1956 Poll 2.0

[Holdrüholoheuho]

THE ROCKET FROM CALABUCH (Luis García Berlanga)

the sad year of 1956...

[rischka]

night river is gorgeous thx u guys

[Angel]

5 Steps to Danger
Beatrice Cenci (Castle of the Banned Lovers)
Between Heaven and Hell
Biruma no tategoto (The Burmese Harp)
Des gens sans importance (People of No Importance)
Forbidden Planet
Il ferroviere (The Railroad Man)
Il tetto (The Roof)
Jayu buin (Madame Freedom)
Ne okreci se sine (Don’t Look Back, My Son)
O drakos (The Ogre of Athens)
Pervyy eshelon (The First Echelon)
Raw Edge
Slightly Scarlet
Sorok pervyy (The Forty-First)
Star in the Dust
Suzaki Paradaisu: Akashingô (Suzaki Paradise: Red Light District)
The Last Wagon
The Ten Commandments
Vesna na Zarechnoy ulitse (Spring on Zarechnaya Street)

Deliberately excluded (IMDb/Lbxd/TSPDT/S&S top 500)
Aparajito
Nuit et brouillard
The Searchers
Un condamné à mort s'est échappé
Written on the Wind

Wanted
I girovaghi
Mahiru no ankoku
Mat
Qi chong tian

[wba]

Marie-Antoinette, reine de france (Jean Delannoy)

A textbook example of the tradition de la qualitie that Truffaut opposed in his famous '54 article. It's far more artistically interesting than the Cahiers crowd would have you believe.

Yeah, the Cahiers critics were notoriously terrible when it came to assessing the quality of French cinema. But it wasn't only the young one's, as one of the worst offenders was André Bazin.
In my opinion French cinema before the French "new wave" was generally far more interesting (and much better) than after 1960.

[St. Gloede]

Marie-Antoinette, reine de france (Jean Delannoy)

A textbook example of the tradition de la qualitie that Truffaut opposed in his famous '54 article. It's far more artistically interesting than the Cahiers crowd would have you believe.

Yeah, the Cahiers critics were notoriously terrible when it came to assessing the quality of French cinema. But it wasn't only the young one's, as one of the worst offenders was André Bazin.
In my opinion French cinema before the French "new wave" was generally far more interesting (and much better) than after 1960.

I'll disagree with both sides on this one.

Traditional, well-made narrative dramas of a degree of prestige, i.e. "tradition de la qualitie", i.e. "middle-brow", can be just as strong and fantastic as artistically inspired cinema, they are just different (and it is a spectrum - you can do a narrative story in ways that are cinematically intriguing and exciting). I never really got the issue the Cahiers writers had with the specific tradition in France, while they were fawning over a lot of classic Hollywood directors. The US had all the same issues, if not worse, as they had no Cocteau, Grémillon, Eptstein, etc. Obviously, they did not have an issue with all classic French directors, and if I recall Truffat walked it back a bit later in his life, but what is the logic behind putting down Marcel Carné and Julien Duvivier while holding up Howard Hawks and Nicholas Ray, for instance? The big French studio directors had some excellent minds among them. Sure, you also had really bland directors as well, like Autant-Lara, which got a lot of ire from the wave, but all countries have them in the mainstream, and still do. Doesn't change that the French studio system could put out an undisputed masterpiece like Children of Paradise, which is IMO better than anything Truffaut ever managed to make.

However, my sensibilities and taste are significantly more drawn to cinematic playfulness and creativity than traditional narrative cinema, so the 60s is where it's at for me.

[wba]

Marie-Antoinette, reine de france (Jean Delannoy)

A textbook example of the tradition de la qualitie that Truffaut opposed in his famous '54 article. It's far more artistically interesting than the Cahiers crowd would have you believe.

Yeah, the Cahiers critics were notoriously terrible when it came to assessing the quality of French cinema. But it wasn't only the young one's, as one of the worst offenders was André Bazin.
In my opinion French cinema before the French "new wave" was generally far more interesting (and much better) than after 1960.

I'll disagree with both sides on this one.

Traditional, well-made narrative dramas of a degree of prestige, i.e. "tradition de la qualitie", i.e. "middle-brow", can be just as strong and fantastic as artistically inspired cinema, they are just different (and it is a spectrum - you can do a narrative story in ways that are cinematically intriguing and exciting). I never really got the issue the Cahiers writers had with the specific tradition in France, while they were fawning over a lot of classic Hollywood directors. The US had all the same issues, if not worse, as they had no Cocteau, Grémillon, Eptstein, etc. Obviously, they did not have an issue with all classic French directors, and if I recall Truffat walked it back a bit later in his life, but what is the logic behind putting down Marcel Carné and Julien Duvivier while holding up Howard Hawks and Nicholas Ray, for instance? The big French studio directors had some excellent minds among them. Sure, you also had really bland directors as well, like Autant-Lara, which got a lot of ire from the wave, but all countries have them in the mainstream, and still do. Doesn't change that the French studio system could put out an undisputed masterpiece like Children of Paradise, which is IMO better than anything Truffaut ever managed to make.

However, my sensibilities and taste are significantly more drawn to cinematic playfulness and creativity than traditional narrative cinema, so the 60s is where it's at for me.

In theory I'd agree with what you're saying, but in the end it probably comes down to personale taste.
I have nothing per se against post 1960s cinema and love many directors and films. But in my opinion, the French directors who got a start before the New Wave (and that's over 60 years of French cinema) were generally better and more creative as artists. And most importantly: there were simply more talented directors, quantity-wise, than after 1960.

Thus, in my opinion Bazin and other Cahiers critics of the 1950s, were mostly blind as to the incredible artistic wealth the French cinema had created.
On the other hand, they were perfectly able to see it in lots of foreign films, especially in US cinema.
I find this to be generally the case throughout the 20th century in many countries, where the own artistry isn't really appreciated when compared to "foreign" films.

[St. Gloede]

In theory I'd agree with what you're saying, but in the end it probably comes down to personale taste.
I have nothing per se against post 1960s cinema and love many directors and films. But in my opinion, the French directors who got a start before the New Wave (and that's over 60 years of French cinema) were generally better and more creative as artists. And most importantly: there were simply more talented directors, quantity-wise, than after 1960.

Yeah, exactly, that very much comes down to taste. I have JLG, Varda and Rohmer among my top 10 directors, so my vote will be cast with the latter. I do have Bresson in my top 10 too (yeah, French heavy ...), though he mostly made films over the same timespan as the new wave (and he was obviously a director the Cahiers writers, especially Bazin, were very fond of).

At first, I was confused when you said "more creative as artists", but then I realized that we're of course talking about the birth of cinema as well - a period I'm not too excited about, but certainly filled with creativity - as was the 20s, though besides outliers like Vigo, Clair, Gremillion, and Cocteau I don't think the studio sound era directors were comparable to the new wavers in creativity in any way, so if that's your view I'd love to hear more about which films and directors you think embody this the best. Always looking to watch more from that period of French cinema in general, as it is severely lagging behind the 60s and 70s for me in terms of views.

Thus, in my opinion Bazin and other Cahiers critics of the 1950s, were mostly blind as to the incredible artistic wealth the French cinema had created.
On the other hand, they were perfectly able to see it in lots of foreign films, especially in US cinema.
I find this to be generally the case throughout the 20th century in many countries, where the own artistry isn't really appreciated when compared to "foreign" films.

I think the issue could at least partially be a wish and need to define yourself through opposition and contradiction. I suppose it is motivating, and gives purpose, etc. and that it must also be frustrating seeing your own industry be at a bit of a standstill and want to push on. I remember Godard in the late 60s dismissing New Hollywood/Bonnie and Clyde for being so far behind the curve, and Hollywood having money rather than ideas. They might also just have caught with the modernist bug of believing things always need to change and progress - which is exciting - but hardly a moral requirement for art. You can be a trail-blazers and do something new without dismissing what was for the sake of it, though, of course, if they just thought most French mainstream quality dramas were a bit - or very - flat and stuffy - that's fair - a decent bit of it - cue Autant-Lara, etc. is for me as well - and of course Autant-Lara was huge. Today, and for many decades, quite a few of the biggest French directors have just slid out of the conversation - as critics, and cinephiles, realized they weren't that interesting to them - while the big US names that the Cahiers directors championed have remained on the record, so a part of what we are seeing as the highlights of studio cinema from the 30s, 40s, and 50s is through the lense of the films spoke to critics of the Cahiers generation and later.

[wba]

In theory I'd agree with what you're saying, but in the end it probably comes down to personale taste.
I have nothing per se against post 1960s cinema and love many directors and films. But in my opinion, the French directors who got a start before the New Wave (and that's over 60 years of French cinema) were generally better and more creative as artists. And most importantly: there were simply more talented directors, quantity-wise, than after 1960.

Yeah, exactly, that very much comes down to taste. I have JLG, Varda and Rohmer among my top 10 directors, so my vote will be cast with the latter. I do have Bresson in my top 10 too (yeah, French heavy ...), though he mostly made films over the same timespan as the new wave (and he was obviously a director the Cahiers writers, especially Bazin, were very fond of).

At first, I was confused when you said "more creative as artists", but then I realized that we're of course talking about the birth of cinema as well - a period I'm not too excited about, but certainly filled with creativity - as was the 20s, though besides outliers like Vigo, Clair, Gremillion, and Cocteau I don't think the studio sound era directors were comparable to the new wavers in creativity in any way, so if that's your view I'd love to hear more about which films and directors you think embody this the best. Always looking to watch more from that period of French cinema in general, as it is severely lagging behind the 60s and 70s for me in terms of views.

Thus, in my opinion Bazin and other Cahiers critics of the 1950s, were mostly blind as to the incredible artistic wealth the French cinema had created.
On the other hand, they were perfectly able to see it in lots of foreign films, especially in US cinema.
I find this to be generally the case throughout the 20th century in many countries, where the own artistry isn't really appreciated when compared to "foreign" films.

I think the issue could at least partially be a wish and need to define yourself through opposition and contradiction. I suppose it is motivating, and gives purpose, etc. and that it must also be frustrating seeing your own industry be at a bit of a standstill and want to push on. I remember Godard in the late 60s dismissing New Hollywood/Bonnie and Clyde for being so far behind the curve, and Hollywood having money rather than ideas. They might also just have caught with the modernist bug of believing things always need to change and progress - which is exciting - but hardly a moral requirement for art. You can be a trail-blazers and do something new without dismissing what was for the sake of it, though, of course, if they just thought most French mainstream quality dramas were a bit - or very - flat and stuffy - that's fair - a decent bit of it - cue Autant-Lara, etc. is for me as well - and of course Autant-Lara was huge. Today, and for many decades, quite a few of the biggest French directors have just slid out of the conversation - as critics, and cinephiles, realized they weren't that interesting to them - while the big US names that the Cahiers directors championed have remained on the record, so a part of what we are seeing as the highlights of studio cinema from the 30s, 40s, and 50s is through the lense of the films spoke to critics of the Cahiers generation and later.

My favorite French directors are Jacques Doillon and Jean Rollin, so that doesn't exactly prop my view.

But to me it's not the "special" or outstanding films and directors that define an era, but the general quality of films. And I also think the studio era of the 30s, 40s and 50s in France was generally speaking great (same as in Hollywood or Germany or Japan or Italy, etc.). The young filmmakers should have just made their films the way they liked (which they did, and which were fine), instead of complaining about the old guys. I just don't see US, French, German, Italian, Japanese cinema - or any other country that had a big output - getting better after 1960, but merely that fewer films were made, as cinema became less relevant as much fewer people went to the movies.

As to my preferred French directors pre-New Wave, it's the usual suspects: Wladyslaw Starewicz, Jean Grémillon, René Clair, Jean Epstein, Marcel Carné, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Jean-Pierre Melville, etc. and I've seen great films by Marcel L'Herbier, Pierre Chenal, Robert Bresson, Henri Decoin, Julien Duvivier, Richard Pottier, Jacques Becker, Jean Delannoy, Jean Renoir, René Clément, and some others.
And I don't think they were "outliers", as most were working regularly inside the French industry over decades.

As for New Wave and post New Wave, besides Doillon an Rollin, I especially enjoy Louis Malle, Agnes Varda, Robert Hossein, Roger Vadim, Chris Marker, Walerian Borowczyk, Maurice Pialat, Andrzej Zulawski, Catherine Breillat etc. etc. But I simply don't see any explosion as to the quality or quantity of great films after 1960.

The only thing the Cahiers critics have accomplished through deriding most of their older colleagues, is that they are better known today then their predecessors and that few people outside of France watch many French films pre-1960. So instead of strengthening the history of French cinema through their own great work as directors, they have rather weakened its legacy in stating that their films would be not just "different" but better than what came before. It's a bit like if Penn, Coppola or Spielberg had been film critics during the 1960s and wrote before the New Hollywood era that they were gonna make better films than the stuffy studio work of a John Ford or an Alfred Hitchcock during the 1950s.

As you said: you can be a trail-blazer for something new without dismissing the old.

I haven't seen anything by Autaunt-Lara, yet, so how I'll react to that will be very interesting for me in the future.

As for personal taste:
I prefer Clouzot to Godard or Carné to Truffaut, though I enjoy the films of Godard and Truffaut as well, and if I had to decide between watching a film by Rohmer or Rivette or one by Epstein or Gremillon, the latter two would definitely win.


PS: Here's a list of my 100 favorite French films, but it's just the usual suspects.
https://letterboxd.com/wba/list/100-french/
Though 100 films is of course just the tip of the iceberg, and I absolutely need to watch more French films!

[St. Gloede]

My favorite French directors are Jacques Doillon and Jean Rollin, so that doesn't exactly prop my view.

Now that's two surprising picks. I really like Doillon, though I have seen little from the 80s onwards and nothing post-Ponette, as most were reviewed very poorly. I should do a deep-dive. Rollin on the other hand is one of the few directors I actively dislike, but I know he has a decent cult following (even if I can't see "it" at all).

But to me it's not the "special" or outstanding films and directors that define an era, but the general quality of films. And I also think the studio era of the 30s, 40s and 50s in France was generally speaking great (same as in Hollywood or Germany or Japan or Italy, etc.). The young filmmakers should have just made their films the way they liked (which they did, and which were fine), instead of complaining about the old guys. I just don't see US, French, German, Italian, Japanese cinema - or any other country that had a big output - getting better after 1960, but merely that fewer films were made, as cinema became less relevant as much fewer people went to the movies.

Hmmm, I had never heard that before, so I decided to check with IMDb. These are obviously not super accurate numbers by a long shot, but below are the feature films released per decade according to IMDb's country tags:

France, 1950-1959: 1,340
France, 1960-1969: 1,730
France, 1970-1979: 2,070

US, 1950-1959: 3,501
US, 1960-1969: 3,343
US, 1970-1979: 4,308

West + East Germany, 1950-1959: 1,345
West + East Germany, 1960-1969: 1,324
West + East Germany, 1970-1979: 1,621

Italy, 1950-1959: 1,446
Italy, 1960-1969: 2,487
Italy, 1970-1979: 2,386

Japan, 1950-1959: 3,679
Japan, 1960-1969: 3,981
Japan, 1970-1979: 3,548

The US and Germany had a slight decline in the 60s, but both outgrew the 50s in the 70s. However, France released more feature films decade by decade, almost doubling the output from the 50s to the 70s. Italy, meanwhile, close to doubled the output from the 50s to the 60s - though they were kings of co-productions in that period. Japan, meanwhile, also grew in the 60s, before the decline in the 70s (the crash).

As to my preferred French directors pre-New Wave, it's the usual suspects: Jean Grémillon, René Clair, Jean Epstein, Marcel Carné, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Jean-Pierre Melville, etc. and I've seen great films by Marcel L'Herbier, Pierre Chenal, Robert Bresson, Henri Decoin, Julien Duvivier, Richard Pottier, Jean Delannoy, Jean Renoir, and some others.
I don't think they were "outliers," as most had been working regularly inside the French industry for decades.

I'm calling some of these outliers because they were essentially creating art cinema rather than "tradition de la qualitie", i.e. expressionists, minimalists, etc. I called Clair an outlier earlier despite being more of a traditional studio director because he really made some inspired cinematic choices in the early 30s. Most of the others are definitely more traditional film directors, and I don't think their "creativity" compares to the new wave, but the strength of their cinema does.

The only thing the Cahiers critics have accomplished through deriding most of their older colleagues, is that they are better known today then their predecessors and that few people outside of France watch many French films pre-1960. So instead of strengthening the history of French cinema through their own great work as directors, they have rather weakened its legacy in stating that their films would be not just "different" but better than what came before. It's a bit like if Penn, Coppola or Spielberg had been film critics during the 1960s and wrote before the New Hollywood era that they were gonna make better films than the stuffy studio work of a John Ford or an Alfred Hitchcock during the 1950s.

Sadly, very true.

I haven't seen anything by Autaunt-Lara, yet, so how I'll react to that will be very interesting for me in the future.

Please do!

As for personal taste:
I prefer Clouzot to Godard or Carné to Truffaut, though I enjoy the films of Godard and Truffaut as well, and if I had to decide between watching a film by Rohmer or Rivette or one by Epstein or Gremillon, the latter two would definitely win.

No one beats JLG for me, but I'd definitely take Carné over Truffaut, and Epstein or Gremillon over Rivette or Chabrol.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

But to me it's not the "special" or outstanding films and directors that define an era, but the general quality of films. And I also think the studio era of the 30s, 40s and 50s in France was generally speaking great (same as in Hollywood or Germany or Japan or Italy, etc.). The young filmmakers should have just made their films the way they liked (which they did, and which were fine), instead of complaining about the old guys. I just don't see US, French, German, Italian, Japanese cinema - or any other country that had a big output - getting better after 1960, but merely that fewer films were made, as cinema became less relevant as much fewer people went to the movies.

Yes, this is much of why I gravitate to this era (and the silent era before it). Exploring the depths is far more fulfilling! The average movie is far better made than in the '60s and '70s and beyond, for my taste, though I'm sure fans of the era will disagree. I think that television and colour film are both culprits as well: the average filmmaker was no longer trained in over-the-shoulder shot compositions and chiaroscuro lighting.

[wba]

But to me it's not the "special" or outstanding films and directors that define an era, but the general quality of films. And I also think the studio era of the 30s, 40s and 50s in France was generally speaking great (same as in Hollywood or Germany or Japan or Italy, etc.). The young filmmakers should have just made their films the way they liked (which they did, and which were fine), instead of complaining about the old guys. I just don't see US, French, German, Italian, Japanese cinema - or any other country that had a big output - getting better after 1960, but merely that fewer films were made, as cinema became less relevant as much fewer people went to the movies.

Yes, this is much of why I gravitate to this era (and the silent era before it). Exploring the depths is far more fulfilling! The average movie is far better made than in the '60s and '70s and beyond, for my taste, though I'm sure fans of the era will disagree. I think that television and colour film are both culprits as well: the average filmmaker was no longer trained in over-the-shoulder shot compositions and chiaroscuro lighting.

Yes, that's basically my view as well.

I'm sure it's also a personal preference, cause if I watch a random French film from say the 1930s (or any other country with a big "studio" output at the time) it's far more likely to be artistically interesting and satisfying for me than a random film from the 1970s. And I just want to watch more films nowadays, then just the "aknowledged classics" or obscure, underseen masterpieces. As you say: exploring the depths instead of smooth sailing on the surface (which I've been doing for decades, and which is fine for a start, but somehow doesn't lead anywhere other than simply watching and re-watching films from the same directors, so to speak).

[wba]

My favorite French directors are Jacques Doillon and Jean Rollin, so that doesn't exactly prop my view.

Now that's two surprising picks. I really like Doillon, though I have seen little from the 80s onwards and nothing post-Ponette, as most were reviewed very poorly. I should do a deep-dive. Rollin on the other hand is one of the few directors I actively dislike, but I know he has a decent cult following (even if I can't see "it" at all).

But to me it's not the "special" or outstanding films and directors that define an era, but the general quality of films. And I also think the studio era of the 30s, 40s and 50s in France was generally speaking great (same as in Hollywood or Germany or Japan or Italy, etc.). The young filmmakers should have just made their films the way they liked (which they did, and which were fine), instead of complaining about the old guys. I just don't see US, French, German, Italian, Japanese cinema - or any other country that had a big output - getting better after 1960, but merely that fewer films were made, as cinema became less relevant as much fewer people went to the movies.

Hmmm, I had never heard that before, so I decided to check with IMDb. These are obviously not super accurate numbers by a long shot, but below are the feature films released per decade according to IMDb's country tags:

France, 1950-1959: 1,340
France, 1960-1969: 1,730
France, 1970-1979: 2,070

US, 1950-1959: 3,501
US, 1960-1969: 3,343
US, 1970-1979: 4,308

West + East Germany, 1950-1959: 1,345
West + East Germany, 1960-1969: 1,324
West + East Germany, 1970-1979: 1,621

Italy, 1950-1959: 1,446
Italy, 1960-1969: 2,487
Italy, 1970-1979: 2,386

Japan, 1950-1959: 3,679
Japan, 1960-1969: 3,981
Japan, 1970-1979: 3,548

The US and Germany had a slight decline in the 60s, but both outgrew the 50s in the 70s. However, France released more feature films decade by decade, almost doubling the output from the 50s to the 70s. Italy, meanwhile, close to doubled the output from the 50s to the 60s - though they were kings of co-productions in that period. Japan, meanwhile, also grew in the 60s, before the decline in the 70s (the crash).

Wow!
I suppose that also includes films for TV (which I'm fine with - much quality work there as well).

So that actually means that yes, films in general got artistically worse after the 1960s, for my tastes.
Wouldn't have thought that for the 20th century.

Maybe more films meant quicker shooting schedules and/or less trained artists?

[wba]

As to my preferred French directors pre-New Wave, it's the usual suspects: Jean Grémillon, René Clair, Jean Epstein, Marcel Carné, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Jean-Pierre Melville, etc. and I've seen great films by Marcel L'Herbier, Pierre Chenal, Robert Bresson, Henri Decoin, Julien Duvivier, Richard Pottier, Jean Delannoy, Jean Renoir, and some others.
I don't think they were "outliers," as most had been working regularly inside the French industry for decades.

I'm calling some of these outliers because they were essentially creating art cinema rather than "tradition de la qualitie", i.e. expressionists, minimalists, etc. I called Clair an outlier earlier despite being more of a traditional studio director because he really made some inspired cinematic choices in the early 30s. Most of the others are definitely more traditional film directors, and I don't think their "creativity" compares to the new wave, but the strength of their cinema does.

I'm not sure if they were creating art cinema per se, or if they were simply doing what they were interested in inside the established structures and market?
I always thought that art cinema vs. commercial cinema thing was rather a straw-man created by the French New Wave critics.

I've for example recently watched LES GRANDES MANOEUVRES (1955) by Clair, which I'm pretty sure most Cahiers critics would have disliked (I don't know, if they actually did) and totally classified as "tradition de qualité", when in my opinion the film is completely outstanding and not just reminiscent of Clair's other great works, but also specifically of two outstanding stylists like Lubitsch and Ophuls (which I forgot to mention above, as I'm sure I also forgot some others). I actually thought to myself that this was a film which Lubitsch could and maybe would have directed exactly like that, if he were still alive. It definitely has that specific Lubitsch touch.

[wba]

As for personal taste:
I prefer Clouzot to Godard or Carné to Truffaut, though I enjoy the films of Godard and Truffaut as well, and if I had to decide between watching a film by Rohmer or Rivette or one by Epstein or Gremillon, the latter two would definitely win.

No one beats JLG for me, but I'd definitely take Carné over Truffaut, and Epstein or Gremillon over Rivette or Chabrol.

Yeah, that's just nit-picking of course, as I love some films by all of them - but also need to see much more by all of them (with the exception of Godard, by whom I've seen a lot).

[wba]

My favorite French directors are Jacques Doillon and Jean Rollin, so that doesn't exactly prop my view.

Now that's two surprising picks. I really like Doillon, though I have seen little from the 80s onwards and nothing post-Ponette, as most were reviewed very poorly. I should do a deep-dive. Rollin on the other hand is one of the few directors I actively dislike, but I know he has a decent cult following (even if I can't see "it" at all).

I haven't seen more than a third of his output, but my favorites by Doillon so far (all masterpieces in my book) are, in chronological order:

Les Doigts dans la tête (1974)
La Drôlesse (1979)
La Pirate (1984)
La Vie de famille (1985)
Le Petit Criminel (1990)
Le Jeune Werther (1993)

post-Ponette, I loved RAJA (2003).

Doillon would probably be my sole French director in a Top 10 or 20 of preferred directors.


Rollin seems to be somewhat of an acquired taste, but I have certainly no clue why this is the case. If I had to speculate, I'd say it might be that his work has technically some marks of "outsider art", a naiveté akin to someone like Henri Rousseau in painting, so maybe that puts people off? But that would go as well for someone like Philippe Garrel (whom I also forgot to mention - great filmmaker!), who seems generally much more beloved.
For me, Rollin is currently my favorite amongst all New Wave directors I've encountered.

[St. Gloede]

My favorite French directors are Jacques Doillon and Jean Rollin, so that doesn't exactly prop my view.

Now that's two surprising picks. I really like Doillon, though I have seen little from the 80s onwards and nothing post-Ponette, as most were reviewed very poorly. I should do a deep-dive. Rollin on the other hand is one of the few directors I actively dislike, but I know he has a decent cult following (even if I can't see "it" at all).

But to me it's not the "special" or outstanding films and directors that define an era, but the general quality of films. And I also think the studio era of the 30s, 40s and 50s in France was generally speaking great (same as in Hollywood or Germany or Japan or Italy, etc.). The young filmmakers should have just made their films the way they liked (which they did, and which were fine), instead of complaining about the old guys. I just don't see US, French, German, Italian, Japanese cinema - or any other country that had a big output - getting better after 1960, but merely that fewer films were made, as cinema became less relevant as much fewer people went to the movies.

Hmmm, I had never heard that before, so I decided to check with IMDb. These are obviously not super accurate numbers by a long shot, but below are the feature films released per decade according to IMDb's country tags:

France, 1950-1959: 1,340
France, 1960-1969: 1,730
France, 1970-1979: 2,070

US, 1950-1959: 3,501
US, 1960-1969: 3,343
US, 1970-1979: 4,308

West + East Germany, 1950-1959: 1,345
West + East Germany, 1960-1969: 1,324
West + East Germany, 1970-1979: 1,621

Italy, 1950-1959: 1,446
Italy, 1960-1969: 2,487
Italy, 1970-1979: 2,386

Japan, 1950-1959: 3,679
Japan, 1960-1969: 3,981
Japan, 1970-1979: 3,548

The US and Germany had a slight decline in the 60s, but both outgrew the 50s in the 70s. However, France released more feature films decade by decade, almost doubling the output from the 50s to the 70s. Italy, meanwhile, close to doubled the output from the 50s to the 60s - though they were kings of co-productions in that period. Japan, meanwhile, also grew in the 60s, before the decline in the 70s (the crash).

Wow!
I suppose that also includes films for TV (which I'm fine with - much quality work there as well).

So that actually means that yes, films in general got artistically worse after the 1960s, for my tastes.
Wouldn't have thought that for the 20th century.

Maybe more films meant quicker shooting schedules and/or less trained artists?

No, this is only feature films, TV films would probably shoot the later decades up quite a bit more.

And yes, pretty good evidence that those later decades just isn't doing it for you.

As for quicker shooting schedules and less trained directors, quite likely, though plenty of studio directors could do 2-3 a year too, though that was even more common in the 20s and 30s. I mean Michael Curtis had 47 credited director gigs in the 30s, plus several uncredited, and you'd see many studio directors doing 2+ a year in the 50s too, so it is hard to say, but it did become cheaper and more accessible to make films. The fact that you could just take a camera on the street, and rougher cuts were often just considered a feature, helped for sure.

[wba]

Thanks for the info by the way! Really interesting statistics.
So many films made even without counting those made for TV!

[St. Gloede]

As to my preferred French directors pre-New Wave, it's the usual suspects: Jean Grémillon, René Clair, Jean Epstein, Marcel Carné, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Jean-Pierre Melville, etc. and I've seen great films by Marcel L'Herbier, Pierre Chenal, Robert Bresson, Henri Decoin, Julien Duvivier, Richard Pottier, Jean Delannoy, Jean Renoir, and some others.
I don't think they were "outliers," as most had been working regularly inside the French industry for decades.

I'm calling some of these outliers because they were essentially creating art cinema rather than "tradition de la qualitie", i.e. expressionists, minimalists, etc. I called Clair an outlier earlier despite being more of a traditional studio director because he really made some inspired cinematic choices in the early 30s. Most of the others are definitely more traditional film directors, and I don't think their "creativity" compares to the new wave, but the strength of their cinema does.

I'm not sure if they were creating art cinema per se, or if they were simply doing what they were interested in inside the established structures and market?
I always thought that art cinema vs. commercial cinema thing was rather a straw-man created by the French New Wave critics.

I've for example recently watched LES GRANDES MANOEUVRES (1955) by Clair, which I'm pretty sure most Cahiers critics would have disliked (I don't know, if they actually did) and totally classified as "tradition de qualité", when in my opinion the film is completely outstanding and not just reminiscent of Clair's other great works, but also specifically of two outstanding stylists like Lubitsch and Ophuls (which I forgot to mention above, as I'm sure I also forgot some others). I actually thought to myself that this was a film which Lubitsch could and maybe would have directed exactly like that, if he were still alive. It definitely has that specific Lubitsch touch.

I'd say the distinction is art cinema vs narrative cinema, or more specifically, films carried by visuals, style, form, meaning, etc. vs films carried by story/narrative. It can be made entirely within the studio system. The Japanese New Wave for instance was initiated by the Japanese studio system, the Czechoslovakian New Wave and essentially all art cinema from the old Communist Bloc were done within their studio systems, and so on. It's also a pretty big spectrum, especially if we include experimental films, and you can make commercial art films. 2001 and Solaris were blockbusters with big budgets, but they're both certainly on the art film spectrum in my view, so is last year's Poor Things. I think we're mixing auteur theory here as well. Michael Bay is an auteur. David Leitch is an auteur. Steven Spielberg is an auteur. And so on. Though of course, people may prefer different distinctions and set their spectrums or key differences between KYC based on what they are interested in.

[St. Gloede]

Thanks for the info by the way! Really interesting statistics.
So many films made even without counting those made for TV!

Thank you for making me check, as I'd never seen those numbers either.

And the real numbers are likely far higher, as a lot of forgotten/unsuccessful films were likely never added to IMDb.

[St. Gloede]

My favorite French directors are Jacques Doillon and Jean Rollin, so that doesn't exactly prop my view.

Now that's two surprising picks. I really like Doillon, though I have seen little from the 80s onwards and nothing post-Ponette, as most were reviewed very poorly. I should do a deep-dive. Rollin on the other hand is one of the few directors I actively dislike, but I know he has a decent cult following (even if I can't see "it" at all).

I haven't seen more than a third of his output, but my favorites by Doillon so far (all masterpieces in my book) are, in chronological order:

Les Doigts dans la tête (1974)
La Drôlesse (1979)
La Pirate (1984)
La Vie de famille (1985)
Le Petit Criminel (1990)
Le Jeune Werther (1993)

post-Ponette, I loved RAJA (2003).

Doillon would probably be my sole French director in a Top 10 or 20 of preferred directors.

Thanks for the recs, not seen most. My favourites from Doillon are Les Doigts dans la tête, The Crying Woman and hus debut, L'An 01.

[nrh]

doillon, it must be said, is in the middle of a very upsetting rape scandal...

[wba]

doillon, it must be said, is in the middle of a very upsetting rape scandal...

Nasty!
Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me too much, cause he has always had serious smut lord vibes in his films....

[wba]

Let's hope that maybe now there will be finally a proper #metoo movement in France as well.

[greennui]

Final list:

Night River 1956 夜の河 Directed by Kōzaburō Yoshimura
Suzaki Paradise: Red Light District 1956 洲崎パラダイス　赤信号 Directed by Yūzō Kawashima
Flowing 1956 流れる Directed by Mikio Naruse
Yield to the Night 1956 Directed by J. Lee Thompson
The Forty-First 1956 Сорок первый Directed by Grigoriy Chukhray

Written on the Wind 1956 Directed by Douglas Sirk
There’s Always Tomorrow 1956 Directed by Douglas Sirk
On the Bowery 1956 Directed by Lionel Rogosin
The Wrong Man 1956 Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
The Searchers 1956 Directed by John Ford

Private Entrance 1956 Egen ingång Directed by Hasse Ekman
Slightly Scarlet 1956 Directed by Allan Dwan
7 Men from Now 1956 Directed by Budd Boetticher
Great Day in the Morning 1956 Directed by Jacques Tourneur
Nightfall 1956 Directed by Jacques Tourneur

Many Passed By 1956 Viele kamen vorbei Directed by Peter Pewas
The Wormwood Star 1956 Directed by Curtis Harrington
Baby Doll 1956 Directed by Elia Kazan
Night and Fog 1956 Nuit et Brouillard Directed by Alain Resnais
Water Light 1956 Directed by Lawrence Jordan

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Final Ballot
** = watched or re-watched for poll

Tea and Sympathy (Vincente Minnelli)
The Searchers (John Ford)
Toute La Memoire du Monde (Alain Resnais)
There's Always Tomorrow (Douglas Sirk)

Seven Men from Now (Budd Boetticher)
A Kiss Before Dying (Gerd Oswald)
Slightly Scarlet (Allan Dwan)
Written on the Wind (Douglas Sirk)

The She-Creature (Edward L. Cahn)**
Gunslinger (Roger Corman)
It Conquered the World (Roger Corman)
Swamp Women (Roger Corman)

Reprisal! (George Sherman)
Carnival Night (Eldar Ryazanov)
Marie Antionette, Reine de France (Jean Delannoy)**
Yield to the Night (J. Lee Thompson)

Design for Dreaming (Victor D. Solow, miscredited in some online sources to William Beaudine)**
Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (Fred F. Sears)
Deduce, You Say (Chuck Jones)
The Iron Petticoat (Ralph Thomas)

I would have liked to do a deeper dive into this wonderful year for new gems, especially outside the USA, as well as rewatch some movies I recall liking before voting for them, but the rigmarole of moving has gotten in the way. So, I guess this will have to do.

[St. Gloede]

I haven't seen anything by Autaunt-Lara, yet, so how I'll react to that will be very interesting for me in the future.

I should add that I was being a little unfair to Autant-Lara, he has a couple of films I'd consider great, especially Douce.

Even Christian-Jaque made some films I'd consider great.

I did, however, see Clair's The Lace Wars, and damn, so state and flat for what's meant to be a silly adventure comedy. (The rape/sexual assault jokes doesn't help, but I doubt most of the new wavers cared about that in the 60s)

[Holdrüholoheuho]

The Kreutzer Sonata (Éric Rohmer, 1956)

Éric Rohmer, a devout architect with a brightest future, meets a cheeky guy in sunglasses who redraws his plans and leads him astray (to filmmaking)

[ofrene]

A Man Escaped
Bigger Than Life
Early Spring
Flowing
The Searchers

Merry-Go-Round
Night and Fog
Sudden Rain
The Red Balloon
There’s Always Tomorrow

A Wife’s Heart
Autumn Leaves
Elena and Her Men
Street of Shame
The Wrong Man

Attack
On the Bowery
7 Men from Now
The Killing
Written on the Wind

[rischka]

written on the wind
suzaki paradise
there's always tomorrow
sudden rain
early spring

7 men from now
slightly scarlet
night river
ogre of athens
bigger than life

the man from del rio
on the bowery
the captain from koepenick
jagte raho
invasion of the bodysnatchers

the ghosts of yotsuya
merry go round
silvery wind
the forty-first
great day in the morning

[nrh]

Tea and Sympathy
Great Day in the Morning
Hollywood or Bust
Between Heaven and Hell
Screen Director's Playhouse: A Ticket for Thaddeus

Beatrice Cenci
Jagte Raho
There's Always Tomorrow
Cela s'appelle l'aurore
Screen Director's Playhouse: High Air

regret not having time to try and watch any of the bengali movies available with subs from this year - everyone knows the ray but that industry was in the middle a small golden age for a type of classically minded melodrama.