One can't help but be skeptical about the movie even when just reading about it. It feigns presentation as a documentary, but distinctly is not one; it was funded by an oil company for self-promotion (ew, and double ew); while there are plenty of counterexamples, the 40s weren't exactly a hotbed of high-quality cinema, at least not as much in the United States. It may have also been received well at various times and in various ways, including being named in the first iteration of the British Film Institutes 'Sight & Sound' poll, but there's no such thing as an absolute guarantor of quality. Maybe these factors and that cynicism fed into my perspective as I sat to watch; maybe I've just seen enough breadth and depth of cinema, of all possible varieties, to make earnest assessments of value. One way or another, 'Louisiana story' does no more to begin making an especially strong impression upon watching than it does just to read about it. I question the obvious mistreatment we see of a raccoon, which in most instances in which it's on-camera seems to be in plain distress owing to actions by people. I question the name, because there's not much of a story here. I question the aimless frivolousness to many scenes that brings to mind the beach party movies of AIP that would come in the years to follow, paired in some cases with a false air of light adventure a la 'Lassie' (if 'Lassie' was entirely about Timmy).
In other instances, primarily in the footage of the derrick, there actually is a sense of plainspoken documentarian realism, such as with 'Man with a movie camera,' or Louis Malle's 'Humain, trop humain' - or, if you prefer, educational segments on public television from the likes of 'Mr. Roger's neighborhood.' I rather think that this flick would have been more meaningful if it had fully leaned into that approach, strictly and solely showing the operation of an oil rig, and completely dispensing with any footage of the Cajun "family" who was not a family in real life. This is at its most interesting, and is even kind of artistic in how it is shot, when showing us the various odds and ends of the industrial machinery and labor. When the picture instead focuses on the boy or his "family," at its best the artifice could not be more evident; at its worst, the production's handling of wildlife is cause for consternation. Perhaps there was value in this portion of the concept, too, but certainly not as we see it in 'Louisiana story.' This is a feature divided; in its extant form hardly any fragment of it has aged well, and much was dubious in the first place. I quite believe the point is further emphasized by how much footage we also get of the bayou and its wildlife, which though inherently valuable adds still another facet to the project and further weakens its value. Even Virgil Thomson's music, enjoyable in and of itself, often feels ill-fitting in light of the jumble that the title is overall.
There are some appreciable aspects to this, but they clash, and other aspects are just one big "no." Inasmuch as there is a "story" here, I think it's written poorly, with the dialogue being especially awful; how on Earth did this get nominated for an Academy Award for its screenplay?! Then, too, demonstrative of the source of financing, the film also blows past any notion of environmental destruction to give a ham-fisted spotlight to (questionable) management of that destruction. On top of everything else there is expression herein of antiquated values that 100% do not look good, and I've not even touched upon the story beat that recalls in the worst way a damnable incident of human activity recorded for posterity in Jacques Cousteau's 1956 documentary 'The silent world.' All this is to say that the first thing I ever knew about this movie was the reception it received in various ways, and my expectations were raised quite high; the second thing I ever knew about this movie was the background of the production, which lowered those expectations considerably. Now that I've watched, I think my lowered expectations were still too high. I see the potential that this bore in a few different manners, but the final form that 'Louisiana story' took squanders a preponderance of that potential in my opinion. For what is left that is done well, I just don't the experience particularly worthwhile; whatever you're hoping to get out of it, look elsewhere.
In other instances, primarily in the footage of the derrick, there actually is a sense of plainspoken documentarian realism, such as with 'Man with a movie camera,' or Louis Malle's 'Humain, trop humain' - or, if you prefer, educational segments on public television from the likes of 'Mr. Roger's neighborhood.' I rather think that this flick would have been more meaningful if it had fully leaned into that approach, strictly and solely showing the operation of an oil rig, and completely dispensing with any footage of the Cajun "family" who was not a family in real life. This is at its most interesting, and is even kind of artistic in how it is shot, when showing us the various odds and ends of the industrial machinery and labor. When the picture instead focuses on the boy or his "family," at its best the artifice could not be more evident; at its worst, the production's handling of wildlife is cause for consternation. Perhaps there was value in this portion of the concept, too, but certainly not as we see it in 'Louisiana story.' This is a feature divided; in its extant form hardly any fragment of it has aged well, and much was dubious in the first place. I quite believe the point is further emphasized by how much footage we also get of the bayou and its wildlife, which though inherently valuable adds still another facet to the project and further weakens its value. Even Virgil Thomson's music, enjoyable in and of itself, often feels ill-fitting in light of the jumble that the title is overall.
There are some appreciable aspects to this, but they clash, and other aspects are just one big "no." Inasmuch as there is a "story" here, I think it's written poorly, with the dialogue being especially awful; how on Earth did this get nominated for an Academy Award for its screenplay?! Then, too, demonstrative of the source of financing, the film also blows past any notion of environmental destruction to give a ham-fisted spotlight to (questionable) management of that destruction. On top of everything else there is expression herein of antiquated values that 100% do not look good, and I've not even touched upon the story beat that recalls in the worst way a damnable incident of human activity recorded for posterity in Jacques Cousteau's 1956 documentary 'The silent world.' All this is to say that the first thing I ever knew about this movie was the reception it received in various ways, and my expectations were raised quite high; the second thing I ever knew about this movie was the background of the production, which lowered those expectations considerably. Now that I've watched, I think my lowered expectations were still too high. I see the potential that this bore in a few different manners, but the final form that 'Louisiana story' took squanders a preponderance of that potential in my opinion. For what is left that is done well, I just don't the experience particularly worthwhile; whatever you're hoping to get out of it, look elsewhere.