104
highly dubious. The consequences of Occupa-
tion were not all negative for the cinema: com-
petition from American films disappeared and
the free-wheeling artisanal proliferation of the
1930s industry was replaced by tighter organi-
zation and greater government support (as
well as intervention). After the Liberation,
however, the renewed availability of Ameri-
can films and the loss of many key figures who
had left for the United States or been ostra-
cized for collaboration left the French indus-
try in a somewhat weakened state.
The cinema of the fifteen years after the Lib-
eration has tended to enjoy a bad press, re-
viled by Cahiers du cinéma for its dependence
on traditional studio values and literary adap-
tations. The term cinéma de qualité in this
context is indeed a highly pejorative one. The
work of directors such as Claude Autant-Lara
and René Clément may appear hidebound by
comparison with the Nouvelle Vague, but the
performances of actors such as Gérard Philipe
and Simone Signoret remain powerful in such
films as Autant-Lara’s 1946 Le Diable au corps
and Jacques Becker’s 1952 Casque d’or, respec-
tively. Autant-Lara’s regular scriptwriters, Jean
Aurenche and Pierre Bost, scorned by Truffaut
in particular for their conservative dependence
on literary pretexts, have recently come to the
fore again through their work for Bertrand
Tavernier, and much of the so-called ‘heritage
cinema’ of the 1980s and 1990s, such as the
films of Claude Berri, owes a good deal to their
example.
One reason for the relatively low esteem in
which Fourth Republic cinema has tended to
be held may be that it now appears as mark-
ing a low-water mark—a period of recovery
and consolidation rather than innovation—
between the ‘golden age’ of prewar classic cin-
ema and the arrival of the Nouvelle Vague. A
number of key classic directors lost their ear-
lier momentum (René Clair, more strikingly
Marcel Carné); the greatest of all, Jean Renoir,
spent his postwar career largely in the United
States. The 1950s saw the burgeoning of a
number of directors—Bresson, Melville,
Tati—who were to become major figures, but,
even more significantly, the appearance in the
pages of Cahiers du cinéma of pieces by
Chabrol, Godard, Rohmer and Truffaut.
The transition from criticism to film-mak-
ing was made much easier by the greater avail-
ability of lightweight film-making equipment
and the introduction, in 1959, of a govern-
ment-funded scheme of advances to film-mak-
ers (avances sur recettes). The low-budget ex-
plosion of the Nouvelle Vague that began in
that year owed much to these factors as well
as to the use, by Chabrol and Malle, of pri-
vate means and inheritances. Since the move-
ment never defined itself or, unlike (for exam-
ple) the Surrealists, established criteria for
membership, its extent is impossible to deter-
mine precisely. Even the term was originally
used, by the journalist Françoise Giroud, to
refer to changes within French society as a
whole rather than specifically to the cinema.
De Gaulle’s coming-to-power paradoxically
coincided with a large-scale modernization
and industrialization of French society, in
which American culture—cars, music and, of
course, films—played an important part. In-
creased sexual frankness (within still tight cen-
sorship limits) was incarnated by Jeanne
Moreau and above all by Brigitte Bardot, and
although the Nouvelle Vague directors and
those closely associated with them (such as
Demy and Resnais) had no defining political
position, they tended to be united in opposi-
tion to the Algerian war.
The relationship between these film-makers
and the world of literature was a more com-
plex one than might appear. They saw the ad-
aptation of literary classics as profoundly
uncinematic, but drew with relish upon the
American pulp novels of such as David Goodis
and William Irish. Resnais worked initially from
scripts by Duras and Robbe-Grillet, and it can
be argued that these changes in cinematic writ-
ing brought by the Nouvelle Vague had much
in common with what was going on in the field
of literary theory and the nouveau roman. The
1960s and 1970s saw, in the wake of May 1968
and the rise of the French ‘new Left’, the as-
cendancy of Marxist theory in the pages of
Cahiers as in the film-making practice of
Godard, though the lavish sentimentality of
cinema