Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator

You should probably watch this if you are into those late silent films where the actors act with their *entire* souls. If you hate movies where nothing much happens except for people feeling things very loudly in their heads, you will likely be bored to tears.
I found a copy of this that looked like it had been dragged through a gravel pit. It actually kind of added to the vibe, though.
Édith Jéhanne is the main reason to even bother with this one. She has these eyes that just seem to take up half the screen. 👁️
The story is pretty simple, almost too simple. It’s about a couple, and then things go sideways because that is what happens in 1930s French cinema.
Maurice de Canonge plays the guy, and he is... fine. He mostly just stands there and looks like he is trying to remember if he left the stove on back at the apartment.
There is this one scene in a garden where the lighting is just perfect. It’s that soft, hazy silver look that you don't really see anymore.
The movie doesn't have much of a plot, honestly. It’s more of a mood piece about how much it sucks when a relationship falls apart.
I kept waiting for something big to happen, like a chase or a giant fight. But it’s just more smoking and more staring out of windows. 🚬
It reminded me a bit of The Ladybird in the way it handles the female lead. The camera really loves her, even when she isn't doing anything.
The writing by Huguette Garnier feels a bit heavy-handed in the intertitles. Some of the lines are so dramatic they made me chuckle a little bit.
At one point, there is a shot of a letter being read that stays on screen for what feels like five minutes. I read it, then I read it again, then I started counting the ink blots.
It’s not as intense as something like The Living Corpse. That movie actually has some teeth.
This one is more like a gentle sigh. A long, slightly damp sigh in a rainy Paris alleyway.
Alice Roberts shows up and she is always a highlight. She has this energy that makes everyone else look like they are moving in slow motion.
There’s a bit near the middle where the editing gets real choppy. It feels like the director just gave up on the transition and cut to a new day. ✂️
I wonder if half the film was lost or if it was always just this jumpy. It’s hard to tell with these old prints.
The ending is... well, it’s an ending. It doesn't really wrap things up in a way that feels satisfying, but I guess life is like that too.
It’s weirdly short, which I actually appreciated. It doesn't overstay its welcome like some of those three-hour epics from the same era.
If you’ve seen Playing with Fire, you might recognize the way they handle the domestic drama here. It's very much of that specific time.
I don't think I'll ever watch it again. But I’m glad I saw it once, mostly for the way they used shadows in the bedroom scenes.
The costumes are also pretty neat. Everyone is wearing these heavy coats that look like they weigh fifty pounds.
Quand nous étions deux isn't going to change your life. It’s just a small, quiet story about two people who were once something and then they weren't.
Sometimes that’s enough for a Tuesday night. 🎥
I think I missed a few of the secondary characters' names because the intertitles were flickering so much. Not that it really mattered for the plot.
Anyway, it's a solid 6 out of 10 if you're being generous. 5 if you're sleepy.

IMDb —
1916
Community
Log in to comment.