Les Diaboliques (1955) - Henri-Georges Clouzot

One of the major films of the notable frenchman Clouzot, famous filmmaker who got, at least for a moment, to compete with the titan Alfed Hitchcock as master of suspense; it is a story whose literary origin even managed to snatch Hitch by a narrow margin. Adapts the filmmaker to the big screen one of the successful novels of the french writer-duo Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac, singular adaptation of the dark experiences of an individual, owner of a school and husband of the director of the place, but at the same time he has one of the professors of the same as a lover; the despotic individual constantly insults the females, reaching the extent of them arranging the death of the subject, the film being also the story of the psychological tribulations of women, because in turn events of different nature will happen. The film has abundant background, such as the fact that it includes the filmmaker's wife, the Brazilian-born actress Véra Clouzot, and the fiery star Simone Signoret, having a certain controversy the relationship of both actresses in the filming, in addition to certain differences, natural by the way, between the literary and the cinematographic version of this shady story. Considered the summit of the french director, this is undoubtedly a good example of why he is considered one of the masters of suspense cinema, a great movie.

         

In an elementary school, we see Michel Delassalle (Paul Meurisse), owner of the educational center, in which the director is Christina Delassalle (Véra Clouzot), his wife. In the institution is also Nicole Horner (Signoret), teacher, and lover of Michel, love triangle that everyone knows, in addition to the constant abuse and humiliations to what man exposes both women. Lover and wife soon conspire, wish to liquidate the man, end their martyrdom, go to a secluded environment to finish finalizing details of the murder, Christina tells her husband she wants the divorce, doubt in her actions, but Nicole ends up making her angry. When Michel goes to the room where she is staying, he is deceived by his wife, and drinks a sedative liquid, loses consciousness; appears soon Nicole, immediately, takes Michel to the bathtub, where she drowns him. They put the corpse in a large basket and transport it secretly to the school, they deposit it in the muddy pool of the institution. The night passes, the next day the remorse is taking its toll on the director, Nicole tries to reassure her, the children play around the pool, and to everyone's surprise, nothing is found at the bottom of the pool. Fear grows, they do not find the body, the commissioner Alfred Fichet (Charles Vanel) leads an investigation that yields more than surprising results.

As stated earlier, in this film, Clouzot gives evidence of why he is considered one of the masters of suspense, of course, not comparable to the versatile major expert of the subject, the british Hitch, but it is remarkable how he weaves his suspense the french, in various sequences attests to his expertise. We have for example the sequence in which Christina is about to give the sedative to her husband, plague of tension the director those instants, she hesitates, but a few blows will end up convincing her of her nefarious enterprise. Other details where the tension reaches high levels, they transporting the corpse in the basket, the cover is about to fall and ruin their malignant concern, or the moments after the murder, the next morning, when the keys of the teacher fall on the water of the pool. Those are instants where the tension is tenfolded, always with diegetic sounds as an exclusive sound accompaniment. The tension will be fed by uncertainty, which will encompass everything, it will be the root of the growing dementia, where is the corpse, the fatal intrigue that drives to the madness both the spectator and the perpetrators of the bizarre crime. After shooting his also egregious The Wages of Fear (1953), Clouzot makes evident he knows how to engender the suspense, but also how to maintain it, how to increase it in climactic moments, that suspense that grows in the viewer in the same proportion as in both females, because it is no longer murder, as one would think a priori, which causes terror; it is what continues, the uncertainty of not knowing what has happened, where is the corpse in an unlikely situation, with disquieting and disturbing paranormal dyes. An invaluable resource for the generation of that sharp tension, are the diegetic sounds, the only auditory accompaniment at times, ingeniously inserted sounds, the water that runs from a tap, only that breaks the tense instants in which she is about to do her part, to dope the despotic individual, her husband. The drip of that same pipe, is also the only thing that breaks the sharp silence, reinforcing the oppression, the tension of those instants prior to the crime, which tighten the tormented psychology of the criminals. Bell sounds, tinkling, sounds unconnected with the action and also help to make that environment increasingly tense, and of course, the sounds of the typewriter at the end, there are even shots of a sweaty Christina, raising more nervousness.

The film is successful from the staging, with that effective creation of a dry atmosphere, an oppressive environment, which originates, and at the same time is reinforced with that superb work of photography, work and grace by Armand Thirard, supported by the sober composition, austere but compact, of his images, austerity that combines perfectly with black and white to generate that feeling of secrecy, cloister and tension. There are powerful contrasts, powerful chiaroscuros, unexpected chiaroscuros, some natural, others artificial, generated, in a game of light and shadows that apart from morbid beauty, enhances the isolation of the sordid school. The shadows invade a good part of the screen in many moments, spilling out in different forms, becoming characters at times, great success and mastery in that resource, raising the visual value of the film twice, bringing it closer to the black cinema, the North American film noir, at the same time that lukewarm to the german expressionism and all the gloomy power of this film current. The construction of the lugubrious atmosphere of the film reaches the point that these shadows are manifested starting from minor elements, clocks, vases, project their shade over the cloisters, and in that memorable final sequence, the shadows are, literally and more than ever, one more character. Additionally we have the water, and the rot that is generated from it, the water in the bathtub, the water that decomposes the body of Michel, the water in the pool where the body is deposited, the water stored in some sequences, such as when a vehicle arrives at school at the beginning of the film, an omnipresent element in the film and that is part of that wet dementia that is taking over women. Morbidly we have on more than one occasion images of the corpse, images of the individual dead, the present death in a sordid way, and in a way that then must have been much more shocking. On the other hand, and always within the photography of the film, there is a good deal of illumination of the characters, in the sequence of the infant who claims to have seen paranormally the missing director, the infant is shown with notorious and excessive illumination, while the rest is embodied with regular lighting. In the midst of all that darkness, there seems to be no logical way out of the mystery of the whereabouts of the body, there are images and circumstances that validate a disturbing supernatural possibility -even we have a final crack, the student who has had a vision again-, and the growing madness is breaking the women, until finding final climax.

There is certainly a film that has all the condiments to be a Hitchcock film, according to the legend that Clouzot, with the influence of his wife, went ahead for a matter of hours to the english master to obtain the rights to this novel. We have the details of a murder that happens and about which all the intrigues and speculations will be woven, also the subsequent investigation, the police work that will narrow the possibilities, and of course, the most important, the style to generate suspense, in which the spectator discovers the ominous details of the assassination along with the protagonists, it is not surprising in fact that the good Hitch had fixed his attention and intention in adapting the work of the famous french couple Boileau-Narcejac, and when not succeeding in this case, Hitchcock made up for it with Vertigo (1958), another successful work of the binomial. Naturally there are differences between literary text and film, for example, in the results of the crime, they are successful in the book, they fail in the film, besides the lesbian link they have in the book, something hidden in the film, but not absent. Thus, there is severe ambiguity among the females, isolated in a room together, plotting their plan, a closeness between the protagonists that leaves room for suspicion, not fully addressed, something that in part was probably eluded because of the film censorship of the time. They have opposite characters, the fervid and determined Nicole, opposed to the fragile and indecisive Christina, even the illuminations of both differ, dark the first, illuminated the second, something that, some assert, was to further distinguish the natures of both women, others argue -like the protagonist Paul Meurisse- that it was to praise the figure of his wife the director, overshadowed by the hot and fiery Simone Signoret. The opposite of feminine characters is even reinforced by the interpretations of them, the looks, the fervid eyes of the Signoret, always contrasted with the weakness of the Clouzot, the tessituras in their acting records reinforce that opposition. The final sequence is exemplary, seven minutes of a sequence that is perfect epitome of the observed, the power of the shadow is maximized, the paroxysm is reached in the shady, darker than ever passage, the black and white that yields to the gloom, the camera that moves with precision, briefly runs with little movement the environment to show enough and not distract attention in the least of what matters, the outcome. The film, it is true, depends a lot on its end, something good and bad, as also famous films have done it, the mentioned Vertigo, Witness for the Prosecution (1957), and respecting the wishes of the director, no revealing details have been disclosed in this article. The first viewing is infinitely more powerful than the later ones, of course, but it is maintained the suspense of a film in which the psychological torments are the biggest, the suspense, the psychological tension that grows by leaps and bounds among women, the suspicions, the conminations, accusations, injunctions. In an attempt to enhance the performances of his actresses, it is said that Clouzot made eating his wife genuinely rotten fish in a sequence, and that made women bear true weight, and a morbid irony is completed, Vera would die of an attack on the heart, like her character. With many inducements, the film is at the top of the production of Clouzot, the director despised by the new wave, but who showed in many ways a more modern style than those detractors.

A Tale of Summer (1996) - Éric Rohmer

This film is the third of the four works that make up the famous tales of the seasons by french Rohmer, the stories in which he covers various circumstances and relationships between human beings, in different circumstances and always framed, as is obvious, in the seasons of the year. The director also continues with the works that can be counted among the well-known Comedies and proverbs, again the filmmaker is involved in his film, being, apart from the director also responsible for the development of script, performs the work of scriptwriter, and certainly will be recognizable that detail, as in previous films. The director takes the opportunity to capture one of the themes of his life, one of the topics that can be considered an obsession in the filmmaker, that is, young people's love affairs, very similar to what we could see, to give an example, at the award-winning Pauline at the Beach (1983). It is the story of a young, recently graduated student of mathematics, who before continuing his studies takes a summer vacation in a beach area, where he will meet his girlfriend, but while waiting, he will meet and start romances with other two young women. With a subject previously addressed by the filmmaker, the film, frankly, can not be considered a major contribution to the cinematographic art.

                        

The action starts with Gaspard (Melvil Poupaud), a teenager individual who is about to take a few days off, vacation on the beach town Dinard, comes only with his backpack and his guitar. After a few days, he walks alone on the sunny beach, goes daily to eat at a cafe, where the waitress is the young Margot (Amanda Langlet), beautiful girl who will later recognize him on the beach, not taking long in talking to him and making friends. He is on vacation before pursuing math studies, she is an ethnologist, they exchange stories of their lives, they spend time together, but he confesses that he is in there to meet another girl. They go to a nightclub, Margot manifests his likes for him, in vain, although she manages to get a kiss from the young man. Then meets Gaspard Solene (Gwenaëlle Simon), one of the girls in the club, with whom an idyll is soon produced, spend time with some relatives of her in a boat, but do not consume the romance. Upon learning Margot of the affair, jealous, is upset, not distancing herself from him nevertheless. One day, appears Lena (Aurelia Nolin), the girl that Gaspard expected, his romance is reborn, but half, because she gives priority to other things. He decides to take a trip with Margot, breaks up with the other two, and finds a surprise when she will travel, but with her boyfriend. Gaspard leaves alone.

Rohmer presents us the third installment of his famous tales of the seasons, a film that is absolutely impregnated with his everlasting theme, and his ever-present image in french cinema, the sea, a sunny, well-lit beach, more summer than never, it will be again the frame where the characters of turn will unfold. Having already spent more than two quinquennia since the filmmaker shot mostly feature films and put aside his initial works, documentaries and short films, there is no doubt that a topic of all the filmography of the french is this, youthful flirtations, dalliances and love affairs, passengers idile, light courtship, clubbing, and in the middle, a lot, but a lot of dialogue; certainly a subject that the director does not seem to have got sicked of, unlike many of the spectators. Surprisingly, the first few minutes of the film are silent, that is to say there is no words, everything happens almost without a word being pronounced, all recorded expressly in a diary, this is helping more quickly to warn the character of Gaspard, dry, a sparing character, tasteless, that is understood, at least in part, in those succinct and initial minutes; a silence of course that will soon be broken, and once broken, will almost never reign throughout the footage. It does not become too difficult to predict, after barely half an hour of the film, what awaits us as spectators of the film, since Gaspard, being a young individual, is tasteless and insipid, something even devious, could not have different adventures his character, to some extent tiresome and boring, as the protagonist of them. Regrettably, we appreciate the same film weaknesses that, again, I quote, Pauline at the beach, we notice a film about which phrases or favorable judgments not in excess we might emit. Several years had passed since that movie, but it is impossible to miss that those same weaknesses still abound in the cinema of Rohmer, he keeps repeating some mistakes, but what is worse, he does not finish exploding aesthetically, not in this film at least, a pity knowing that the director is perfectly capable of producing visual beauty.

Naturally, echoes of previous films are felt, and, for example, despite mediating more than a decade between films, the thematic and aesthetic closeness with the aforementioned Pauline at the beach is undeniable, winks that are reflected even in the occupation of Margot, ethnologist, as was one of the men in Pauline's adventure. Of course, that similarity goes further, we find it in its audiovisual language itself, with the symmetrical framings of the beach, sky and sea meeting in the distant horizon, with pleasant vanishing, they are a print that is not absent, for ephemeral pleasure of the public. The coherence and extension of its visual elements does not stop, something positive, we can even appreciate boat ornaments, decorative elements already appreciated in previous movies. We found another unmistakable visual stamp of the filmmaker, the aforementioned beauty of those luminous exterior images, the beach, summer image par excellence, the almost always clear sky, a recognizable audiovisual construction, as recognizable as the tedious excess of conversations, dialogues, now this aggravated with the theme of the diary that inflates the story with a rigidity that will never stop flowing. The camera unfolds with a fluency that attests to the years that have passed, tirelessly slipping following the characters during the interminable conversations of Gaspard, with the three girls, but mostly with Margot. We observe the usual follow-ups of that camera, follow-ups to the characters, their movements, it is positive and correct the resource of how, with subtle travellings, the protagonists are followed with remarkable precision, by open spaces, by narrow streets, during walks, but not only the physical movements of the protagonists are reflected, but, again, their eternal conversations. The camera is probably one of the most decent elements, an appreciable narrative element within the film, a film where the director returns to normality in his narrative, that is, to frame everything within a main perspective, to bias the audience with a focus mainly, of course, Gaspard's perspective, since the whole film is rigidly structured as a binnacle of the young Gaspard's vacation experiences, his somewhat acerbic attitude, his parsimony, or awkwardness, sentimental, not paying attention to the constants Margot's insinuations.

Margot, the most serious, compared to the others, and that greater interest manifested in the boy, ends up becoming his confidant, and little more than that, another example of attitudes that at times border on the stupidity on the part of the indecisive young man, because later it will be too late. The male character rather has a behavior that brings him closer to a feminine, endless ramblings, congenial with some individuals but at the same time does not finish doing it, says one thing and ends up doing another, his behavior is one of the factors that ends up making the viewing of the film something tedious, added, of course, to the unnecessary extension of the footage. We will be exposed, like that, to the trivialities of the boys, whining, running around, their actions, boyfriends' badomies, they do not end, everything is structured, all basted according to Gaspard, who apparently does not know what he wants, and when at last he seems to glimpse it, he has lost his chance. Often happens. And the director surprises for not getting tired of expressing it, a strange relax by him, reiterated concomitance of that topic, making it not difficult for the film to end up boring some palate, with an unnecessary duration of almost two hours, plagued by endless dialogues, trinkets, flirting, whims, three different girls who are going to corroborate us just that fickle character of the young man, who behaves like a weathervane, plays a triple band game, staying at the end with nothing. It invades a tedium from which not even the girls manage to rescue the film, of rather moderate beauty, and even more moderate performances, do not consolidate as an element that enhances the film, which enhances its bonuses. It is true, however, that the film is adorned with the plasticity of the flesh, Margot's legs in a moment, almost framed Gaspard, this without mentioning, of course, Solene and Lena, wearing the skin that is necessary in a beach, in a hot summer season. In general, there is no significant evolution in the director, it is not a significant contribution or advance compared to other previous films, we can not speak of an extraordinary film or step forward for Rohmer, perhaps his documentaries, and short films for the small screen, have diminished a little his artistic progress. Unfortunately, it must be said that no one will see a masterpiece in the film, as indeed there is not, as Rohmer is an appreciable filmmaker, we have in the present work an exercise that is not precisely his best production.

Pauline at the Beach (1983) - Éric Rohmer

The versatile and prolific Rohmer, one of the privileged voices of the last great cinematographic movement that France has had, the New Wave, the nouvelle vague, delivers this film with successes in its proposal, as well as awards at its premiere moment, but that definitely would not come to be among the best that this great filmmaker got to produce. After his extensive experience as a producer of short films for television, as well as documentaries of illustrious artists, both from France and around the world, the director had already made some pictures in feature film mode, in which he had printed his guidelines as director. For this film, addressing some novelties in his style, but without reaching the mastery of others, he presents a story written by himself, the story of Pauline, attractive teen, discovering sexuality, going with his cousin, older than her, to a beach house, where they will exchange views on sex, and where in turn are parading male characters, a young and former suitor of the cousin, a mature ethnologist who wants to live and enjoy the present, and finally a child, another teenager with whom Pauline will have an affair. The film will be the journey of exploration and discovery of the characters, mainly the female ones, in their different sexual beach adventures.

                     

Two women arrive at a beach house, are the teenager Pauline (Amanda Langlet) and her cousin Marion (Arielle Dombasle), both will live there during the summer; Marion asks her cousin about her love life. On the beach, they meet Pierre (Pascal Greggory), windsurfing teacher and former Marion suitor; they also know the mature ethnologist Henri (Féodor Atkine). The four spend time together at Henri's house, exchange stories and opinions, of what love is, they dance, and Pierre declares that he still loves Marion, receiving rejection from her, who is easily seduced by the ethnologist. Pierre is jealous, while Pauline meets Sylvain (Simon de La Brosse), a young boy of her age with whom she has an affair; there is also Louisette (Rosette), a candy vendor, she and Henri have a romance, but he manages to make Marion think that Sylvain is the one who courts her. Pierre does not control his jealousy, he faces both cousins, he saw Louisette, but he does not know who she has affairs with; Pauline, believing that Sylvain was involved, suffers, while both the windsurfing teacher and Marion ignore for sure what happened, they speculate. They try to clarify everything, to cleanse the image of the adolescent, Henri tries to seduce Pauline, not succeeding. He leaves the next day, as do the young cousins.

As has been said, Rohmer is indeed a versatile, multifaceted director, a distinctive face within the new wave, probably lacking all the glitz and media impact of his comrades, be it Godard, Truffaut, Resnais, or Chabrol, but that versatility of his just led him to dedicate a good part of his early years to television, documentaries and short films. By the time of making this film, he had already shot some feature films, embedded in the aforementioned production, which populated the great majority of his filmography. The first sequence of the film is already plotting what will largely be the film, the female protagonists talking about love, about falling in love, two women relatively distant in time, not very distant in age, but very close in their attitude and their way of discovering, on the one hand, and experiencing, on the other, sexuality. With the natural preeminence to Pauline, the film will be a journey, a journey through the girls' particular ways, the starting point in the case of the fifteen-years-girl, the continuation of a trip already started in Marion's case, but in both situations, is their approach towards men. So, this film is a journey through the parallel sentimental wanderings of both young girls, their romances, one, already experienced, divorced, very attractive, almost irresistible, that awakens attraction in many men; the other, a girl who is already waking up to sexuality, taking her first steps. This seems to be a concern, a topic perhaps somewhat late in the life of the director, to whom some qualify as a director who always was, or always wanted to be a teenager; true this or not, analyzing his work together we will notice that more than belated, is one of his usual topics. Jealousy, ridicule, lies, half-truths, juvenile and inconsequential love affairs, a subject that without being incorrect, warns that the director, once more mature, will be able to generate works according to that greater maturity, works of greater relevance, this of course not stop being a personal impression. We find ourselves thus subject to the trinkets of young people, subject to what one or the other said, to whether it is true or false, something that for Pauline's age, is simply her whole world, because within the something of abstruse framework of experiences, it is the teenager, naturally, over whom lies the greater weight of the film.

The immediate sequence of the young women on the beach is a classic in Rohmer, being almost impossible not to feel some echo to what is appreciated in the later and excellent The Green Ray (1986), a film that warns that the filmmaker, with another artistic feeling, already explores other themes, maintaining his aesthetic guidelines. In this way, the director is coherent with certain edges of his cinematographic language, because they are recognizable the frames of the french, harmonic and symmetrical frames in that sequence, the composition of those frames that are characterized by having a centralized vanishing point. In collaboration with his director of photography, Néstor Almendros, Rohmer generates moments of visual beauty, in certain frames and images that unfortunately do not abound in the film, but it is already generating them, a sample of the sensibility that we would then see in all its splendor in later deliveries of the director. That beauty, that chromatic combination, is born from the presence, intermittent, of flowers, large blocks of flowers that take over a good part of the frames, take over a good part of the compositions of certain sequences; like a good frenchman who the filmmaker is after all, and like an impressionist, Rohmer populates his images with colorful beauty, with colorful flowers and light. We also noticed some well-lit sequences in the exterior, according to the theme of the film, the awakening of Pauline, the desire to live and to know, sexually, both Marion and her, because the theme is generally juvenile, like that sunny beach, which combines perfectly with the freedom of youth, of a vacation, of not caring about anything else, of forgetting the rest of the world, because that beach, that purity, that luminous freedom, is the whole universe for the young, especially, of course, for Pauline. Following in the technical line, in the technical mark of the picture, the camera behaves correctly to track its characters, capture their reactions, put ourselves in perspective of one or the other with subtlety; it is the best of the film that camera handling. There are technical successes, of course, it is correct his staging, correct and nothing else, because it feels as if the film was finally drowned in the flirtations and youthful love adventures, as if the linearity of the film was not broken, absence of major images, excess of words, a characteristic certainly not atypical within the audiovisual language of the filmmaker throughout his filmography.

We found a fun and light romantic comedy, with relatively strong erotic overtones, the bodies of women as exposed as the beach demands, Amanda Langlet showing her smooth and youthful skin in repeated moments, Arielle Dombasle, the irresistible carnality, of course contributing as well. We have in this proposal a new installment of the well-known "comedies and proverbs" by Rohmer, before his memorable tales of the seasons -where a good part of the director's audiovisual style would end up exploding-, the director is still completely defining his style, probably still looking for his main edges, his audiovisual cornerstones, still without detaching himself from the inertia of his abundant documentary exercises, looking for his concerns or main themes, still looking for his final aesthetics. The director continues largely with its aesthetic principles, composition and colors and lighting, but the then more-experienced-as-a-documentary-maker artist still did not reach his peak in this film where the expression rests in excess on the words. In that sense, perhaps conditioned by the nature of his film, Rohmer falls into something that I think goes in detriment of the film, and that is, rest his narration in an excessive way in dialogues, a very dialogued film, this, again, perhaps conditioned by the nature of the subject, juvenile love affairs, situations in which the most important thing in the world is what one or the other individual says about an issue. Seeing later works of the french, it can be felt that he could address this same topic, this concern, in another way, with another approach, perhaps giving more weight to the image, to the visual aesthetics, instead of the dialogues, the words, having so much interference, opaque the other aspect. Of course, there are new features in the style of Rohmer, in his way of narrating, and is that the film is structured on the perspectives of more than one character, almost everyone involved actually, everyone has his or her share of participation, no longer we see everything presented or framed under the magnifying glass of a single individual -like in his previous films-, but of several. There is Henri, mature and carefree, tired of being loved, he only seeks to live the moment, without worrying about tomorrow; Pierre, rejected, obsessed with Marion, the more he seeks her, the greater will be his rejection; the young Sylvain, as inexperienced as Pauline, discovering love and sex; all have their particular focus. This way of articulating his narrative, this multi perspectivism, in turn generates that the public does not bias, that does not identify with a single universe, a single character, because each one exposes his point, his particular conception of love considering his respective existential moments, undoubtedly a subject that Rohmer was very interested in at the time. The final dialogue illustrates a little more about the complete film, like the beach itself, surreal, idyllic, ethereal, Marion, the older one, prefers to deny, or affirm to herself some facts that she prefers to think as not true, that did not happen, he prefers a negation to reality. Awarded picture, not his best film, but certainly an always appreciable exercise by this remarkable french director.