Movie Review – Celine and Julie Go Boating

Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974)
Written by Jacques Rivette, Dominique Labourier, Juliet Berto, Eduardo de Gregorio, Bulle Ogier, and Marie-France Pisier
Directed by Jacques Rivette

I’ve noticed certain films rising in popularity, likely due to a recent restoration release. After decades of only existing in poor copies, we now have cleaned-up versions, so the films can be appreciated how their creators intended. Celine and Julie Go Boating is one of those films I see coming across MovieTok or being discussed online. I added it to this list because I was curious about what drew people to the picture. Jacques Rivette is a filmmaker whose work I am fairly unfamiliar with, but he came up with the New Wave filmmakers as a writer/critic at La Cahiers du Cinéma. I knew very little about this film other than it was very improvisational.

Julie sits on a park bench reading a book about magic. Celine walks by and doesn’t notice all the objects she’s dropping as she hurries through the park. Julie picks them up and follows the other woman, even chasing after Celine when she boards a tram. Eventually, the two part ways after goofing around Paris. However, Celine decides she’s going to move in with Julie. At one point, Celine poses as Julie to meet the latter’s childhood sweetheart and rebuff him. Julie stands in for Celine at a cabaret audition; Celine is a stage magician by trade. 

Eventually, the film settles its focus on a large manor home in a wealthy neighborhood in Paris. Celine has memories of working here as a nanny. These flashes reveal two jealous sisters, a widower, and his sickly child. Celine and Julie take turns entering the house and are seemingly transported repeatedly to the same day. When they come back, they have a piece of candy in each of their mouths, and it’s this substance that allows them to control when they go back. A murder takes place, and due to the duo’s ability to keep reliving the same day, they set out to prevent the killing from ever happening.

The first thing I noticed about this movie is that it is long. Now that wouldn’t be such a bad thing if the film had more of a structured plot. Because it is so improvisational I think it should have been shorter. I believe that the looser structured and more stream of consciousness something is, the shorter it should be. You’re asking someone to vibe with your wandering thoughts, which can be taxing. You are pushing it when you ask someone to do that for three hours. I don’t think there’s any improv enough to justify that length of time.

I don’t think this is a bad film, by any means. I can easily see how there is a niche audience for this. Its sense of humor is a French play on Alice in Wonderland with a little Looney Tunes. I saw a great Letterboxd review that said, “Mulholland Drive for French girlies with long attention spans,” that nails the demographic who will eat this up. I can definitely appreciate the amount of work that went into this. The story ends up being cohesive enough that someone on set is paying attention to the details of the improv and ensuring they wrap back around. The writing credits also reference some Henry James writings so they clearly have a foundation to springboard off of.

Our lead characters are less fully realized adults than live-action cartoon characters. Their logic is paper-thin, and they don’t need to be stricter than that. They are never formally introduced to each other; they become aware of the other person’s existence. When Celine decides she wants to move in with Julie she fakes an injury and makes sure that she is found fainted across the stairs of the apartment. The conceit to get these characters together and have them partake in light adventures doesn’t need much justification in the same way I don’t need a lot of exposition to understand why Bugs Bunny & Elmer Fudd end up at the opera.

Some critics view this and similar films as too self-indulgent. While I can’t say Celine and Julie is going on my all-time favorite films list, I understand that Rivette is engaging in experimentation. Capitalism has made movies a predictable experience, as the goal of most Hollywood fare is make a profit. If money is your single goal, you will inevitably skimp on some areas to increase your profit. One of those areas is often the script which ends up being full of cliches and lazy plotting designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. A spectacle rather than something thoughtful is the end product. Spectacle is fine in small doses, but when it’s the entirety of your cinematic diet, you will end up artistically malnourished.

Celine and Julia is clearly an experience that will frustrate many viewers. It’s long and doesn’t have a clear point. Yet, I think we should sometimes feel frustrated when we watch movies. Our default mode as a society has become neutrality or thoughtlessness while we watch most movies. We can predict what comes next because this plot has been recycled hundreds of times. Yet, with a film like this, you have no way of predicting what these women will do next. That provides a sense of spontaneity and aliveness that so few contemporary films can fathom having.

This film explores its themes better than so many other movies and is clearly chock full of references to other pieces of art that it would take several viewings to fully digest everything Rivette and company have thrown into the proverbial pot. The picture is not as clever as the work of Agnes Varda, who is doing similar things but with what I think is a slightly sharper wit about her. Rivette uses mirrors throughout the piece, but I feel Varda understood the mirror better and its cinematic potential. I prefer the structured wandering of Cleo from 5 to 7 compared to the looser, floaty escapades captured here.

If you hold Celine and Julie Go Boating in high regard, I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments. There are several films I didn’t really connect with on the first go, but upon revisiting them years later, I was able to see things I had missed before. Part of what helps with that is hearing what someone who loves the picture has to say about it.