
Prof. Henri Laborit uses the stories of the lives of three people to discuss behaviorist theories of survival, combat, rewards and punishment, and anxiety. René is a technical manager at a textile factory and must face the anxiety caused by corporate downsizing. Janine is a self-educated actress/stylist who learns that the wife of her lover is dying and must decide to let them reunite. Jean is a controversial career-climbing writer/politician at a crossroads in life.... (Full plot summary below)
Enjoy FREE movies and series with your Prime (USA) subscription or when you start a 30-day free trial!
Links compiled using automated software. Availability of offers subject to change / might be region specific / out of date.
Prof. Henri Laborit uses the stories of the lives of three people to discuss behaviorist theories of survival, combat, rewards and punishment, and anxiety. René is a technical manager at a textile factory and must face the anxiety caused by corporate downsizing. Janine is a self-educated actress/stylist who learns that the wife of her lover is dying and must decide to let them reunite. Jean is a controversial career-climbing writer/politician at a crossroads in life.
Leave your thoughts about My American Uncle.
| Chicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertThe characters are sympathetic, the narrative is well-constructed, and we care. But consider one sequence. In itself it is perfectly absorbing. Then see how Resnais deconstructs it. |
| Mountain Xpress (Asheville, NC)Ken HankeA film that at once disturbingly deconstructs human behavior in an almost clinical -- and bitterly comic -- manner, while evidencing great warmth and fondness for its benighted characters. |
| New York TimesVincent CanbyMr. Resnais's most successful film in years. |
| Chicago ReaderJonathan RosenbaumThe film is also memorable for its dead-on portrayal of French yuppiedom in its early ascendancy and for its beautifully ambiguous and open-ended finale. |
| Spirituality and PracticeFrederic and Mary Ann BrussatMon Oncle D'merique is a philosophical puzzle that lingers in the mind long after the closing credit. |
| User ReviewJake GI've recently come to loathe the word "director." It's a crude term, one that does a scant justice to the auteur's craft, one that is more suitable to describe a construction overseer or the head of a law firm than the man or woman who pours their passion, their lifeblood into a film. As it is hardly a new concept for us anglophiles, I suggest we take a leaf out of the Frenchman's book. In the opening credits of MON ONCLE D'AMERIQUE, "director" is translated into "realision" (without the accent mark, of course, that would be fucked up by the dreaded question mark diamond), a word that if then translated into its logical cognate, "realization," makes a lick more sense than its crude cousin. For an auteur, and we may safely call Alain Resnais that, is responsible for translating the written and spoken word to an entirely different grammar-- that of film, and realizing in moving pictures what otherwise might be so many words on a page. And though the translation from literature to film, from script to screen, is not always graceful, and occasionally disastrous, it is now very widely accepted that cinema is an art form all of itself. Yet still in its infancy when you compare it to most art, that of drama, music, and the spoken and written word, it is in the synthesis of prior artforms that cinema achieves its vital importance as a medium. (At this point, if you're worried you have somehow walked into the wrong classroom, some stuffy opening lecture of a Film History 101 course, sit down and be patient, goddammit). Very rarely in watching movies do I happen to come upon a film that movies me to step back and contemplate cinema itself, its malleable, unquantifiable characteristics, and yet this is that film-- my perennial favorite, MON ONCLE D'AMERIQUE. From the first shot, a red, pulsating heart, Resnais makes clear that his film is no ordinary contrivance. The character study we have sat down to watch has instead assumed the pedantic air of a nature documentary, complete with the academic voice over and slide show-like cinematography. But then an odd thing happens, and unlike the countless educational films we have glossed over whilst TV surfing, there's something entrancing, even spellbinding about the spectacle that prevents you from mentally changing channels. You realize, though at this point lost somewhere in the French professor's words, that the very "survival instincts" the dusty academic is describing in a red crab or a warthog are an enormous, obvious analogy for the lives we eke out as homo sapiens. The voice, not a drone but one of an earnest passion, disappears and three new voices begin to muddle together, two male voices and one female that speak snatched phrases like "born on my grandfather's island" or "a natural child birth, as my father wanted." We have changed channels, though to one seemingly still related to the former program. Now, it seems, we are watching some bizarre biopic of three rather inconsequential seeming characters, though of tantamount importance in the film. Our narrator, now the slightly disembodied, very female voice one often hears while awaiting a flight's departure, describes of our three protagonists the kind of "Getting to Know You" kinds of things you might scrawl on a resume. The voice lays bare the characters in a few sentences, as in "his parents wanted him to become a priest, but he became the manager of a textile factory instead." These, as we begin to understand, are characters with layers we've never seen the likes of before. In this first, introductory act of the film we see a glimpse into the childhood of each protagonist. Each was repressed by their parents in a kind of way, from Nicole Garcia's character, who was forced as a girl to attend Communist Party rallies and learn "US, go home" in tentative English, to Gerard Depardieu's character, who in his desire to make something of himself had to hide his correspondence school materials, to Roger Pierre's character, who secretly reads "The Golden Knight" rather than his mother's recommendation, Racine's famous romances. Their uneasy childhoods, although surely filled with moments of happiness, give way to rather uneasy adulthoods. Each character has their fair share of "success" (the nature of which will be questioned in the course of the film), from the lead bill in a hit play, per Garcia, to a profession requiring three secretaries, per Pierre, to a fulfilling overseer position, per Depardieu. We learn in the beginning that the protagonists share a mutual love of movies, each with a favorite actor, and consequently shots from their old black and white favorites are intercut with significant moments of their lives, when applicable. This is yet another instance in which Resnais exhibits a vision not limited to mere drama, but to techniques that enhance the film's movie-as-allegory feel. And here I take off my synopsis hat, for it is in the struggles of our protagonists that we find the meat and gristle of MON ONCLE D'AMERIQUE. The movie's title, incidentally, is literally translated to My Uncle from America. The avuncular relative in question is hinted at, even figuratively danced around throughout the film-- but ultimately is of rather secondhand importance, a device that Resnais uses to probe the wistful aspect of our protagonists' dispositions. Whenever our character's speak of a vague, half-forgotten childhood dream, they invoke the name of the legendary Oncle D'Amerique. Which when brought up in conversation, incidentally, provokes my favorite description of the US of A in a movie, spoken by a friend of our female protagoinst: "America is fake. I know, I've been there." The music consists of a few rather mournful adagios, used sparingly but to great effect. This, in my unlearned opinion, is the best way you can use music, as a tactful underscore of important scenes, and though MON ONCLE D'AMERIQUE is only my first (!) Resnais film, I'm willing to wager that musically, his technique is much the same in LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD and HIROSHIMA, MON AMOUR. Though acting in films is not my forte, as I tend to gravitate to the directorial aspects (screw convictions, that word is too goddamned necessary to forego) of movies, I like to flatter myself that I know a good performance when I see one. Acting roles come and go, mostly average, but every once and a while you see a movie that has an extraordinary performance or two, the kind that convinces you that the fictional character is, au contraire, non-fictional in some kind of parallel universe. All three central performances of MON ONCLE D'AMERIQUE are of the latter category. And although I'm not exceedingly familiar with the French actors and actress in question, I have a hard time believing they ever eclipsed their efforts in this movie. I'll address now, at some length, the matter I've hinted at earlier in this review, that of Alain Resnais' superb "realision." In MON ONCLE D'AMERIQUE, Resnais' camera is a kind of third party witness, a roving eye that always seems to catch the three in inconvenient moments. Shots are fluid transitions from one to another, elegaic but deceivingly simple looking. Resnais' salient eye extends beyond cinematography, though, to the subplot of including the human psychology lecture. This, truly, is where "brilliant" reaches "favorite film of all time" status, or at least for me. Ultimately, watching this movie is a cathartic experience, a life affirming testament to the human condition, its strengths and weaknesses, and an all encompassing cinematic experience. It has been called a thinking man's film, and that it is-- but I like to think that I'm not the only one who sees the genius in this movie. This, then, gets my vote for the ultimate film to be enjoyed and understood before you die: Alain Resnais' MON ONCLE D'AMERIQUE. |
| User ReviewWut SIf I have to pick top three films, Mon Oncle d'Amerique would undoubtedly claim the privilege. The film is multifariously rewarding, notably in its formalism, deconstruction, and aesthetic philosophy. The film begins with a depiction of a blinking heartbeat dubbed with an existential, scientific narration: "A being's only reason for being is being. In other words, to maintain its structure it must stay alive... or there is no being." As the heart fades out, we hear numerous voices and see a circular digital mask encircling around a wall plastered with photographs. Stills of fungus and plants are then shown with an academic voice explaining their living organism. Suddenly, another voice interrupts and we see a photo montage consisting of childhood objects and nostalgic scenes. Then two other voices interrupt in the same manner, tallying to a total of three biographies. The narrations are clearly auto-biographical of the respective enunciators. Then the old academic voice returns, this time narrating over shots of different animal species, again explaining biologically. Switching between educational documentary and fictional biographies, this film initially seems obscured in its purpose. As the characters' stories advance from childhood to adolescence, the genre-switching appears less. Though the biographies become dominant in length, the film's educational aspect increasingly specializes--the narrator now detailing the functionality of living organisms' neurological system. Eventually the academic narrator is revealed, a real life biologist in a library/office seemingly addressing us like his students or interviewers at the slightest. At this point, the biographical and educational approaches merge and self-acknowledge as a hermeneutic of social behaviors. However, the stories continue, this time no longer as a photo montage, but animated into a conventional film-like narratives (though there are still plenty of non-diegetic inserts and academic interruptions). The stories are emotionally captivating--we sympathize the intertwining lives of these characters. The occasional superimposed and cuts back to the biologist and his metaphorical "rat experimentations" serve as emotional deconstruction for the characters are themselves shown as subjects to social experiments. Nevertheless, the film does not intend to deconstruct human emotions and actions as simply neurological behaviors. Despite the educational overtone, Mon Oncle d'Amerique still contains sentimentalism we feel upon sympathizing characters--this is probably best explained by the ending quotation by the biologist: "To go to the moon, we must know the law of gravity... Understanding the law of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity." A fucking masterpiece. |
| User ReviewLisa KOn paper this isn't really my kind of movie by a country mile but I'm always ready to see anything that Depardieu decides to appear in and Nicole Garcia is not too hard to take either if anybody asks you but then you have to factor in Resnais, a loose canon whichever way you slice it, a guy who's as likely to film a Viennese Operetta with a static camera as lay a metaphysical treatise on an unsuspecting audience. He's also something of a risk-taker and here he does himself no favors in the opening minutes by giving the impression we've wandered into a lecture complete with lantern-slides. But soon you find yourself drawn into the three loosely connected stories and a little later you find you've surrendered completely to the left-handed charm. Not for the faint-hearted or the popcorn brigade. |
| User ReviewScott RAlain Resnais is an amazing artist. He directed two of my very favorite films of all time, Hiroshima Mon Amor and Last Year in Marienbad. At 91, he is still making movies, and he was honored at Cannes as recently as 2009. Mon Oncle d'Amérique, made in 1980, is a really interesting film. It's set up rather like a comedy, and it definitely has its funny moments, but overall, Resnais treats his characters with great seriousness and care. For me, the best part of the film is that the scientist describes these people and their behaviors in very bare, detached, scientific way, but I found myself drawn in by them and their stories anyway. Resnais always makes me think, and this one, though lighter than the earlier works I mentioned, will keep me thinking for hours and days and years to come. |
| User ReviewKevin HOf the many interesting things going on here, maybe the most interesting is that the way Resnais frames the narrative, it actually seems to argue against Laborit's theories while demonstrating them. Almost like the characters exist as free humans beneath their neurological constraints and are trying to emerge. |