedly unnostalgic "Dreamers" (what is the Jean-Pierre Leaud cameo, e.g., if not an acknowledgment that time and perspective have irrevocably changed, that what we see is, in essence, a modern day passion-play re-enactment of '68), I'd prefer it be seen as a complement to Garrel's no-less valid perspective.

There's room for both methinks. Too much prop-one-up/knock-one-out "criticism" out there already, which only causes undue and unnecessary resentments (case in point: http://www.nypress.com/20/1/film/18-FILM.jpg).

In fairness, Keith, I disliked "Dreamers" long before I saw "Regular Lovers", though not in published form, I do admit. And not having seen either for quite a while now, I'd also (perhaps tendentiously) contend that the major difference between them is Garrel's evident belief that time and perspective haven't irrevocably changed, and that what's been "lost" is recoverable.

The man himself, from http://cineuropa.org/interview.aspx?documentID=54441

Q- Apart from a nod towards Bernardo Bertolucci with one of your characters mentioning his film Before the Revolution, how does Les Amants réguliers place itself with regard to Dreamers (2003) which also treated the events of May 68?

A- In no way can I say that I left him in the shade since it was a huge international production and I can’t compete with Gone With The Wind. But in the spirit of a B movie filmed on the sets of A movies, you could say that I pinched the costumes and the extras from Dreamers. Bernardo Bertolucci’s film is, however, very important since it gives a positive vision of the revolution and it toured the cinema theatres worldwide. And that’s rare, apart from Viva Zapata by Elia Kazan.