فيلم Visages villages

Visages villages

Visages villages is a movie starring Agnès Varda, JR, and Jeannine Carpentier. Director Agnes Varda and photographer/muralist J.R. journey through rural France and form an unlikely friendship.

Other Titles
Chipuri, locuri, Πρόσωπα & ιστορίες, Kasvot, kylät, Rostros y lugares, Faces, Places, På resa med Agnès Varda och JR, Olhares Lugares, Mekanlar ve Yüzler, Caras y lugares, 最酷的旅伴, Twarze, plaże, 顔たち、ところどころ, Anashim ou'mekomot, Arcélek, útszélek, Visages, villages, Augenblicke: Gesichter einer Reise, Faces Places
Running Time
1 hours 34 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
JR, Agnès Varda
JR, Agnès Varda
Jeannine Carpentier, Clemens Van Dungern, Agnès Varda, JR
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Agnes Varda, one of the leading lights of France's honored French New Wave cinema era, and professional photographer and muralist, J.R., partake on a special art project. Together, they travel around France in a special box truck equipped as a portable photo booth and traveling printing facility as they take photographs of people around the country. With that inspiration, they also create special colossal mural pictures of individuals, communities and places they want to honor and celebrate. Along the way, the old cinematic veteran and the young artistic idealist enjoy an odd friendship as they chat and explore their views on the world as only they can.

Comments about documentary «Visages villages» (13)

Emily S. photo
Emily S.

As with all docs, we have the need to leave our minds at the door. What is told is important and does the story justice. In this case the story told is of the struggle of the Arabs and the Zionists. And that is important. The film is primarily a history lesson but does not go deep enough into the history. It is as if the director wanted to get to the history so we can learn about it. The film is excellent. There is great depth. It is an excellent movie and is an excellent history lesson.

Theresa M. photo
Theresa M.

This is a fascinating film about the effort to prevent forest fires from the forest. The story is told through interviews with people involved in the forest protection effort. The film starts with the global warming and ends with the drought. The film is a good example of documentary film making. It is a good story. But it is not really good.

Jonathan photo

This film is a lot of things: a documentary, a history lesson, a 'how to' guide to the great outdoors. A video for all the people out there. This film was done in conjunction with the PCT, which is a beautiful trail. The two main filmmakers, the director, and his assistant are out in the wilderness with these people. The trip was very educational. It was a lot of fun to watch, and there were some really interesting facts. But the most important thing was that we learn about the history of these people, and that was fascinating. It was a real story of how these people came to be. It's interesting to see how the PCT has affected people, how their economy has changed, how they have changed, and what they have become. It's also interesting to see how the PCT has affected the environment. The film is pretty realistic, and there were some real scenes. It was fun to watch, and it's a great thing to do. But it is just a documentary, not a history lesson, and not a guide to the wilderness. The only thing that I would have done differently is that there was a bit more of the history. But that's just nitpicking. The PCT is an awesome trail. The movie is fun, but if you don't know the history, then it's not going to make you look at the trail differently.

Douglas photo

As a major fan of the book, I was particularly interested in seeing what I had missed, particularly the parts of the village where I had been introduced to the characters. This documentary does a very good job of describing the village and its inhabitants, and it is interesting to see how the villagers make sense of the situation. The documentary does not get into too much detail about the actual village, but it does say that the village is still active, and it does show many pictures of the village, and there are many scenes where you can see people in the village doing things like fishing or walking through the woods. This documentary is not meant to be a documentary on the village, but rather a portrait of its inhabitants. It is well worth seeing.

Mildred photo

The problem with this documentary is that it feels like it's been edited and edited again. It feels like you are watching a selection of pictures from the various parts of the village, like the one showing the riots in the 70's and the one showing the riots in the 80's. The whole thing just feels like a montage, especially at the end. And it doesn't help that the music is so pretty, as well. The guy who does the music for the village is very good. He manages to create a very surreal atmosphere. I can't imagine how he did it in his native country, but I have to say that it's great. I'm looking forward to the next one, which will hopefully be better.

Vincent B. photo
Vincent B.

The village of Corcovado in the Brazilian Amazon was a place that was once a frontier town, and the townspeople are now a motley crew of mostly migrant workers. The movie, "Corcovado", which is a documentary, is a portrait of these workers and their lives. They are portrayed as very much like a village community that is slowly disappearing, which the documentary also shows. The documentary is in a real sense about the disappearance of this community, and also about the people's dreams and hopes. It is not a documentary about how the workers are affected by the environment. The documentary is about the dreams and hopes of these people and their relationship with each other. It is about their hopes and dreams of being independent and finding their own identity. The documentary is also about the struggles they face with the social stigma that they face. One worker tells how they were refused a job because they are not indigenous. Another worker says that he was insulted and used in the media, and that the media only wants to show images of "illiterate" people. The other worker, who is a man, tells how he has to go through a long process of re-training, and the labor costs that he has to pay. The documentary shows how these workers are not happy with the change in their life, and the questions they ask themselves. The documentary does not present these questions as they should be, but rather as they are. The documentary is a very personal film. It is also a very well made film, and it is very interesting. The director, who has made several documentaries, takes us through a journey through the lives of these people. He shows us the people's dreams, hopes, and struggles. He shows us the way they interact with each other and with their surroundings. He shows us their dreams of becoming self-sufficient and having their own identities. He shows us the labor that they have to pay for, and the barriers that they have to overcome. He shows us the communities that they live in. He shows us their hopes, dreams, and hopes for the future. All of this is a journey through the lives of these people. This is a documentary that should be seen by all.

Mary photo

First, I want to say that this movie was very well done. The cinematography was excellent, the acting was great, and the music was great. I just want to add that the part about the film being a documentary was a bit confusing to me, and I think the narrator's comments about the film being a documentary were confusing. I also think the "you've seen it" part was a bit unnecessary, because of the length of the film and the time that had passed since they saw it. I also thought that the Spanish filmmaker was a bit confusing, and at times I was confused as to who he was, or why he was speaking. I also thought that the Spanish filmmaker was a bit of a hypocrite because he was telling the story of these women, but he was also telling the story of these women, which he was not. Overall, I would recommend this movie to anyone who is a fan of these women, or a film lover.

Joseph Peters photo
Joseph Peters

While this is a pretty good documentary, it would have benefited from being longer. At just under 100 minutes, it seemed to me like the movie was running out of steam towards the end. This is probably due to the length of the book, but the filmmakers do a good job in taking the time to explain how the film came to be. I think they would have been better off editing the film down a bit to make it more enjoyable. For example, if you are going to show a village in the middle of the ocean, it would be better if you show it as a small island, not as a massive part of the world. As it is, it is a very beautiful place, but it would be more interesting to see it in the film. While the film is very well done, the question of the film is why are they doing this? I think the filmmakers did a good job, but it was still disappointing because the film should have been longer. Overall, I really liked the film. It was very well done, and I hope the filmmakers do a lot more of these kinds of films.

Amy B. photo
Amy B.

The US government has long been a reluctant participant in foreign aid programs, preferring to finance their own projects. But in 1973, under the guise of the War on Poverty, the US government finally began to provide funds for local governments to spend on projects of their choice. These projects were generally centered on the needs of the most vulnerable, as the US government's social welfare programs had been focused on the middle class. But, this would be only the beginning. Beginning with President Nixon's re-election in 1972, the US government began to provide substantial amounts of cash to aid the poorest nations in the developing world. This aid was to be used for projects that would improve living conditions and provide education to the people of the areas in need. The first major recipient was Nepal. The government of Nepal made this decision based on the successful success of its aid programs in providing education, health care, and other services to the people of the country. The US government provided these funds in aid packages which were initially made to Nepal, and then spread to other nations. The US government had become so involved in these programs, that it no longer bothered to identify the projects and the recipients. As a result, the funds for projects were often mis-identified. The US government's participation in the programs also made it easier for foreign aid recipients to give more than the government could afford to. This is one of the reasons why the UN and other organizations did not always see the US government's money as equally distributed. But, it would be another two decades before the US government would stop providing funds to other countries to aid their own programs. Today, the US government's role in providing the funds is quite different. Instead of providing aid to other countries, the US government has become a large contributor to the US military budget. The US military has become the largest single contributor to the US foreign aid budget. From the 1960s to the 1970s, the US military was involved in more than one hundred and twenty-five wars, many of which were declared on the pretext of fighting Communism. The US government was also involved in many other major projects in the developing world, which included the Marshall Plan, the Cold War, and the "War on Poverty". Today, the US government is involved in many more foreign aid programs than it was in the past, but, it is not involved in the same number of wars. The US government now provides funds to the poorest countries to provide assistance in developing these programs, rather than to combat Communism. But, the US government is also involved in providing the money to the military for war. In the 1970s, the US government also provided funding to several other countries for their military programs. The US government also provides aid to other countries in the developing world, such as Guatemala and Haiti. The US government's involvement in the military aid programs has become more visible in the past few decades.

Adam W. photo
Adam W.

A fascinating documentary about the life of La Vieille Taupe, a French Catholic nun, whose motto is to provide for the needy, her actions brought her into trouble with the Catholic church. It was in the 1970s that the nun began to be known for her efforts to provide for the needy in the rural villages of France, making friends with the villagers and becoming the poster child for the French government in this case. It is a great documentary that offers a lot of insights into the life of the nun. It is a very well written and well acted documentary. It is very well done and has an interesting story to tell. I recommend this documentary to anyone that enjoys documentaries.

Austin photo

In this documentary, filmmaker Mark D. Willams interviews several current and former members of the Mormon church. The story behind the film focuses on the decline of the church in the United States, which has had a very steep decline in the last few years. It was evident in the book, 'Mormonism' by Todd Compton, that the church is losing members and the question of the past is becoming more and more important to them. The movie 'Mormonism: A History' had the same question, but added a lot of other historical data, including a lot of interviews with some of the biggest names in the Mormon church. Most of the interviews are interesting, but some of the interviews are a bit over the top, which is a bit of a problem. Most of the interviews are not very deep, but the story behind the film is interesting and interesting. It is still a good film, but it could have been better. If you are interested in the history of the Mormon church, you should definitely see the documentary. It is a very interesting story. There are a lot of facts and interviews that make this a very interesting documentary. It is a good one, but it could have been better. 7/10

Gary photo

When I first saw this documentary, I felt a little bit overwhelmed. The film was very well made and kept me entertained. I did not find it particularly provocative or exciting. However, I did feel that there were a few ideas that I would like to have explored further. For example, why did these people spend so much time in the village? What was the connection between the villagers and the missionaries? What were the motives behind the missionaries? What was the relationship between the missionaries and the villagers? These questions are what lead the viewer to think about these things and then decide whether or not to pursue further investigation. Also, I am always interested in looking into the roots of religions and cults. Was it the influence of a religion or a culture that caused the villagers to want to live a life of forced submission to a foreign religion? Could these people have become some sort of forced converts? I think it would have been interesting to see more of the missionaries and their lives in the village. However, I would have liked to have seen more of the elders and other villagers, as well as some more of the missionaries and their lives. Overall, I would recommend this documentary to anyone interested in religious history, because it is definitely a must-see for those interested in religious history.

Alexander D. photo
Alexander D.

I went to see this movie on a Saturday night and was blown away. I saw this film on the big screen with my wife and she loved it. She said the acting was great and the message was a lot to take in. The film had lots of great narration from people in the village. I am from the village and it was interesting to see how it was different from the rest of the world. I would highly recommend this film to anyone who has ever been in a village and wondered what it was like. I do believe this film will change people's view of India. I think it is a must see and will help people to know about India.