isla s
This is a nice piece of period drama. Its slow but the plot is intriguing. It certainly focuses on the more upper class sides of French society, including some pretty big names, primarily Trotsky. Its a throwback to the first half of the 1900s I suppose. There are some nice landscape shots and it kept my interesy for the most part. Its a little meandering but relatively easy watch I suppose, if you can manage the subtitles (its in French). I think I liked that the story slowly comes together via learning things from different people, getting a feel for the various characters and settings depicted - its a good piece of escapism I suppose. If anything, it is a little fuzzy, picture wise, which could be put down to it not being an HD quality stream but then I felt that it gave it a bit of a daydream-y type feel to it, which I suppose seems almost more suited to a film set so many decades ago, if you know what I mean. It is very slightly morbid in tone perhaps but its not exactly a gritty film. It works reasonably well overall and yes, I reckon I'd recommend this to others.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
jack c
Not exactly emotionally engaging to the fullest, but I was always interested. This story of a conman is elevated by Resnais direction and the writing from the late Jorge Semprun. The narrative structure takes a couple minutes to get into, and I'm still not entirely sure what Trotsky (yes, the one and only) is doing in the plot entirely except as a backdrop of the period and how Stavisky, I think, ultimately ties in with him being deported from the country to get out of his already asylyumed state. But the two main characters here are Belmondo, super charming as always but here his bullshit-artiste type from Breathless is given more of a dose of reality and even psychological realism, and Stephen Sondheim's score, which comes in from time to time almost too insistently, like a melodramatic friend asking to amp up a walk down a hallway or a tracking shot (though, damn, don't those tracking shots get lovelier with Sondheim's strings and horns backing things up). We want to see where this guy will go and how far he can take his schemes because we know there is ruin lying ahead.
I think there was a point about midway through where I was getting somewhat restless, as to the thought 'Resnais and Semprun and company have shown us this character, his very sleazy yet undoubtedly charming way of being around people, but where will it go now, what will the movie do to keep things interesting'. And in its own way it becomes more interesting than just being a series of 'how will he get out of this' as it is 'it's time for the downfall, let's hear what his associates, doctor, lawyer, the love he didn't really have - that was the one thing in the film that, while nice and had certain, brief sensual mood, was underdeveloped - had to say ala Citizen Kane. And another fascination comes with bringing the theater itself into it. Stavisky/Alex could have made just a wonderful actor, maybe a protege of Stanislavski, but he decided to take it into the real world as opposed to just the stage, where he could read lines next to other actors but not as confidently as in a fine suit and cigar giving our fake money.
Maybe that explains, in a metaphorical part, the Trotsky thing, since Stavisky himself was from Russia too: the best way to subvert Capitalism, perhaps, is to just make a mockery of it, fuck the system and get away with millions and millions, always with a smile and courtesy. It's a moody, entertaining ride, the French-socio-historical-political flipside of something like The Sting, also from the same time.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
There's something about films set in the 1930s but shot in the 1970s that makes them seem more artificial than many other films. Perhaps it is harder to stop the fashion and hair trends from creeping through (Is Belmondo's hair too long)? Or could it just be the font used for the titles? At any rate, Resnais's film doesn't suffer too much from this ailment; instead, it is another story told from multiple perspectives juggling past, present, and future (but the color photography makes this feel less effective than Last Year at Marienbad). Those who know their French history may be able to better follow the plot, but I understood it to be about a famous conman who rose to great heights of influence with the government and society figures of his day...and then crashed and burned bringing the government down with him.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
02/04/23
Full Review
Audience Member
While watching this film the thing that sprung to my mind was the Great Gatsby.
Both have a man who has a shady past and both are ladies men
Whats sets the film apart from the film adaption of Gatsby from the same year is that Resnais knows how to handle the material giving a it a high gloss sheen and an interesting narrative.
What also helps is the casting of two giants of French Cinema in Charles Boyer and Jean Paul Belmondo.
This casting gives the film an edge as Boyer represents the France that was to disapear with the coming of World War two and the scandals which took France there.
Belmondo is top drawer as the main lead who even when his wolrd is collasping around him ,he still manages to lead a Champagne lifestyle and reamain confident and optimistic
Resnais also uses Stephen Sondheim to bring out the elemnets of the story with his Gershwin like score.
The film will not appeal to everyone as the pace is slower than most films and its not a Resnais classic.
But on the whole their is plenty here to enjoy and engage the brain at the same time .
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
02/23/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Un bon petit film de ganster comme il ne s' en fait plus. Un bon Belmondo.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
02/22/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Un bon Rennais un peu tortueux mais glacant !
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/12/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
