Le Belle Noiseuse

Jacques Rivette’s own, full length, version of his 1990 work
Rivette’s mis-en-scene becomes increasingly stripped down, in the sense of becoming less noticeable. This is the case with the editing and the long takes particularly. We also have, early on, a proliferation of long shots, not painting-like as further away, which establish a kind of distant-tableau like effect. Saying this, there is still the noticeable elegant tracks of the camera as we refrain, and also used for dramatic effect to heighten particular moments (tracking into our model). The editing is used smartly, to refuse to let us see what is being drawn, thus making it more of a juxtaposition when we cut from the model to the paper.
This film, despite its length, manages to stay continue to intrigue, indeed not overstay its welcome. The ending could easily not come when it does. This is largely established through impressice performances; Rivette is an actor’s director. The organisation is at once not banal but relaxed. The emotions never reach too much of a pitch, but are not noticeable in their absence. The film rather manages to build up intrigue by simply staying with the characters for a long period, in the long takes. Early on, if we watch closely, we learn much from small reactions (who stands up at the table, who drinks what, and so on). As the action zeroes in on our two leads, they already hold our interest to the extent that we are happy to stay with them.
The scenes of the drawing are fascinating on their own, and the time given to them allows genuine contemplation. From their context, after what we have seen, there is also a tension and an investment in them that is well kept up. The changes that occur do not seem forced, but almost come as a shock when realised, as we have entered into the rhythm. The other leads have their own spheres to (surely a Hitchcock reference with the taxonomy) that prevents these sections labouring.
This film starts off with moves around the subject of stealing, of the figurative violence of representing another. We move through various stages of the artistic dialectic, asking ourself; is art enough? Rivette has here made a film in a quite traditional manner, this does not have the narrative or structural experimentation he can do. What this film does do is display a mastery of a certain kind of film form (it is quite remarkable how such a long run time never seems to drag), which may have its own weaknesses, that Rivette inherits. If one is going to make a film like that, this is though surely how to do it.