I confess that I am not a big fan of Russian director Aleksandr Sokurov. Many consider him the greatest Russian director of the 21st century and Tarkovsky‘s successor on Earth. I wasn’t at all excited (euphemism!) About ‘Russian Ark‘, I liked more ‘The Sun‘ and ‘Faust‘, but none of them managed to get more than a grade of 8 on IMDB from me. ‘Francofonia‘ made in 2015, his latest project that hit the screens, did not make me change my mind.
How could I describe ‘Francofonia‘? Maybe we can talk about it as a personal documentary, or as a filmed essay on art museums and their place in European history, some kind of a sequel to ‘Russian Ark‘ from this point of view. The Hermitage is also mentioned, by the way. Sokurov takes us through the history of the Parisian Louvre without going into details, without dwelling too much on any work of art. There is a central story, that of the German occupation and the confrontation in the period between 1940 and 1942 between the French administrator of the museum, Jacques Jaujard, and the head of the German section responsible for art in the occupied countries, count Wolff-Metternich, which turned into a tacit collaboration. The museum’s art treasures were spared destruction and transfer as war trophies to temporarily victorious Germany. This is a story that has also been told several times in writing and on screen.
The docu-drama element is quite fragile and does not bring anything new to those who are minimally familiar with the subject. The essay part includes comments (by the director, I think) about the fragility of art and museums that house heritage treasures. To support this idea, a side story is introduced in which the commentating director talks via the Internet to the captain of a ship carrying containers (maybe with works of art?) on a stormy sea. It combines in a free collage documentary sequences, elements of docu-drama, plus slightly ridiculous scenes with Napoleon and Marianne, the symbol of France, serving as guides through the empty rooms of the museum. The commentary is vaguely poetic, null in depth of information, and slightly historically biased when trying to draw a forced comparison between the fate of Paris and the Louvre on the one hand and that of Leningrad besieged during the war and the Hermitage. In short, a personal film, which tries to be interesting and original, but only manages to be flat and pretentious.
‘Doar cu buletinul la Paris‘ is a film I almost avoided seeing. Judging by its title, it seemed to be one of those Romanian comedies blessed with an excellent cast, but which generally recirculates and perpetuates overused jokes. In the end, however, I decided to see it because of the name of director Serban Marinescu and of some of the actors in the cast. I had a pleasant surprise.’Doar cu buletinul la Paris‘ employs that same sarcastic and desperate comic of Romanian films after 1990 (on the line of ‘Philanthropy‘) but manages to insert some interesting and authentic moments of cinema, and provides the opportunity of an extraordinary supporting role to Dorel Visan, one of the the great Romanian actors whose talent was somehow pre-empted from expressing themselves by the stereotypical distribution in roles appropriate to the patterns of the epochs. Here the actor seems to take full revenge, perhaps creating the role of his life or in any case the role of the latest part of his career.
The principal hero of the film is a teacher of French language and literature (Mircea Diaconu), single, aging, whose dream is to get to see Paris for a few days. The discipline he teaches has become useless and obsolete like Romania’s francophony. Paris is now seemingly at hand, Romania is in Europe, its citizens cross borders without a passport, but with the hero’s poor teacher’s salary it would take him about ten years to raise money for the trip. He hopes to be included in a bus trip organized by the city hall, but the corrupt mayor replaces him at the last minute with his secretary, who is also his mistress. This is the starting point of a series of events in which vile or ridiculous characters steal from each other, in which the lack of chances of the unfortunates of the transition leads some to pathetic speeches, others to sublime but ultimately useless goodness acts.
Mircea Diaconu enters very well the role of the naive, but I can’t help feeling that he is repeating the same role in some of his films from the last two decades. The same can be said about Razvan Vasilescu who plays the role of the perfect vilain, the opportunistic and unscrupulous trafficket enriched at the expense of his neighbors. The best acting belongs to Dorel Visan, who interprets an archetype of the generation of pensioners hit by the slow and unfair transition, misinformed by television and contaminated by the virus of nostalgia for communism. Director Serban Marinescu uses several times the process of direct dialogue between the main hero and the spectator (a la Woody Allen) which works perfectly here, and adapts the movements of the camera to the story. The interior staircase of the block is filmed at angles specific to horror movies, in the scenes in which the television team shows up he uses a mobile camera as in live reporting. The good cinematography, the actors’ performances, the approaching of a familiar theme through well-written dialogues mixing absurd and sarcasm made this film to exceed my expectations. The ending is one of desperate optimism.
‘Conversations with Other Women‘ is a film that surprised me. I had read about it, probably too much, but anyway, the hype around it was already quite high, and I expected this 2005 film by Hans Canosa who has directed only three feature films in total so far (this one is being the second) to be an interesting but rather arid cinematic exercise. Using the process of splitting and reconstructing the screen from two different frames for almost the entire duration of the film promised to tire me out from a certain point in time. The surprise was to discover a film that offers much more authentic emotion than I expected. Does the split screen technical gimmick that some consider brilliant, others annoying and tiring help or disturb? Honestly, I’m not sure, but I believe that I also discovered a serious root and motivation for using this method in the story itself that is told in the film.
The heroes of the film are identified only as Man (Aaron Eckhart) and Woman (Helena Bonham Carter). They meet at a wedding in a hotel in New York, and in the first scenes we have the impression that we are witnessing an idyll between two mature strangers (about 37-38 years old), which will end as a one night stand in one of the hotel rooms. The two do end up in the room and in the bed, but on the way we discover that they knew each other, that they had been married, probably a first love marriage, 15 years ago, which quickly broke up. The passion seems to have a chance to rekindle between the two, who came alone, each for his own reasons, at the wedding, although each of them has a different relationship, apparently comfortable and stable. Is there a second chance? Is what they live really a passion that erupts again, or just the revival of youth memories?
The film asks some interesting questions about youth and maturaty and the ages of love, and it does so through dialogues and situations that manage to be both intelligent and sound natural. The two actors act perfectly rendering the attraction, the hesitations, the hopes, the remorse of such a situation. It would have been enough for a good movie or a quality romantic play. ‘Conversations with Other Women‘, however, has greater ambitions, and manages to be more than just a good romantic film. Using the split screen allows the director to break the convention of objectivity of the camera. Each of the two characters has his/her point of view, his/her feelings, his/her memories. They are together physically, but that doesn’t mean that they are feeling together. Like in many relationships the two partners are not always in harmony of feelings, do not always understand what the other feels. Excellent editing makes the images blend perfectly most of the time, but when the synchronization doesn’t happen the distortions make sense, expressing the emotional differences between the two protagonists.
Hans Canosa has not directed a new film in a decade. I hope that he did not abandon his career as a film director, but only carefully prepares his next production. I look forward to it.
There are deaths it is very difficult for me to reconcile with, deaths about which I maintain a degree of disbelief. I can’t believe, for example, that I won’t see new movies with Robin Williams or Philip Seymour Hoffman. These are such great actors who have created so many memorable roles, so diverse from one film to another, it’s still hard for me to accept that there will be no more. It’s hard for me to talk about them in the past tense, because death took them by surprise when they still had so many lives to live as movie heroes on screens plus their own. I kept postponing watching ‘A Most Wanted Man‘, even though I’m a passionate of spy books and movies and a big fan of John le Carré. The main reason, of course, is that I knew it was Philip Seymour Hoffman‘s last great role. Now that I’ve seen the film directed by Anton Corbijn released in 2014, I should probably start getting used to it. His role is fascinating and the film, which has many other qualities but also some problems, revolves around him.
In adapting John le Carré‘s novel, the screenwriters simplified the story, eliminating for example all British references but especially simplified (and in many respects over-simplified) most of the characters by turning them into typological examples rather than complex, ambiguous characters, always carrying several layers of masks from the novels of the English master writer. It can be said that Günther Bachmann (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the head of the German intelligence team that organizes shadow operations in the pursuit of terrorist organizations and follows the financing channels of Islamic terrorism, is the only character truly belonging to le Carré‘s universe. Around him is built the conspiratorial intrigue that takes place in the milieus of the espionage services, of the legal and illegal immigrants, of the big finance in Germany. The story is well written and interesting, and as an international spy film ‘A Most Wanted Man‘ can be considered a success. The cinematography is excellent, Hamburg with its cold, fog and shadows looks very good and authentic in Benoît Delhomme‘s conception, and let’s not forget that the film director Anton Corbijn is also a photographer by formation, and author of short films with a strong visual impact.
We can, of course, only regret that such talents as Rachel McAdams, Robin Wright or Willem Dafoe do not have more consistent roles. Their characters hold much promise but remain at the sketch level. The same goes for the relationship between the idealistic leftist lawyer (Rachel McAdams) and the Chechen refugee (Grigoriy Dobrygin) who could have been the subject of an entire film, but here it does not convince and does not create emotion. Maybe all this is also due to the fact that the film is dominated by the acting creation of Philip Seymour Hoffman. His Günther Bachmann tries to play a honest role in a dishonest world, agrees to engage in illegal activities in the fight against those for whom the law has no meaning, manipulates and is manipulated, and is aware that those he uses risk being destroyed just by agreeing to cooperate with him even if he tries to save them, but he continues, because there is no alternative. If Philip Seymour Hoffman‘s life and career had continued, this would have been one of a series of outstanding roles on screen. Being the last role, it gains extra significance – we know when we see his last cry of despair, his last disappointed look thrown over his shoulder. Farewell, Philip Seymour Hoffman!
‘Garde a vue‘, made in 1981, brings together on screen two of the super-stars of French cinema from the ’60s and’ 70s, each of them in one of their last films, although neither their age nor their artistic form indicates anything about the close endings. Romy Schneider was in her penultimate film, she would die a year later, at only 43, with a heart weakened by illness and by the various excesses of her short but intense life. Lino Ventura was 62 years old when ‘Garde a vue‘ was filmed, he would make six more films (including a formidable Jean Valjean in ‘Les Misérables‘) but he would also leave this world relatively quickly, in 1987. The film’s director, Claude Miller was not very young, but this was only his third movie. But what a movie! ‘Garde a vue‘ describes a few hours of interrogation in a police station, but the seemingly trivial investigation and confrontation between the police and the suspect develops into a subtle game of forces and a gradual revelation of layers of reality that do not necessarily lead to the knowledge of the truth.
The formula is classic. Inspector Antoine Gallien (Lino Ventura), apparently a conscientious bureaucrat of the police, proves to be intelligent and able to use any means to obtain the confession of the main suspect in the rape and the murder of two eight-year-old girls. Lawyer Martinaud (Michel Serrault), rich and arrogant, seems to the audience the perfect suspect, not only because of social class differences but especially because he gets into trouble with a tangle of lies that seem to aim not so much to prove that he is innocent, but rather to defend a moral reputation that erodes as the investigation progresses. And if summoning the suspect on New Year’s Eve is not enough, the police will use two more means of pressure – the judicial procedure called ‘garde a vue’ which allows the suspect to be detained for questioning without the presence of a lawyer, and the testimony of Martinaud’s wife (Romy Schneider) whose relationship with her husband has been marked by trauma since the beginning of the marriage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efjPF24G3Yg
The screenplay (which adapts a novel ‘serie noire’ by American writer John Wainwright and moves it into the French police and judicial reality) manages in an extremely subtle way to make us advance in the knowledge of the psychology of the characters and highlights the relativity of the notions of truth and justice. The crimes that Martinaud is suspected of are horrible and would justify almost any method of finding out the truth. But is what we see and what we hear the truth? Not even at the end of the movie can we be 100% sure of that. Moral judgments are not equivalent to judicial reality. What we see on the screen is a version, but we will never know for sure what happened. Confession does not necessarily mean guilt either. Ventura and Schneider’s acting performances are remarkable, but the most intense creation belongs to Michel Serrault, who embodies a character who tragically breaks apart in front of our eyes. The dialogues and situations have consistency and credibility, and this drama, which takes place mostly in a police investigation room, manages to involve us far beyond the experience of a routine crime drama.
‘The Atlantic’ este unul dintre puținele periodice tipărite la care mai sunt încă abonat. Revista americană împreună cu platforma sa internetică reprezintă continuarea uneia dintre cele mai remarcabile tradiții din presa americană, revista ‘The Atlantic Monthly’ fondată în 1857, la Boston, publicație la care au contribuit de-a lungul timpului cu articole, eseuri, literatură, mulți dintre cei mai cunoscuți scriitori și jurnaliști ai Americii. Printre temele principale abordate de-a lungul istoriei de redacțiile succesive ale mensualului s-au aflat abolirea sclaviei, egalitatea în drepturi civile, politica externă și locul Americii în lume, dezvoltarea noilor tehnologii și impactul lor asupra societății. Orientarea generală a publicației în ultimele decenii este liberală. Există o echipă de redactori și un nucleu de colaboratori permanenți, editor șef fiind, din 2016, reputatul ziarist Jeffrey Goldberg (n. 1965). Diferențele de opinii există și ele sunt reflectate în multe dintre articolele din ‘The Atlantic’, în buna tradiție a dezbaterilor de presă democratice. În general, publicația este deschisă dezvoltărilor tehnologiei, un număr din cele zece care apar în fiecare an fiind dedicat invențiilor și inventatorilor. Comentariile și punctele de vedere sunt totdeauna interesante și de multe ori diverse. Un exemplu bun l-am găsit în numărul dublu de la începutul acestui an 2020, în care doi dintre colaboratorii permanenți ai revistei au scris articole care prezintă din perspective complet diferite era Internetului în care omenirea a intrat în ultimele trei decenii. Mi se pare o ocazie bună de a prezenta aceste puncte de vedere cititorilor rubricii CHANGE.WORLD și de a deschide o dezbatere pe tema ‘A fost sau nu a fost’ … o revoluție?
Primul articol (în ordinea paginației) este semnat de Derek Thompson care este ‘staff writer’, adică jurnalist din echipa lui ‘The Atlantic’. Teza sa este surprinzător de aliniată cu pozițiile tehno-scepticilor, dar argumentația lui este solidă și merită analizată. ‘Cum vom spune povestea secolului digital, care a împlinit deja două decenii? Ne-am putea concentra, așa cum o fac ziariștii, pe distrugerile cauzate de viața conectată. Pe măsură ce Facebook, Twitter și YouTube au pus stăpânire pe lumea on-line, ele au subminat mediile tradiționale, au dat putere propagandiștilor și au adâncit diferențele politice americane. Telefoanele inteligente, cu toate minunatele lor utilități, s-au dovedit a fi și ele agenți narcotici.’ În plus, susține Thompson, o mare parte dintre promisiuni au rămas neconcretizate. Exemple? WeWork, compania care a promis revoluționarea spațiilor de muncă, a făcut implozie înainte de ieșirea la bursă (articolul a fost scris și publicat înainte de criza produsă de pandemia COVID-19). Firma Uber, care promitea schimbări radicale în traficul urban, a fost blocată în multe locuri din lume. Marile companii încă reușesc să scoată profituri din publicitate și din spațiul de înmagazinare a informației în ‘nori’, dar numărul locurilor de muncă distruse îl depășește pe cel al locurilor de muncă create. Peste câteva decenii ne vom uita uimiți și ne vom mira cum de au fost investite atâtea eforturi și inteligență în dezvoltarea tehnologiilor digitale, în timp ce probleme majore ale economiei și societății americane, cum ar fi degradarea infrastructurilor, schimbările climatice, creșterea decalajelor dintre regiuni și dintre bogați și săraci, au fost neglijate și s-au agravat. Promovată ca o nouă revoluție economică, era Internetului a încurajat inventivitatea în domenii puțin legate de realitatea fizică, de problemele reale ale majorității populației. Încurajând meritocrația tehnică, ea a contribuit la accentuarea diferențelor sociale și economice.
Problemele semnalate de Derek Thompson sunt reale și cred că merită să fie dezbătute. Concluziile mi se par cam radicale, căutând titluri spectaculoase. O parte dintre problemele economice și sociale descrise de el nu au decât cel mult o legătură incidentală cu era Internetului – este vorba despre excesele globalizării și, mai ales, de out-sourcing, care a făcut ca o mare parte din producția industrială să fie mutată în China și țările în curs de dezvoltare, creând lanțuri de aprovizionare lungi și complicate, optimizate local, dar nu și sistemic. Out-sourcing-ul, de altfel, și-a manifestat efectele asupra pieței forței de muncă și în economia digitală, diferența fiind dependența redusă sau nulă față de costul transporturilor sau crizele de genul celor care au afectat comerțul internațional de bunuri fizice în perioada pandemiei. Ar mai fi de disputat și faptul că articolul lui Derek Thompson pare a lua în considerare doar date legate de economia americană, ignorând impactul tehnologiilor legate de Internet pentru alte zone ale lumii mai mult sau mai puțin dezvoltate. Printre concluziile și recomandările sale, merită reținute cel puțin două: concentrarea investițiilor practic în trei zone geografice de pe coastele de Est și de Vest ale Statelor Unite este riscantă; și reprofilarea spre economia reală și producerea de bunuri fizice este absolut necesară. Automobilul zburător din titlu este necesar pentru că are potențialul de a rezolva o problema gravă și reală în marile concentrări urbane. Dezvoltarea sa este un bun exemplu de colaborare între economia digitală și lumea industriei fizice.
Răsfoim câteva pagini și ajungem la al doilea articol care se numește ‘Before Zuckerberg, Gutenberg’ și este semnat de Cullen Murphy, ‘The Atlantic’s editor-at-large’ ceea ce s-ar traduce aproximativ ‘colaborator extern’. Articolul face o comparație pe care și eu am făcut-o în trecut între revoluția informatică, introdusă de inventarea tiparniței mobile a lui Johannes Gutenberg în secolul 15, și cea adusă de inventarea și răspândirea Internetului la sfârșitul secolului 20. O parte din documentația istorică a articolului se bazează pe cartea lui Elizabeth Eisenstein ‘The Printing Revolution în Early Modern Europe’, în care ilustra istorică a cuvântului tipărit (decedată în 2016, la vârsta de 92 de ani) a descris felul în care tiparul a creat o nouă industrie și un centru de efervescență spirituală și de inventivitate în Veneția celei de-a doua jumătăți a secolului 15. În această Vale a Siliciului renascentistă, ca și în celelalte orașe ale Europei unde noua invenție se răspândea treptat, au fost tipărite în cele cinci decenii care au urmat după invenția lui Gutenberg mai multe cărți decât fuseseră create de scribi în cei 1000 de ani precedenți. O adevărată industrie ‘start-up’ bazată pe tipografii și case de editură apărea peste noapte, dând naștere unei clase burgheze care stăpânea nouă tehnologie. Niciodată în istorie nu fusese mai ușor de creat suport de informație, și niciodată în istorie accesul la informație nu fusese mai ieftin. Aceste fraze se referă la secolul 15, dar ele vă sunt probabil familiare.
Cullen Murphy, care a cunoscut-o personal pe Elizabeth Eisenstein, relatează că aceasta era foarte conștientă și de pericolele pe care le implică accesul liber și gratuit (sau la cost foarte redus) la informație. Ea folosea chiar termenul ‘disruption’ (perturbare) pe care investitorii în high-tech îl utilizează des pentru a indica o tehnologie revoluționară, însă fără conotația sa pozitivă. Invenția tiparului a descentralizat rolul de decizie în legătură cu ceea ce se scrie, care era rezervat clasei scribilor, o minoritate de obicei concentrată la curțile regale sau în mănăstiri. Acum, hotărârile au început să aparțină editorilor. Revoluția internetică a diminuat însă și influența acestora. Practic, astăzi, o mare parte din populația planetei poate crea și distribui informație sau artă fără niciun control, și o face atunci când postează pe rețelele sociale, trimit mesaje în grupuri, fotografiază și filmează și apoi încarcă acel conținut pe Instagram și youTube. Revoluția lui Guttenberg a dus la o diversificare fără precedent a conținutului și, în scurtă vreme, pe lângă literatură sau cărți religioase, au început să fie distribuite în masă tratate de magie, teorii conspirative, rețete de bucătărie sau de leacuri pentru boli, satiră, erotică. O nouă religie, Reforma, a beneficiat din plin de existența tiparului și altele i-au urmat. Au apărut noțiuni juridice noi, cum ar fi proprietatea intelectuală și copyright-ul, și cărțile au devenit obiecte de colecție, pe lângă funcția lor de depozite de cunoaștere. Absolut toate aceste concepte au fost revizuite în ultimii 20-30 de ani, ca urmare a revoluției internetice.
Cele două viziuni prezentate în cele două articole nu sunt poate complet opuse. Ceea ce trebuie conciliat este, cred, faptul că revoluțiile informatice și cele industriale care creează bunuri materiale și servicii cu impact în lumea noastră ‘fizică’ sunt legate, dar nu simultane. Industria editorială și a tipografiilor a constituit un prim val al revoluției industriale declanșate de invenția tiparului în secolul 15. Valurile următoare au fost simțite în secolele care au urmat, când circulația informației a favorizat descoperirile geografice, răspândirea cunoștințelor științifice și dialogul dintre universități și academii, cunoașterea biosferei și medicina, invențiile mașinilor și multe altele. Același lucru se întâmplă și cu revoluția internetică. Industria digitală este doar primul val al noii revoluții industriale pe care o face posibilă Internetul. Robotica, inteligența artificială, ingineria genetică sunt doar câteva exemple de ramuri științifice și tehnologice care vor influența existența noastră, în deceniile care urmează. Efectul lor începe să se facă simțit, dar nu neapărat imediat. Globalizarea trece oricum printr-o faza de re-evaluare și datorită pandemiei, și a relațiilor încordate dintre China și o mare parte din restul lumii industrializate. Mai este însă un aspect pe care cred că este obligatoriu să nu-l neglijăm. Progresele cunoașterii și noile tehnologii pot avea aplicații pozitive, dar și negative. Controversatul Edward Snowden observă, în recenta sa carte ‘Permanent Record’, că oamenii de știință și inginerii nu prestează niciun legământ etic de genul jurământului lui Hipocrate al medicilor. Poate că este momentul să creăm unul.
(Articolul a apărut iniţial in revista culturală ‘Literatura de Azi’ – http://literaturadeazi.ro/)
It is rare for a translated title of a film to be more inspired than the original title. I think this is the case with ‘Le desordre et la nuit‘ directed in 1958 by Gilles Grangier, one of the most prolific French film directors in the first two decades after the Second World War, and a regular collaborator of Jean Gabin, who dominates the cast of this film. The English title is ‘The Night Affair‘, which is much more appropriate in my opinion for the story and atmosphere of this film that combines a police investigation, a sentimental thread and a social investigation into the nightlife of Parisian clubs, infested by dubious business, prostitution and drug trafficking. The presence of Jean Gabin is one but not the only reason why this film, even if it is not a masterpiece, deserves a viewing or re-viewing even over 60 years after its production.
Police Inspector Georges Vallois (Jean Gabin) is one of the police officers investigating the murder of a club owner in the sparkling Parisian night life of the 1950s. Among the suspects is Lucky Fridel (Nadja Tiller), a young German woman aspiring to be a singer, apparently one of those many girls who populate nightclubs mixing alcohol, drugs and prostitution, but who turns out to be a wealthy heiress with residency in one of the most expensive hotels in Paris. An improbable liaison develops between the two, after which Vallois decides to try to save the girl, proving her innocence and getting her out of the vicious circles in which she had sunk. Later in the story, a more mature woman appears, pharmacist Therese Marken (Danielle Darrieux), possibly Lucky’s drug source, possibly more deeply involved in the crime being investigated.
I liked the atmosphere of the film, the scene of the Parisian nightclubs of the ’50s, the jazz music. Hazel Scott, an American singer who had gone into exile in Paris in those years for political reasons, also starred in the film. The use of black and white film has today the effect of almost documentary authenticity. Nadja Tiller, an Austrian actress with many appearances in French and European films of the time, interprets very well the role of young Lucky, in an early and courageous approach to the theme of ‘luxury’ prostitution. The combination of crime, sex and on-screen music is very common today, but it was still very daring in 1958. The main problem of the film is in my opinion exactly Jean Gabin, an actor I love and admire. Gabin, perhaps the most appreciated French actor at the time, was making a transition from youth roles that largely belonged to the negative-romantic typology to the roles of maturity, mostly positive (he played Commissioner Maigret in three later films), or carrying conservative values. even when they were negative. His relationship with the young woman who may be his daughter is unbelievable not because of the age difference, but because Gabin had already adopted a paternal pose that does not fit well with romance. His kisses in this film are among the most devoid of passion in the history of cinema. On the other hand, the two dialogues in which he faces Danielle Darrieux are delicious, precisely because they have nothing to do with a sentimental intrigue. ‘Le desordre et la nuit‘ deserves to be seen (also) for Jean Gabin, even if he seems to be acting in another film.
A discovery. Made in 1960, at the peak of the French New Wave, ‘Classe Tous Risques‘ is a classic gangsters movie, directed by Claude Sautet, the screen adaptation of a novel by José Giovanni. Like many other filmmakers who began their careers during the New French Wave, Sautet and Giovanni, even though they did not belong to the current, became known both as directors and screenwriters of many films of this genre, a genre which a few years later will draw the attention of some of the most famous directors of the New Wave such as Melville or Chabrol. The film brings together on the same screen two of the actors specializing in tough guys roles in French films noir. Lino Ventura was already a well-known actor, while Jean-Paul Belmondo was building up his fame and full of creative hunger. In that year 1960 his name appeared on the credits of no less than eight films. The presence of Ventura and Belmondo, who on the screen as in reality played the roles of master and disciple is just one of the arguments that make ‘Classe Tous Risques‘ a film worth seeing 60 years after its premiere.
Many films had already been made about the ‘code of honor’ of the underworld, and more would follow. Let’s put aside the moral judgments about the ‘honor’ of those who rob, kill each other or kill innocent people in cold blood, but otherwise they are good familist and people capable of falling in love. Let’s admit that the theme is an excellent starting point or core subject for thriller novels and films noir. This is also the case with the story of gangster Abel Davos (Lino Ventura), sentenced to death and pursued by all police of Europe, whose wife is killed when they try to return to France, who is betrayed by his old friends in crime and thus left to fight for survival with his two 8- and 4-year-old boys in her care. The help comes from Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo), a young gangster in the making, for whom Davos was kind of a moral model, precisely because of his respect for the mob codes of honor. The connection between the two (friendship, master – disciple) is the axis of the film.
Lino Ventura acts wonderfully in a type of role in which he specialized in those years, the tough guy followed by everyone who carries a gun, and whose chances of surviving until ‘Fin’ appears on the screen are low. He is however surpassed, I believe, in this film by Jean-Paul Belmondo, who manages to give a positive touch to his role, with the help of Sandra Milo as the young actress with whom Eric begins a relationship that may be his chance not to repeat the fate of Abel . The filming has rhythm and fluency, the characters are believable and the action flows interestingly until the final part, which confronts us with a less common ending for films of this genre, perhaps inspired by docu-novels that were also in vogue in those years. It’s worth, I think, to see the movie and get to the end to judge by yourselves.
I’m probably to blame, but ‘To Catch a Thief‘ attracted me and interested me less than most of Alfred Hitchcock‘s other films that I remember seeing. Made in 1955, it was the third and last film in which the master of suspense featured Grace Kelly. In his book of dialogues with Truffaut, Hitchcock admits that he focused his attention on the love story between the rich American heiress Frances Stevens (Kelly) and the famous former jewelry thief John Robie (Cary Grant) who is forced to dispel the suspicions that hover over him in connection with a series of thefts committed using his methods. As a result, Hitchcock said, because of the emphasizing of the romantic line, this film probably had more success among female viewers than among male viewers. I’m not sure that’s the main reason why I liked the movie less. On the other hand, it is a film directed by Hitchcock and there are many good reasons to see it today, and there are good chances to please others even more than me.
‘To Catch a Thief‘ is the first film that Hitchcock shot on location in France, on the French Riviera, and the sunny landscape, the sky, the sea, the roads, the villas overlooking the Mediterranean, play an important role in the way the film is presented. visually. Robert Burks actually won one of the few Academy Awards received by a Hitchcock film for its cinematography. (Hitchcock himself has never received an Academy Award for directing). It is probably his most luminous film, although the key scenes take place at night, such as the heist whose author the hero will have to catch to prove his innocence. The color treatment is original and interesting, Hitchcock seems to have discovered in the palette of the film a new tool of cinematic expression with which he happily experiments here.
The police plot is original, but not too credible or too interesting. We don’t shed a lot of tears today for the jewelry on the necks of rich ladies. But what can we say about the romantic story, which, if we believe the director, was the important subject in the film for him? Honestly, this didn’t convince me either. Grace Kelly is truly a fascinating beauty in her exuberant toilets, and the scenes in which she drives madly on the roads of the Riviera today take on a macabre connotation unintended by the director, because we all know how the former actress turned princess ended her life. But she was 26 when ‘To Catch a Thief‘ was filmed and Cary Grant was over 50, so the idyll between them doesn’t seem true, and the women’s attraction to the hero doesn’t seem to be justified by anything other than that he’s played by … Cary Grant. But again, it could be just me. What do I know about the sex appeal of men?
If Alfred Hitchcock had made a mystery thriller film set in a French village, I think it would have been ‘Le Boucher‘. Hitchcock, as we all know, did not make such a film, but maybe he got to see Claude Chabrol‘s 1970 film. I think he had every reason to be proud of his disciple. ‘Le Boucher‘ is an atmospheric film, perfectly constructed and acted, an atypical thriller, in which there are corpses and a police investigation, but in which the thrill is built psychologically, within the relationship between a man and a woman. And yes, the woman is a blonde.
Helene (Stéphane Audran) is a teacher in a small and picturesque French village (are there villages in France that are not picturesque? Not in movies anyway). About ten years ago she had a disappointment in love which led her to decide or to resign to stay alone, dedicating her entire life to her pupils, even living in the school building. Popaul (Jean Yanne) returned to the village after 15 quite traumatic years in the army, and took over his father’s butchery. A platonic relationship develops between the two. Desire floats in the air, but is never consumed. The difference in social status may have a role, Helene’s decision to be alone is another cause. Is there a connection between this strange liaison and the series of crimes that are beginning to disturb the village and its surroundings, in which young women die stabbed?
The film has tension and consistency. The two characters are gradually revealed to us, the traumas of each of them meet in a toxic combination, and what could be an idyll between a man and a woman from different social classes is heading towards something very different and very dangerous. Apparently the relationship progresses monotonously, platonic, a little boring. In reality, each of the two slides into the abyss, each in his own way. The cinematography is splendid. Pierre Jansen‘s music is permanently dissonant accompanying the quiet frames, interrupted only by the police sirens, the church bells and … a minuet. It creates a state of anxiety that is further amplified. Each scene looks at its place. At first we witnessed a wedding in the village, somewhat in the spirit of Italian realism. There follows a long scene filmed in a single frame (Nouvelle Vague technique) in which the two characters, slightly dizzy because of the alcohol consumed at the wedding, walk through the village from the wedding to the school where Helene lives. This is the scene in which the two heroes begin to reveal themselves to us. I will not describe all the anthological scenes, but there are a few more. The school has, of course, an interior staircase, as in many of Chabrol‘s films. Small objects play an important role. Each has its place and its contribution to the edifice of the film. Stéphane Audran (Chabrol‘s wife at the time) plays here one of his best roles. Her partner is Jean Yanne, a less famous actor, but very well distributed in this role. Many critics consider ‘Le Boucher‘ to be the director’s best film. Personally, I’ve only seen a few of Chabrol‘s films, so my opinion is not educated enough. Yet, I have many reasons to believe that they are right.
