Thanks for the memories!

Please don't spend money on this.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

An unusual, haunting film, made in 1970 about a labor revolt in a tiny, primitive Tunisian town in the early 1960s. Slow, deliberate, with almost no dialogue at all (I don't speak French and saw a version without subtitles or narration, and felt I missed nothing) it feels much more like a beautifully photographed documentary than a narrative film. The 'plot' doesn't even start to develop until more than halfway through the film. The first half simply gives us an overview of how life in the village works through images and sounds. And even when the face off does occur, it is presented in muted, slow-moving visual strokes. Faces, and body language tell the tale as the French bring in troops to stare down the quietly dignified striking workers. A film that acknowledges there are gains that come with progress (education is clearly noted as a plus by the film), but at a high cost in terms of exploitation of the majority, and the loss of a simple and honest way of life, as generations worked the earth while living in comparative harmony with it and each other.

IMPORTANT:the two precedent users have probably seen the original 1969 version the soundtrack of which is minimal.The movie seems to have been restored in 2002 (?) :it features now a voice-over (Bertucelli himself)which never stops from the beginning till the end.It's at once an advantage and a disadvantage:the two posters made a very good depiction of the sounds ,and the new version spoils them a bit.On the other hand,Bertucelli literally explains the making of his movie:he had to film in Algeria cause the book was forbidden in Tunisia ,some of the parts were played by members of his crew(the schoolteacher),the Army only provides him with a vehicle and uniforms,he had to hire the inhabitants of a neighboring village.He explains almost every shot ,how he filmed it,the mistakes he made,you name it.."Remparts d'argile" (=ramparts of clay),what a beautiful title!The strength and the weakness :Bertucelli justifies his choice too.He tells us his movie is first a documentary ;then halfway it turns into a fiction (actually it's still reality).It's almost as good as Bunuel's "los hurdes" (1932) .But whereas the people of the poor Spanish village were not able to revolt ,"remparts d'argile" is the story of a double rebellion:1.Rebellion of the men abetted by women .They refuse the starvation wage which the man in suit (almost an extra-terrestrial in this context;he is played by the only professional actor of the whole film;Bertucelli tells us he was at the time a very popular comic(!) actor)gives them.2.Much more important:Rima's rebellion.She was an outcast in the village because to be an orphan seemed to be a curse.When she lets the pail fall into the well,she turns back on superstition,religion,all that prevents people from becoming emancipated.She did not learn to read in vain:she was taught by a kid,cause she had be banned from school.Ramparts of clay ,indeed ,which begin to crack."Remparts d'argile" is a very ambitious work,easily the best the director has ever done.Sometimes I wonder if it's the same man who made "docteur Françoise Gailland".Had Bertucelli continued in that vein (of "remparts d'argile,of course) ,he might have revolutionized the FRench cinema.

Two years ago I saw this film for the first time. I thought it slow, and I missed dialogue. The location was interesting, though - and still the story came alive in the hands of this powerful actress. I was fascinated - and even months later, the story continued to resonate within me. The events are small. The heroism is of a human scale. The motivation for change is believable. These appear to be real people, captured so effectively by a documentary filmmaker - and yet it is a created story. If it is not factually based, it tells truth.Yes, the film is slow and deliberate, but "Ramparts of Clay" has substance. The humanity of all the actors makes them my kin - and I care about them, and what will happen to them.

This film explores the exploitation and Sisyphus-like labor of rural people in Tunisia. The men break rocks for wages they can barely live on. The women support the men - who are considered the lowest caste in society - when they go on strike, but the film shows that there is caste lower of that of these men. The women, among their other chores, pump water from a deep well that is a long and strenuous labor. They receive no payment for their work and are limited to the confines of their tiny village. When one young, unmarried woman discovers that there is a world different from hers outside her village, she wants to leave, but she receives no support from the other villagers. This film beautifully illustrates the vast emptiness of these people's lives through the dusty, russet-colored landscape where everything is composed of either dirt, rock, or clay. Most effective though, is the piercing, squeaky sound of the rusty pump at the well. It becomes a sound of dismay and futility. If one could audibly create a sound of a prison in a wasteland, this would be it. It's been a few years since I've seen this film, but that sound still haunts me. When I think of the problems of my life, I often think back on the village in this film and others like it that still exist in many parts of the world. Movies like this should be seen by everybody.