User Reviews

What an odd way to start a film. We seem to be hearing a lecture about the brain, and human development, interspersed with introductions of several characters who don't seem to have much in common. But then Resnais starts working his magic, intertwining the stories of three people with the behavioral theories of Henri Laborit. Human behavior is compared to the behavior of lab rats, and even turtles and wild boars, and each new idea is illustrated in the lives of the main characters. And as an interesting third layer, each character has an "avatar" from classic French cinema; clips from their films are interspersed to comment on the action.

Too bizarre, you think? I thought so at first, but after awhile I was hooked. Fine performances, beautiful cinematography, and a captivating, multi-layered script makes this film an unforgettable experience.

Based on the writings of French physician/philosopher Henri Laborit: the lives of three individuals are chronicled and analyzed using theories of how human lives and behaviours are formed and the results of inner and outer conflicts due to early programming. The individuals are René (Gérard Depardieu), a devout Catholic who left behind his farming family and became an executive in a textile factory; Janine (Nicole Garcia) whose family cut ties with her when she pursued a successful career in acting; and Jean (Roger Pierre) who was born into wealth and works in politics and writing.

It is clear at the beginning that this film is unconventional. The opening sequence has three simultaneous narrations of the early lives of the main characters and it takes a very long time - much longer than most narrations take. But it all pays off. The information is valuable for the fascinating stories of what happens to the characters later on.

The acting of the three leads is solid. Among some of the best scenes: Depardieu and Pierre each have at least one hissy fit moment in which they are hilarious, chewing up the scenery and everyone else in it.

The Depardieu story is particularly fascinating as it accurately displays the unethical viciousness of the corporate world. (Notice the film takes place in 1980, a decade in which corporate deviousness would begin to take over the world and worsen with each decade that followed.) The René story can resonate with anyone who has spent any time in corporate purgatory.

The frequent narration of the film is intriguing in its observations of human behaviour using three fine examples. The style of the film is experimental. Usually, this means disaster but in the case of "Mon Oncle d'Amérique", the experimental style not only works; it works quite well. - dbamateurcritic

RATING: 9 out of 10

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT: Screenplay by Jean Gruault.

This film does What European films are good at, making life meaningful and interesting, no small feat. No car chases, gun fights, or martial arts needed.

The film is structured like a text book. First the professor lectures and then examples illustrating the lecture follow. It takes the 4 basic human drives and develops a plethora of behaviours from them. Here lies the wonder of the film. Examples that would be boring in a test book are brought to life with amazing skill and artfulness by Resnais, and the actors.

The science in the film is outdated. for example, it is no longer believed that the brain is tabula rasa at birth. However, this does not diminish the worth of the film as an artistic endeavor.

This film was made with the cooperation of psychologist Henri Laborit. It's broken down, like a greek drama, into narrative episodes and odes where the chorus, in this case psychologist Laborit, explains the meaning of the episodes. I love this movie because it makes clear the pretenance to everyday life of a discourse which is very rich as an interpretation of life, in exactly Matthew Arnold's sense, but at the same time so abstract that most people just, for example, reading Laborit's "Decoding the human message" would not see the immediate relevance of what was being said to their own daily concerns. I use this film to teach psychology. I open my intro class with it every term. Learning to read this film is learning to think like a psychologist. In the film, we cut from scenes of the human characters involved in various relationships to Laborit showing how lab rats react to stress under various conditions. The result is not dry or pedantic but funny as hell. It comes off as the rats doing a low burlesque of the human comedy. We also see the characters as children and as adults and scenes from various formative episodes along the way. When Laborit says "a person is a memory which acts" it seems a powerful commentary on what we are seeing on screen. We see one character as a tiny girl interacting with her factory worker father. He is a communist and he is teaching his newly articualte baby girl to repeat after him "USA go home". Watching this, I remember being taught to sing "Jeusus loves me" shortly after I started talking. This film is funny and wonderful dealing with the thing which matters most of all, the question of what it means to be a person.

I've seen this film twice. The first time, it told me how to view the world. The second time, it represented my view of the world. Everyone's actions are determined by a small number of forces, it says. Everyone's behavior fits into only four categories, it says. And yet, it presents such a wide range of emotions, actions, and thoughts that it seems to contradict its very hypothesis. And yet, it doesn't. Turn your brain on and watch this; give it time to sink in, then watch it again. I guarantee it will change your way of looking at the world. The editing is top-notch, and Resnais is at the top of his form, as he was 20 years earlier with Hiroshima Mon Amour. The ending is a stunner, and it encapsulates the film while at the same time extending its meaning. The cinematography and message will remind you of Resnais' Night and Fog. Brilliant performances from all three leads and Laborit. Give it time, use your brain, and view it multiple times. You will be rewarded.

Professor Henri Laborit is one of the geniuses of the previous century. And Alain Resnais directed a movie faithful to the scientist's work.

We could say about Mon oncle d'Amérique that it's a totally original film. It's impossible to compare it to any of the other movies in the history.

This piece of art shows in a very elegant and clever way how we human beings behave. It's as brilliant as deeply moving.

Definitely a must-see that reminds us why we used to admire Gérard Depardieu. The use of the archive footage of Danielle Darrieux, Jean Gabin, and Jean Marais are very touching in the middle of a movie that seems to be cold and demonstrative but that is not.

Watch this masterpiece ASAP. You'll never regret it.

Henri Laborit finishes with these words (if I remember correctly) - no spoiler really - :As long as we do not understand, that (today) we use our cortex predominantly in order to dominate other people, then nothing can change (for the better).

I myself coined the phrase: If I had power like Hitler, then I would be Hitler.

The point made here is not that I'm Hitler or want to be as little as it is Henri Laborit's point that it is allright for us to continue to use our brain as dominator over others. The point is, that if we get accustomed to power, then all we do turns out bad, in spite of 'good' intentions.

There is no 'good' power. That's the simple truth. To claim so is as ridiculous as to say that there is 'good' evil or totally erase the borders between good and evil and wind up in total confusion like Bob Dylan sings about in his songs 'Ring Them Bells' (They're breaking down the distance between right and wrong) and 'The Disease of Conceit'.

In attempts to dominate his surroundings, man is driven to madness and suicide. The film demonstrate this and Laborit compares rat behavior with human behavior when human lives are ridiculed by this animal quest for power instead of being allowed a quest that would be truly human (in the good sence of the word): the quest of the total destruction of all power and dominance in order to create a truly human society of decency and brotherhood.

We possess a refined and beautiful cortex - why not use it for its proper purpose?, is the conclusion we find ourselves in after having seen the movie (well, not all of us).

Its a lot like a Greek Tragedy, except the chorus is supplemented by evolutionary psychologist and pharmacologist Henri Labroit explaining the actions of the characters in terms of his ideas concerning human and mammal behavior; consumption behavior, escape behavior, combat behavior, and inhibition behavior. We trace the lives of three characters from birth through childhood, and into the drama of their adult lives. Their adult lives are full of struggles with career, family, relationships, intersecting at times, but only as dramatic as real life allows. Its the way Alain Resnais constructs the stories that makes them fascinating. We observe them largely as a scientist might, in terms of parents, environment, traits, and habits. At one point Labroit discusses shock experiments done on mice, in later scenes we flash back to the characters who have giant mouse heads, the effect is startling and funny, at once. The most complex human emotions are rendered as functions of the animal brain, human relationships are as simple as mice being given aversion therapy, or as complex, depending on how you look at it. Labroit and Resnais seems at odds at times, about the miraculousness and simplicity of it all, but it helps to make the movie more dynamic. Its educational and informational as a science documentary, but the drama is so well entergrated the intellectual stimulation is offset, by a real sense of attachment and catharsis for and with the characters. The problems of their lives are those everyone experiences, Gerard Depardieu is a devout catholic, raised on a farm, who works at a factory and is struggling with being downsized. Nicole Garcia is raised by communist parents, and becomes an actress and later a stylist, having an affair with the married...Roger Pierre, the head of the French Ministry of Radio, raised by an affluent family, who longs to write a book about the history of the sun. I've only seen two Resnais films, "Hiroshima Mon Amour" and "Last Year At Marienbad"(which I fell asleep while watching twice), and this is somewhere between the emotional fallout of the first and the experimental daring of the later, but its my favorite of the three. An enthralling, fascinating, and profound film, that's as emotionally disarming as it is intellectually engaging. Visually it's stunning as well. The final image of the Forest mural on the building speaks volumes. I need more Resnais in my life.

The intersecting stories of three people who face difficult choices in life-changing situations are used to illustrate the theories espoused by Henri Laborit about human behavior and the relationship between the self and society.

Alain Resnais is a director who seems to be well-known by film buffs, but is not terribly well known by the general public. Perhaps because some of his films are strange, or perhaps because Americans don't watch very many foreign films. For my money, "Last Year at Marienbad" is one of the all-time best films ever made.

While this may not be "Last Year", it again stands out. Taking an abstract concept and trying to flesh it out as a narrative? That is something rarely seen, and seems appropriately French. And to include the man himself within the structure trying to present his idea? Even more interesting.

By making "Mon Oncle D'Amérique" / My American uncle, French director Alain Resnais made a strong as well as serious attempt to comprehend whether human beings are same as rats ? He wanted to portray the fundamental behavior of human beings when confronted with a rival or dealing with life's tough situations. For this film, Resnais teamed up with famous French neurobiologist Henri Laborit to investigate whether the behavioral traits of human beings can be observed as precisely as those of rats in laboratories ? This film features outstanding performances by Gérard Depardieu and Nicole Garcia.In many ways, the acting performances of this film's actors is a direct tribute to the glorious past of French cinema. Each major actor is shown as connected to another colossal figure of French cinema. This is done by linking Depardieu with Jean Gabin and Jean Marais and Nicole Garcia with Danielle Darrieux.My American uncle is neither difficult nor intellectual in nature.It is a different film as before Alain Resnais no director thought of amalgamating a feature film with shades of documentary film's aesthetics. It is a film which requires viewers to display some form of intelligence in order to comprehend scientific explanations which are "Raison D'être" of its characters' behavioral as well as personal traits. The historical importance of "My American uncle" is due to the fact that Resnais' film features creators as 'real stars' as opposed to actors as 'real stars'.

Alain Resnais' Mon Oncle d'Amerique is an interesting intellectual exercise that sometimes works as a movie. It centers around the concepts of scientist philosopher Henri Laborit, who sees human actions as programmatic reactions based on physical phenomenon; thousands of tiny instructions and visceral reactions that create what we believe is free will. Some IMDB reviewers find that cynical, but I find it quite convincing.

These ideas are laid out through the lives of three people. Laborit explains how mice react in experiments while we watch mice, then we see how human beings react in seemingly analogous ways. Sometimes to drive the point out human dramas are played out by humans wearing mice-head masks.

At the same time, the dramas in the characters lives are juxtaposed with brief film clips. This puzzled me for most of the movie until I realized it was a way of comparing how people see their own actions - as big, dramatic moments full of fury and passion and despair - with how Laborit sees them.

Resnais' films are all, from what I've seen, intellectual and experimental. But some, like Hiroshima Mon Amour, are also dramatically and emotionally compelling. In the case of Mon Oncle d'Amerique I never felt a strong connection to its characters. Take away the Laborit framework and you've got a pretty conventional slice of lives movie.

Resnais is always interesting but not always enjoyable. This movie is, for me, fairly interesting and mildly enjoyable. It's worth watching, but not something I would watch again.

Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" (1980) is an exceptionally different film as a unique blend of science and art, however, it's not necessarily anything entirely new to the director himself. After all, time -- in its ontological, existential and historical context -- has always been a leading theme for Resnais. In fact, throughout his career Resnais has studied how the past forms the present and how our personal and collective memories form our consciousness and culture. Although Resnais' approach has always been more philosophical than psychological, in "My American Uncle" this thematic study has been taken to a whole new level: it has turned into a laboratory experiment with three fictional characters whose stories both differ and coincide, leading into an inevitable fusion.

In addition to this trio the film has a fourth integral character, Henri Laborit, a scientist devoted to basic research, whose evolutionary and behaviorist theories are examined in the lives of the three characters. Sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, but always fruitful, this blend of science and art results not only in synthesis of reason and emotion, theory and practice, but also in profound dialectics of fact and fiction, reality and cinema. Above all, the freedom of the spectator is an essential element for Resnais and therefore, Laborit's commentary never works as an absolute frame of reference. On the contrary, the viewer is free to choose whether the fiction coincides with his theories or contradicts them.

In close connection with the theme of time, here Resnais studies the essence of humanity. All the characters of "My American Uncle", including Laborit, are introduced from their childhood to the present, and the viewer is given a point of reference to ponder what makes us who we are. Resnais asks, for example, how does biology (gender, temperament and prenatal factors), environment (the films we see, the people we admire, family and culture) and the nerve system affect our development. In brief, Resnais contemplates what it means to be a human being. Laborit himself offers a thought on this by saying that man is "a memory that acts."

All in all, "My American Uncle" is a film that has been built with precision and care. When watched right, it unfolds in an utterly beautiful fashion. The film is as if an organic mosaic -- like human life itself -- which gathers its final, though subjective, form later in the spectator's mind as the pieces come together. The stories, first introduced in collage-like photo montage, aren't finished for they continue their development outside the borders of the screen. These are the stories about perpetual failures and the fragility of happiness and contentment. All the characters are hoping for something better. Their mundane existence is characterized by a constant yearn for freedom, love and happiness. All of them are waiting for something -- for their own American uncle.

Alain Resnais tells three interconnected stories interspersed with an occasional narration by psychologist/philosopher/physician Henri Laborit (best known for discovering chlorpromazine and revolutionizing the use of drugs in psychiatric treatment) describing his theories of human behavior. The stories turn out to ... illustrate/demonstrate/confirm (???) ... his views.

Knowing too much about the subject matter of a movie can really ruin it. I think the stories Resnais chooses to tell here are entertaining, but I doubt they completely stand alone without their connection to Laborit. I was deliberately vague above about what that connection is supposed to be because quite frankly I don't understand what Resnais thinks he's doing.

I really do think that Resnais thinks that only by viewing these stories through the Laborit lens (which is a rather sophisticated version of behaviorism that uses biology to fill in the blanks in cruder forms) do we really understand what we're seeing, This simply isn't true. Like most narratives, the stories are so high level that any number of incompatible psychological theories could be imposed on them and be equally explanatory.

I think it's really a kind of silly film.

This film will only appeal to two types of people 1. Resnais die-hard fans (including me) and intellectuals. This film is extremely odd and infuriating if your an average cinema goer. The film is a cinematic science lesson. But it is absolutley amazing. Resnais uses documentary techniques and surrealism and a narrator (a world renowned expert on human behaviour) who discusses the characters through out the film. It follows three people who are all loosely connected. What makes the film so superb is the fact that it is am intellectual avante garde arthouse film, that instead of isolating the viewer like they usually do. Resnais creates a wonderfully warm film. You end up really liking the characters. Who grow up before your eyes over the years. Resnais doesn't put a foot wrong.Gerard Depiedieu is great as the frustrated office worker who struggles raising a family and hassles at work.

ten out of ten

I gave this an 8 out of 10 because while I believe that the first half hour of the film is necessary to set the stage, it lost my wife who is ordinarily a die-hard Gerard Depardeu fan. When watching a film you've paid 8 bucks for, you don't have a choice. You feel a need to sit and watch and get your money's worth. But on DVD or on-demand, the lesser attention spanned may walk off before the film gets rolling.

OK, that said, once it gets rolling it becomes a wonderfully astute, and touching film about our humanity. Gerard plays his usual lovable oaf and brings warmth and humanity to the film when the other characters, while sympathetic, are cold and "reptilian" to quote the narrator. Gerard's character made me ask whether a certain level of foolishness was necessary to keep us humble and honest.

Finally, the film is very French and high culture to the point of being almost a parody of such films. It's a kind of dark comedy that's so subtle, that some people won't get it. I know my wife didn't.

Finally, there are distributions available in wide screen and even HD that was magnificent. I'm sure it's still great on letterboxed but try to get the widescreen/HD version or upconverted.

I have just seen the film in my city's biggest cine club with just about all my cinema colleagues. When I bought the ticket I was handled a leaflet with comments of some critics and the very first sentence was "it questions what it is to be French" which obviously scared me. Although I much love the European country and do like many of its films, this is not a question I catch myself asking every now and then. It seemed like a Nouvelle Vague personal crisis of what am I, where I am at, and all that... and I have to say my opinion about the Nouvelle Vague is quite controversial to most of the cinema fans. When the film began, the explanation of the thesis the movies shows most willingness to prove, I all had was a confirmation and a damn-it-what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here sensation. However, I've payed for the ticket, I had slept for the whole afternoon and I didn't have money for extra beers outside the cinema, so I stubbornly decided to stay. And what a wise decision I have made! The plot goes on beautifully questioning everything (and I couldn't spot the French questions, thanks God). I actually saw questions about love and life - definitely not exclusive to the French. I saw characters that were designed with a precise care - not excessively harsh, nor excessively romantic. Real people with real problems and real solutions (for the good or for the bad). In a sensitive and reasonable balance, not in the hysterical way many movies end up going whilst pondering about such questions. I have to say I thought a zillion times on the last part of the movie that this was the time to stop, to finish. And the director kept on repeating scenes and talking about all his personal theories - which I think the viewer has the legitimate right to formulate. But it kept on going and kept on going like a brainwash. I, myself, and what I think is my intelligence, got a little offended. In the overall, I really enjoyed the film. And I am going to watch some other Resnais' work to see if his cutting skills had developed, don't worry.

A timeless film, full of symbolism and direct analogies, the mice, poor mice, a good plot, deliciously presenting, intersecting the history of the trio, in the same temporal lapse, within what the author called 4 elements that regulate behavior: consumption, gratification, punishment and inhibition... Emotions and feelings with black film images and arm, finely produced, fantastically reproduced...

MY AMERICAN UNCLE is Resnais' groundbreaking cinematic reification of the nexuses of evolutionary psychology, propounded by French neurologist and philosopher Henri Laborit's (1914-95), who plays himself in the film and intermittently expounds his theory with crying lucidity and eloquence aided by an assortment of optimal visual cues (lab mice and the experiments, prominently). "The being's only reason for being is being." a tenet puts rationality to the fore in dissecting the pedestrian lives of the triad of our human-formed guinea pigs: René Ragueneau (Depardieu), Janine Garnier (Garcia) and Jean Le Gall (Pierre).

Deconstructing their discrete childhood upbringing and adolescent rebellions in rapid-fire, incoherent montages, often alternating with shots of sundry critters in conjunction with an explanatory voiceover, might stump some viewers in the off, but Resnais' stream-of-consciousness modus operandi pays great dividends when one gets the general picture of the narrative, meanwhile....

continue reading my review on my blog: cinema omnivore, thanks

I'm not usually that big a fan of Resnais' films, but this dissection of middle class France circa 1980 is quite engaging. The movie intertwines three stories, loosely connected: the story of a civil servant, that of a middle manager in a textile firm (Gerard Depardieu, in the most interesting segment) and that of an actress (Nicole Garcia, the least interesting one). The stories are commented by biologist Henri Laborit, who elaborates on how we respond to external circumstances in modern society and at one point compares the reactions of the characters to the pressures of society to those of rats in a laboratory. (The constant references to actors in French classical cinema is less interesting, as cinephilia seems to be a particular French obsession). Laborit's theories might be outdated or naive, but they make a funny counterpoint to the action. I came out of the movie with the idea of modern capitalist society as a pressure cooker to those who want to play high in the game - nothing new, but it's well illustrated in the film. And to those of us old enough to remember the late seventies and early eighties, is fun to see back the clothes, the cars, etc., that people use back then on the screen.

This is another example of people worshiping and glorifying garbage just to appear "smart" because their art teachers told them this movie is a masterpiece so all the sheeple have to follow it because it would be a huge sin to actually form your own opinions.

What makes a movie great? You need one or more of the following: a great plot, great acting, great cinematography, interesting characters, great music. Which ones does this movie have? Absolutely none? Then why is it being called a masterpiece?

It's one of the most boring, pointless, overrated, inane movies I've ever seen. It has no plot, no interesting characters, not even a main theme or a main lesson. The producer of the movie says "what we call personality is actually shaped by rewards and punishments within the society" but even that's wrong because the society rewards and punishes the same behavior for all humans but all humans have unique and different personalities.

I've seen YouTube videos that are way better than this movie which a lot of clueless people wrongly call a "masterpiece". If this is a masterpiece, I can produce 10 masterpieces every single day for the rest of my life.

I just saw this - after having heard of it, seen it on video store shelves for over a decade. A movie that begins oddly, drily, repays anyone who pays attention for at least 15 minutes with something absorbing, warm, fascinating and often quite funny.

It is one of the most thought-provoking movies I've ever seen in my life. I disagree that its appeal is limited to intellectuals or those who like the director (I'd seen only Last Year at Marienbad, couldn't tell hide nor tail, and that was all I thought of Resnais).

Depardieu's character is one we can relate to fully as much as we do to Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman - but all the principal characters (except the cold as ice boss of Depardieu) are greatly sympathetic.

This is just so moving and powerful a movie about the life we life - our work, our anger, our sorrow, our obsession, our ambition, our ideals and the way we deal with the things we want in life. Just stay with it for 15-20 minutes - you'll be fascinated. This is truly superb, truly absorbing, truly unique.

This film is thought provoking for many reasons. One particular reason is: it relates to the psychology of rats, and by extension humans; and how learned helplessness manifests under certain conditions. The rat experiment where the rat learns that his actions are pointless; as when he is shocked and he cannot escape, is highly relatable to much of our experience to some extent. People internalize situations that they cannot change and thus a state of hopelessness ensues which becomes destructive. The other insight into the rat studies is when the rat has a companion; who also experiences the punishment with him. Both rats engage in violent behavior towards one another, but this is pointless as the punishment will continue regardless of their actions. However, these rats do not become demoralized as they have engaged in a state of action; which is to say the fighting; the aggression; has served a purpose of offsetting the learned helplessness that ensues when a situation cannot change. Interesting stuff - again applicable to humans. We live in peaceful times with highly anxious people that have no outlet of venting their woes as society does not allow for violence. This seems to me to be doomed for destruction anyway; whether it be some explosive event that will seemingly come out of nowhere; or in most cases probably a state of societal demoralization. It's all around us unfortunately today. I have always been someone who is championed non violence but maybe there is room for punching your boss in the face, especially if that prevents a catastrophic explosive event down the line. I can imagine all the iterations; small and large; across different peoples; who experience this state of learned helplessness we have talked about. There has to be an antidote to all of this. So that people can fight on despite their circumstances being tough. Because the last thing we need our people that our self defeated; that give up because "everything is meaningless" - we need people that have tremendous self belief and the will to push on. Anyway.