This is what happens when you spend so much time crafting the setting you forget that you have to put a story in as well. Play Time is another example of Tati's inability to mesh his visual skills with communication skills (does it kill you to interact with the gosh-darn audience!?!?!). While the movie looks fine and dandy on the outside, and features grand cinematography; it feels like an utterly incomplete film with its lack of plot, lack of direction, refusal to edit anything unnecessary, lack of memorable scenes, lack of memorable characters, and overall lack of mercy towards the audience by crafting a 120+ minute movie out of something that could have been told in a mere half an hour. Jaques Tati has an eye for the camera, but lacks the heart and lacks the edge that allows for him to excel in levels that Chaplin, Keaton, and then Chan achieved; the previous three actor/directors created memorable characters as well as good settings that allow them to compose their magic (in the case of Chaplin it's his bittersweet slapstick comedy, for Keaton it's his timing and slapstick, and Chan it's his fight choreography and incredible physical stunts).
Despite what the modern-day critics say, the audience during the 60s had it right when they refused to see it (resulting in the bankruptcy of Tati); they didn't like the total lack of story and the lack of the lead character. Come to think of it, there really wasn't a lead character. There wasn't a plot either, well, sort of. The movie follows tourists roaming around a technologically-advanced but emotionally-deprived Paris. The movie is split into five parts, with the insanely-long restaurant scene taking up half the movie. The rest of it are sequences of the tourists, and especially the main character Mr. Hulot having trouble adapting to the world he is visiting. The standout quality of this movie is the setting, which took years to build and perfect. Kind of like the architectural version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it predated the lifeless buildings and plethora of spacious cubicles that we now see everywhere in businesses of America.
The sets look fantastic (and expensive) and ultimately becomes the most interesting aspect of Play Time, as the audience you are instantly engaged in the area as we see long shot after long shot of the major skyscraper-like structure where most of the movie takes place and the adjacent buildings surrounding it. The sound effects of Play Time are also ahead of its time, and they add to the ruptured realism of the soulless society surrounding the cast of characters.
The irony is, the film itself (which is about a lifeless assortment of buildings in an emotionally dying area) lacks any spice and life itself. What on earth did we learn about the characters? How did they develop? What did they learn? Did WE as an audience take away anything from this film? There was such a lack of Mr. Hulot, its almost pathetic to consider him the lead actor at all. The entire movie was a test of your patience as what you saw was not a film, but a man with a camera showcasing what he could do with a lot of money, what he could create with enough funding. Okay, the city looks great Tati, now what happens in it? 125 minutes later, you still don't really know. In Mein Onkel, you at least had some memorable characters doing memorable scenes and at least had some funny interactions as well as good scenery. In this movie, there just isn't much heart and just isn't that ability for you to sympathize with what's going on and who is being affected. Playtime was an expensive sandbox that Tati worked with, and it led to financial failure and the departure of a director that had so much potential but failed to evolve as a storyteller, instead being a director that loved the scenery around him. One would wonder what he could have accomplished as a cinematographer.
Bottom Line: It's just so boring from start to finish; luckily there was some eye candy to keep your interest up for a few extra minutes before hitting the big snooze and allowing the Zs to engulf the entire room. Great sets and eye candy is marred by the inability to tell a coherent story, the inability to fray off the random assortment of scenes, and inability to keep things short and simple. How can something so pretty be so dull at the same time? Once again looking in the other direction from other critics, Play Time is leagues below the best Tati film, and is leagues below the average film, yesterday, far yesterday, and today. The best that can come from this is good practice and teachings for aspiring photographers who need to learn how to take good shots and from what angles work best. This movie uses the camera well, but once the running time extends past 20 minutes, you realize you are pretty much watching a picture that movesdoesn't speak, doesn't evolve into something interesting..it just moves a little. Just take a random snapshot of Play Time, and you have the entire movie. Where is a good writing team when you need them (perhaps leaving Tati alone as he finishes building his massive toy). Sorry, but major thumbs down in this overlong, overdrawn production.
Despite what the modern-day critics say, the audience during the 60s had it right when they refused to see it (resulting in the bankruptcy of Tati); they didn't like the total lack of story and the lack of the lead character. Come to think of it, there really wasn't a lead character. There wasn't a plot either, well, sort of. The movie follows tourists roaming around a technologically-advanced but emotionally-deprived Paris. The movie is split into five parts, with the insanely-long restaurant scene taking up half the movie. The rest of it are sequences of the tourists, and especially the main character Mr. Hulot having trouble adapting to the world he is visiting. The standout quality of this movie is the setting, which took years to build and perfect. Kind of like the architectural version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it predated the lifeless buildings and plethora of spacious cubicles that we now see everywhere in businesses of America.
The sets look fantastic (and expensive) and ultimately becomes the most interesting aspect of Play Time, as the audience you are instantly engaged in the area as we see long shot after long shot of the major skyscraper-like structure where most of the movie takes place and the adjacent buildings surrounding it. The sound effects of Play Time are also ahead of its time, and they add to the ruptured realism of the soulless society surrounding the cast of characters.
The irony is, the film itself (which is about a lifeless assortment of buildings in an emotionally dying area) lacks any spice and life itself. What on earth did we learn about the characters? How did they develop? What did they learn? Did WE as an audience take away anything from this film? There was such a lack of Mr. Hulot, its almost pathetic to consider him the lead actor at all. The entire movie was a test of your patience as what you saw was not a film, but a man with a camera showcasing what he could do with a lot of money, what he could create with enough funding. Okay, the city looks great Tati, now what happens in it? 125 minutes later, you still don't really know. In Mein Onkel, you at least had some memorable characters doing memorable scenes and at least had some funny interactions as well as good scenery. In this movie, there just isn't much heart and just isn't that ability for you to sympathize with what's going on and who is being affected. Playtime was an expensive sandbox that Tati worked with, and it led to financial failure and the departure of a director that had so much potential but failed to evolve as a storyteller, instead being a director that loved the scenery around him. One would wonder what he could have accomplished as a cinematographer.
Bottom Line: It's just so boring from start to finish; luckily there was some eye candy to keep your interest up for a few extra minutes before hitting the big snooze and allowing the Zs to engulf the entire room. Great sets and eye candy is marred by the inability to tell a coherent story, the inability to fray off the random assortment of scenes, and inability to keep things short and simple. How can something so pretty be so dull at the same time? Once again looking in the other direction from other critics, Play Time is leagues below the best Tati film, and is leagues below the average film, yesterday, far yesterday, and today. The best that can come from this is good practice and teachings for aspiring photographers who need to learn how to take good shots and from what angles work best. This movie uses the camera well, but once the running time extends past 20 minutes, you realize you are pretty much watching a picture that movesdoesn't speak, doesn't evolve into something interesting..it just moves a little. Just take a random snapshot of Play Time, and you have the entire movie. Where is a good writing team when you need them (perhaps leaving Tati alone as he finishes building his massive toy). Sorry, but major thumbs down in this overlong, overdrawn production.