Chabrol's name brings to mind two things, the French New Wave & Alfred Hitchcock. If you're looking for the New Wave side of the equation I would suggest Le Beau Serge, Les Cousins & Les Bonnes Femmes. All three early 60's New Wave masterpieces. By the late 60's however Chabrol was a different kind of film maker. This Man Must Die along with La Femme Infidele & Le Boucher are what might be considered the best films from Chabrol's second phase. Until his resurgence in the 90's with the Cesar winning La Ceremonie these three second phase films were also considered his last great films. La Femme Infidele, Le Boucher & This Man Must Die(under its French title Que la Bete Muere) have not been the easiest films to find but have now all been rereleased in March 2003.

This Man Must Die begins with a little boy walking back to his home from a day at the sea. As he crosses the desolate street in the seaside village near his home a speeding car hits and kills the young boy. The car never stops but speeds away from the scene. Slowly the villagers gather round the corpse and when the father arrives on the scene he screams with helpless rage. After a period of mourning he begins to plot his revenge. He plans to find, earn the trust and then kill whoever it was that killed his son. The plot is one of Chabrols best. Each phase of the fathers revenge is fascinating to watch. We get to follow the fathers investigations as he hunts down the murderer and at the same time we witness what effect this revenge has on his psychology. When he does finally find the murderer he befriends him/her as planned and is invited to spend a week at the murderers seaside estate. All along he wonders to himself if he will actually be able to commit murder but as he gets to know this murderer he finds he is a most despicable creature who bullys every one around him. Murder nonetheless is a complicated thing and Chabrol is the master of the plot twist so you can sit back and enjoy this knowing full well you are in the hands of a master.

The film starts slow and throws a lot of ideas at you which are not particularly clear. As a result you are confused right away. All we really know for sure is that Kietel is on a very personal journey. We soon find out that the reason the film is so confusing is that Keitel himself does not know just what kind of journey he is on. The first hour and a half is slow and the references to Homer and Joyce and Eliot are not particularly intriguing and all this literal content makes Keitels character talk a kind of pseudo-poetry which is just vague and stilted. That first half unwinds like an unformed(and unoriginal) idea and it does try your patience. The second half of the film is a lot better than the first half though. In the second half Angelopoulos leaves behind literal ideas which he doesn't seem that comfortable with anyway and just lets his instincts take over and thats when the film and Keitels performance become interesting. The last hour and a half unfolds like a dream/nightmare. An extended scene in the fog is especially memorable as the fog allows the inhabitants of Sarajevo to mingle in the streets as the fog provides cover from the snipers. In this fog it as if life resumes and people walk as if through a park on a Sunday. Its a scene which moves you in an ineffable way. To the very end it is unclear just what Keitel has found, if anything. And the very end Angelopoulos has Keitel read of Ulysses homecoming. This time the literary reference works because Angelopoulos has created a context for it. Because things are never as we left them or remember them or wish or expect them to be homecoming is merely a dream.

I perfectly understand why some do not like this film, its three hours long and there is only a very vaguely discernible storyline. I think this film is for film fans who really enjoy finding a director with a new kind of vision. I don't think Ulysses Gaze is his best though and its not the one I would recommend seeing first. The first one I saw was Travelling Players and that remains my favorite and the one I would recommend a person new to Angelopoulos start with. Travelling Players is about a large theatre group/family and more effectively than Ulysses Gaze shows the disruptive (and worse) effect history has on peoples lives. Travelling Players is made up of a largely Greek cast and that makes the very Greek story all the more convincing and gives it a credibility and intimacy that some of his other films lack. Both Ulysses Gaze and Eternity and a Day star non-Greeks giving each of these films an international feel that is less appealing and more generic.

What is striking about any Rivette film is the intimacy of his style. The way the film is cut emphasizes that we are just eavesdropping in on select scenes. And the scenes chosen say a lot about what Rivettes intentions are. He is less interested in scenes that tell us about history and more interested in scenes which tell us about character. The story is familiar to us all so that is a great advantage to him and allows him to forego the obvious scenes full of historical significance for the intimate telling ones. Rivette's Joan wins over anyone who comes in contact with her but the way Sandrine Bonnaire plays her its her warm and genuine nature that wins them over moreso than her "visions" and ideas of destiny. And this is the Joan that Rivette is interested in. What quality she has that no one else does is her naturalness and of course thats what Bonnaire too is known for, her earthy outdoor demeanor. Those who befriend Joan admire her convictions and her purity but more than anything they like her. And those figures of authority who feel threatened by her utter sincerity are those who are themselves lacking that quality. I think its impossible to say one portrayal of Joan of Arc is more accurate than another, there are just different interpretations of what this girl was like. Rivette purposely avoids creating yet another mythic version of her and chooses instead to show her as a person. Rivette shows that the men that fought beside her had great affection for her. Some of the men believed in her calling, some didn't, but they all admired her beauty and her bravery. She herself did not do much more than wave a banner but she proved to be just the right kind of muse--her simple earthy presence won the men over. I think this is an interesting take on the Joan of Arc character but more to the point what is most interesting is not the history telling be it accurate or not but Rivettes unique way of storytelling which emphasizes the incidental over the episodic. A more subtle form of revisionist history you will not find.

Anna Karina, Jacques Rivette's then wife, stars in this many tiered expose of social and religious norms in 18th century France. Anna Karina's striking beauty and smoldering sensuality are in full bloom and yet since she is an illegitimate daughter she is treated like a burden by her parents who want nothing more than to be rid of her. The convent is the easiest solution. And for Karina the convent is an especially cruel fate as she has grown up amid the most opulent surroundings. In the first scene of the film we see beautiful Karina being coerced into taking vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. She rebels against the bizarre rituals she is being forced to take part in and is returned home but slowly she is coerced by both family and church to enter the convent. And the convent turns out to be just one long torture for her. Once there she is told she must surrender all individuality but the more they try and subdue her the more she fights back and since they can't convert her spirit she is soon being punished with more and more severe physical depravities. She applies to be released but the civil authorities fear doing anything that will upset the very powerful church authorities. Finally one sympathetic clergyman allows her to be transferred to another convent.

Convent #2 is absolutely a world apart from the first convent. In fact it looks like the 1960's in this new locale as all the nuns wear beads and dress each according to their taste and sit hand in hand singing songs. This new convent is as liberal and permissive as the other convent was strict and disciplinarian but Karina soon finds out that convent #2 has a few irregularities of its own--like night visits from a wanton mother superior. Karina's beauty seems to be her curse. Karina confides to the parish priest about her fears of the mother superior whose intentions she only partially understands and the prieswho knows full well the mother superiors inclinations helps her escape. Once free of the convents walls however the priest also tries to accost her. The religious institution failed her in every way and society proves just as unkind. She is soon taken under the wing of a nice woman who feeds her but that woman turns out to be a madame of a brothel and the last scenes of the film show Karina yet again forced to take part in yet another bizarre ritual.

A very powerful film which stays with you days after seeing it. I believe ultimately it is a story about how elusive a thing true freedom really is.

Opening shot: In the countryside a religious procession moves along under a hot sun. Somewhere in the hills above Jeanne Moreau cranks open a floodgate. She is wearing black fishnet gloves, a black dress and heels. The water pours downhill toward a farm flooding it. The church bell rings alerting everyone of the disaster, the procession disperses, and Moreau heads down hill to watch as they all try to save the livestock from drowning.

Tony Richardson directed Tom Jones and in that picture showed he had quite a knack for capturing English rural folk. But with this tale filmed in a gorgeous tinted black and white which makes apple blossoms look more beautiful than they ever do in color he has swapped the 18th Century ribaldry of Fielding for the 20th Century subversive austerity of Genet and made a French language film which I'm certain raised quite a few eyebrows, French and English, in its day. Its shock value I do not think has diminished much, if at all.

The star of the film is Jeanne Moreau as the chaste schoolmistress who comes from the city to educate the rural children. But lurking within her cool reserved impassive demeanor are passions that have perhaps been too long divorced from nature so she is especially vulnerable when her long hidden passions are stirred by the presence of an Italian woodsman who she spies on one of her solitary strolls through the woods. "Be careful miss," yells one of the villagers as he sees her heading toward the woods, "there's a wolf in those woods." But thats just what shes seeking. Meanwhile a series of fires have been set and being the foreigner the Italian woodsman is the the prime suspect. We know who it is however setting those fires, and we slowly learn why. Tony Richardson captures Moreaus face as it changes from mood to mood. He captures her melancholy and isolation as she applies her lipstick and puts her hair up in preparation for one of her "acts", and then he shows what she looks like when she returns and looks in the mirror again seeing how the "act" has changed her. Moreau is one of the more mysterious beauties of French cinema and in this role that beauty is used to greater effect than any other director has used it. She is fascinating to watch as this prim sophisticated schoolmistress who finally undergoes the transformation she has been longing for.The night Moreau and the woodsman spend together is one of unleashed instinct and abandon and it is all filmed in an unforgettable series of vignettes: the two lying down in tall grass as the sun goes down, beside a pond in utter darkness as a storm breaks, running from each other and surrendering to each other time and again. Raw and sensual as anything you will see in a film then or now Richardson takes the film to a completely different plane with these scenes. When Moreau returns to the village the next morning covered in mud and clothes in shreds the villagers ask her if it was the Italian. Her answer and her final expression seen from a car window as she drives away from the village is one of utter self-content.

Also recommended: Elevator to the Gallows, The Lover, Bride Wore Black.

Fernando Rey plays Don Lope, a man whose views are a strange blend of old and new. He professes a disdain for both the church and social conventions like marriage but in other matters he is as old fashioned as they come. The very first shot of the film is Don Lope flirting with a younger woman he passes in the street. When one of his sisters dies he becomes gaurdian of her beautiful teenage daughter Tristana played by Catherine Deneuve. Tristana is an innocent and at first Don Lope treats her like a daughter but one day while strolling he asks her for a kiss, Tristana is helpless to refuse nor can she refuse his further advances. One of the most memorable shots is when Don Lope dismisses the maid for a day then the camera slowly follows him as he moves toward Tristana then the camera slowly moves down the hallway wall stopping outside the bedroom door where we glimpse Tristana undressing before him just before the door closes. The absence of any dialogue is powerful in this slow silent scene. Don Lope often talks of individual freedoms but when it comes to exerting his will there is no questioning who is the master of the house. He is liberal minded enough to see through institutional forms of oppression but when it comes to his own self interests he is a tyrant--Tristana is virtually a prisoner to his whims, in fact she has a recurring dream throughout the movie which tells us how she really feels about her "father". As Tristana grows a little older and bolder she starts venturing out of the house more and more and soon she meets a man her own age who promises to steal her away from her situation. But when Tristana become ill she begs to be returned to Don Lope. At first this is perplexing but soon we realize that she longs for some kind of revenge and revenge she has. Though she has a lover who is devoted to her for Tristana hate proves the more powerful emotion. And as Don Lope becomes a helpless old man she becomes the willful tyrant he once was and her own desires turn toward another innocent. Family abuse proves to be a viscious cycle that does not stop turning.

The church is always a target for ridicule in Bunuel films. In this film the church is simply a powerless institution which cozies up to the rich and is puddy in their hands. The church officials try to talk Tristana into marrying Don Lope for appearance sake but the church never judges Don Lope. One of Bunuels more restrained pictures but also one of his more psychologically astute ones as well.

The Arthurian Legend is the most interesting and powerful blend of Christian virtue and Medieval valor in literature. In Bressons hands, however, the search for the Holy Grail does not inspire acts of virtue or valor. In fact the search proves to be quite demoralising and leads to a lot of infighting. Once faith is lost so is unity and all that is left is a grab for power. Arthur is barely a character, he simply is the one who is slightly older and has slightly shorter hair and wears a crown. Lancelot is a kind of Hamlet who can't decide what he stands for. He loves Guinevere but he wants to do what is right for the kingdom as well. Ultimately he does the right thing and returns her to the king but too late--the favoritism shown him by both Queen and King has turned him into a target to the other Knights. Mordred is his most powerful detractor and the more Lancelot wavers the stronger and more resolute he becomes. In subverting the Arthurian legend or secularising it Bresson has turned the story into a Shakespearean tragedy about loyalty and betrayal. He's turned a story which dealt in absolutes (or at least in a search for absolutes)where people are defined by actions which can be deemed good or bad into a story which deals only in relative truths where all acts are marked with uncertainty and doubt. He's turned an old story into a new one.

The opening scenes present each character in their private world. Laura, the mother, is writing a letter to a lover who may or not be merely imagined. This is her fiction.

Fernando attends his bees and in the privacy of his library meditates on the nature of existence using the beehive and the industrious workings of the bees within as a metaphor for civilization. The slightest change upsets the bees work...and being 1943 great changes have altered the fabric of life in Spain. We glimpse Fernando's state of mind by reading his accounts of the bees daily activity and for him lifes once rich rituals it is clear have now been reduced to pointlessness and sadness.

For Laura these changes Spain has gone through have forever altered the way she sees life. She feels life can no longer be embraced and lived to the fullest as it once could.

The structure of society which would have given the parents some sense of purpose and significance has collapsed. And the way they sleepwalk through their lives leaves the children feeling like orphans. The only example they have of what life is is learned at school and in the movie theatre. The girls are particularly moved by a showing of the classic Frankenstein. For them this large melancholy figure seems strangely familiar. What they cannot fathom is why the friendly beast kills the little girl in the movie. The youngest girls mind will not be put to rest until she finds her answer.

The movie's haunting scenes which veer between carefree innocence and haunting confrontation with stark reality are perfectly complimented by the Luis de Pablo soundtrack. One of the strangest most disturbing melodies is played by Laura herself. And throughout the film director Victor Erice's camera will on occasion come to rest on one of the mansion's paintings which depict man as a hopelessly lost creature among forces that are beyond his comprehension. The childrens imaginations are haunted by a world beyond their comprehension and so are the adult imaginations and so is the viewers. Victor Erice presents each life as a separate narrative and the narrative lines do not overlap. The films stark strategy emphasizes the lack of cohesion in Spanish life. Each character is lost within themselves. Poetic and stark and yet beautiful as the best Spanish poetry.

Very unusual movie. I was unprepared for such a strange story. Only after the movie was over did I glimpse Jim Thompson's name in the credits and it dawned on me so that is what I have been watching. Thompson's name is synonymous with hard-boiled noir and if you like that genre then this is for you though the setting will throw even the most ardent noir fan for a bit of a loop. Noir in Africa? Phillips Noiret plays the sherrif of a West African town in the thrall of the worst kind of colonialism. Unforunately he's not much of a law and order man. In fact he is completely ineffective at administering any kind of justice whatsoever. Blacks are brutally mistreated right in front of him and he does nothing. Hes the sherrif only in name and at home he is abused by his wife played by Stephane Audran who does not hide the fact she is sleeping with her live-in "brother". The sherriff takes all kinds of abuse til one day he reaches his breaking point. He decides he's had enough and so he begins administering his own brand of "justice". In a western movie or in a gritty American noir this kind of scenario would seem commonplace but not in the middle of sunny Africa. Noirs aren't supposed to be exposed to sunlight, are they? The novel was set in the American South but Tavernier decided he would transplant the story in African soil. Its a film that is hard to fathom. I believe it takes at least one viewing to get used to the idea of an African Noir and then another to see just what Tavernier is up to. So I would highly recommend anyone see the film twice before making up their mind about it. One thing is undoubtedly certain and that is the acting. The performances by Noiret, Audran, and Isabelle Huppert(one of her most stunning vacant faced roles) are perfect and the most fascinating aspect of the film is watchng each unwind. Even those who don't normally have a taste for noir will find this very dark comedy quite compelling. On first viewing I felt there was something missing like at least one strong black character but then I realized on second viewing that that is part of the power of this comedy. These characters are so selfish it matters very little to them where they are. And so the abscence of black characters and the abscence of any interaction between whites and blacks except on the most superficial and degrading terms underlines the utter selfishness of the whites. The blacks going about their business largely ignored by the whites offer a subtle comparison. The blacks live humane lives. The whites are only capable of committing crimes against each other. If you are part of the white community in such circumstances you become corrupt if not for what you yourself do for what you refuse to see as the underlying injustice of the circumstance you see and participate in everyday. The circumstance is a timebomb. Noiret as the sherrif is the one who goes off. He acts out against white hate and anger and bigotry only to become infected himself by those very properties. So at first I was unsure but ultimately I marveled at what Tavernier did with this noir material. He gave the material the very dimension it lacked, a social dimension. By placing this noir in a strikingly new context the typical noir theme (being the darkness of human nature) is given a more specific context and scope (the darkness of colonial mans nature). Tavernier brings new life and significance to the commonplaces of Thompsons fiction and more importantly he brings a new approach and new insight to the colonial predicament.

The premise of the story is funny-- a village full of women factory workers who live crammed together in dorms needs men so the factory owner charmingly pleads with the military to send an attachment of men to the town to give his girls something to do with their evenings but when the men show up they are all middle aged, the young girls are disappointed. What is even funnier is Formans attitude and style which borrows some tricks in cutting and impromptu time shifts from the French New Wave directors but adds to this famous style a lucid charm that is irresistable. The cutting techniques innovated by the French New Wave directors emphasized the looseness and spontaneity of life but Formans sense of humor is such that he cannot help parodying the techniques he is emulating. For instance in the dance hall sequence the camera slowly pans the feet of the band members which makes for an absurdly enjoyable incidental. French New Wave in technique but the humor is charmingly Czech in tone. The storyline makes some poignant observations about the new social mores of the 1960's--a married soldier trying to meet girls drops his wedding ring and proceeds to watch it roll across the dance floor where it falls to rest beneath a table of single girls. The title character dreams of a young man to take her away from her grim life as factory worker living in a dorm full of girls but since the men she meets do not take her away she decides to take matters into her own hands and follows one to his hometown. But arriving there she is greeted only with more grim reality. She returns home to her factory job and dorm and finds solace in make-believe as she tells her girlfriends a version of the events which conforms to her dreams. Very touching, wise, and satisfying film from a filmmaker who exhibits a fondness for all his characters. No one escapes Formans lighthearted satire nor his empathy which embraces all forms of life, young and old. Remarkably light and poignant at the same time. Czech and Polish films of this period strike an irresistable chord and are some of the most irresistable films ever made. Also recommended: Closely Watched Trains.