The title of French director Louis Malle's documentary film "Place De La République" can be interpreted in two distinctly different manners.For many viewers it is a decent documentary film about a famous area in Paris known as "Place De La République".Those who know French language well and are well versed with various subtle intricacies of French culture would not forfeit even a single minute to make out that this title is talking about the status of the French republic as a nation. Louis Malle has nicely blended these two elements while filming his film by choosing "Place De La République" area for a film shoot and republic of France as its political focus.Although the primary focus is on Paris as a French city,concerns of France as a country have not been overlooked as viewers get to hear and see many regional voices from different French areas.One big problem with this film is that Louis Malle follows a very primitive,raw form of documentary film making in which there is no narration.His choice of interviews is also very haphazard and it discourages viewers to form any kind of cohesive association with various people's lives which have been filmed.Louis Malle was a better director of fiction films but his documentary films also deserve to be watched as they provide interesting glimpses about how human beings behave in a social environment.However,this aspect is not fully developed in this film.

A voice-over explains: "The concept was simple: with camera and microphone in plain view, we struck up conversations with passers-by." The French word used is "des inconnus"— "unknown people"— which can have the sense of "strangers," "mere nobodies," or even the mathematical concept of "an unknown quantity." At another point the film makers tell one person, "It's about people in the street." Early in the film an older lady, retired, with a son and granddaughter, and "very happy," is astonished that the film makers are attempting to make a film without actors playing roles or to make a documentary without commentary. The film makers point out that she herself is at that moment providing the commentary. She seems delighted at the realization.What follows for one and a half hours is about thirty-five encounters filmed over a fifteen-day period— a diverse range of people, many of whom willingly tell about their background, and some of whom discuss the very basis of their outlook on life. Some are decidedly odd. Many mention or give accounts of experiencing profound loss (some very recent), hardship, difficulty, or discomfort. Yet everyone is carrying on— some a little pathetically,— some gallantly, even beautifully. Some, whose personal situation might make a pitiful character in a fiction, are absolutely charming. All have dignity. All describe themselves as resigned, accepting, content, and even quite happy.The film ends with a second encounter with a talkative woman pushing a bicycle. Her long and rambling story draws small crowds, and would seemingly have continued indefinitely if the film makers had been able to keep up with her on her bicycle. She rides beyond their range, and a quote from Raymond Queneau appears, translated as: "'Why,' he said, 'should one not tolerate this life, when so little suffices to deprive one of it?'" Without using scripted actors or commentary, the film succeeds as a tribute to the strength of the human spirit.

I really enjoy this document. I don't know if I find it fascinating or melancholic or charming... not sure what it is. I like looking back into a world that I didn't know in the first place; yet somehow I feel nostalgic for it. It might be the little things that have changed about all of us: there are smokers, no cellphones, well worn clothing, plain (or less adorned) figures, all somehow charismatic whether brash, jovial, sullen, spent and nebulous. These are people "apres le deluge", war survivors, immigrants, country folk in the city, vamps, authentics. I especially liked the consistency of some of the replies, and Malle's alarm at how many people living near La Place are ill. This film will change like a memories do - watching it from 2007 is a different experience than in 1974 or 1984 or the year after Malle's death. This movie was a service to his country and to all. There is no threatening bias to the document. It may be beyond current historians to even dare to make something like this today; they all seem so bent on imprinting everything with smarmy moral equivocations ala Ken Burns. I would like to see this experiment continued - perhaps someone like Gondry should take to the street again.

I'm very torn about this film. This is an interesting film that makes you want to get up and change the channel. Here's the problem, this film is nothing more than Louis Malle and his film crew on a street corner interviewing or following people who pass by.Thats it. There is no plot. No grand revelation. Nothing except people being people. Its absolutely wonderful...except that it goes on for 95 minutes. Since there is no plot or narrative there is nothing to hold your attention for more than a certain amount of time, you start to drift. Don't get me wrong what you're seeing is great, it really is, the problem is that after four or five people you'd wish it went some where. I mean its great having it on DVD since I can stop it and come back to it later,but at the same time I don't know if this is the sort of thing I could watch in a theater for 95 minutes in one sitting. I think the best way to describe it is as a absolutely wonderful candy that is the finest in the world, but its not the sort of thing you can eat more than a few of lest you get sick. This movie is like gorging on your favorite candy until you feel sick. That said, if you can see this is small bites I highly recommend it.