criterionforum.org

Seeing Vera Clouzot in HD is making me salivate. One of the all time great "director's wife" actresses

That first shot made me think an Entuziazm review was linked to by mistake. Either way I love the fuller tones those bits suggests in comparison to the Arrow.

I was already sold on this, but getting extra visuals on all four sides? Mega-sold! :)

The bit rate and disc space devoted to the film alone makes this essential on top of the lack of cropping.

One of the main gripes of the Cahiers filmmakers, especially Truffaut, was that a tradition of quality persisted in French cinema, and Clouzot was one of the filmmakers listed as being guilty of subscribing to such a tradition, but surely Diabolique wasn't a film they had in mind, unless it was perceived differently back then? Anybody familiar with this issue?

Truffaut grouped 99 French directors into four categories and Clouzot was in the top:

1. the Ambitious -- Yves Allégret, Alexander Astruc, Claude Autant-Lara, Jacques Becker, Robert Bresson, Marcel Carné, André Cayatte, René Clair, René Clement, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Jean Cocteau, Abel Gance, Jean Grémillon, Roger Leenhardt, Max Ophuls, Jean Renoir, Jacques Tati. Right there is the true "French quality" for you. Here are 17 filmmakers who can tell themselves, "I am in the process of making the best French film of the year." They have that right. Let it be specified that ambition faultlessly brings quality but not success (examples: L'Air de Paris, L'Amour d'une femme, Mam'zelle Nitouche, La Beauté du diable). The films of Yves Allégret, Claude Autant-Lara, Marcel Carné, Andre Cayatte, René Clément are in the first place the films of Charles Spaak, Jacques Sigurd, Aurenche and Bost. Now the cinema termed "scenarist" is called upon to fade away.

And Cahiers thumbnail of Clouzot in May 1957

Henri-Georges Clouzot

At the age of seven, he wrote a play whose protagonist rid himself of his wife by putting nails in her soup. The story of his life reveals him to be stubborn, clear-sighted, concerned to express the “hard face” of existence. This is a “film auteur”. “I do not believe,” he says, “in a director who is not his own writer.“ He loves his metier. “I am most of all physical, but my greatest pleasure in directing a film, is the shooting, the editing.” He depicts situation with no concern for the judgments of society, but he puts himself in danger of taking the bite from his films by targeting too great a number of spectators. “I work for the Gaumont-Palace,” he proclaims. But we know so well that his concerns, his obsessions -- perversion, true cruelty -- are not compatible with the wants of the great public. Thus, how Clouzot is careful of self-censorship. Furthermore, he knows where he is going and why, in his gallery of monsters, he puts great emphasis on the revolting, the sadistic, the subversive, the executioner. By subtraction, he little-by-little reveals, with the sharpness of a photographic negative, the dazzling image of pure innocence and of selfless friendship.

(Both translations from jdcopp's Cahiers blog)

Recently watched this. A brilliantly suspenseful film, I had no clue going in how the twist would turn it around. Wonderfully creepy with the final bathtub scene. It's easy to see what an enormous influence this film has been, if only modern horror were as terrific at building up suspense and dread with their camerawork.

aox wrote:The bit rate and disc space devoted to the film alone makes this essential on top of the lack of cropping.

I think Diabolique is shot for 1.66:1 myself, as does Glen Erikson (and it's not out of the question) but don't quote me on that.

Brilliant film. The ending was riveting and downright scary, especially since I had no idea what was coming. I definitely see why it was an influence on Psycho. Makes me wonder what Hitchcock would have done with it, had he obtained the rights.

Watching it, though, I found myself wondering if the plot was going to end up being a supernatural twist, after all. I wonder how much of that is colored by my modern expectations as a viewer - I'm sure a contemporary audience probably wouldn't have jumped to that conclusion as quickly. Does anyone know what the direct precedent for a supernatural suspense would be, outside of higher-budget "monster" films?

I already want to see it again. That is all.

I blind bought this movie and It bored me to tears. I LOVE the head master... And that's about it. I am so fond of The Wages Of Fear that every so often I force myself to watch this, in the hopes that I will dig it... But I never can get into it. Although to be fair Im not CRAZY about most Hitchcock movies, The Wrong Man for instance is a movie that left so little impression on me... That I can recall only the Warner Brothers logo at the start. Maybe its a brain tumor.

Our forum has reached new heights of critical excellence lately

mfunk9786 wrote:Our forum has reached new heights of critical excellence lately

Incisive criticism from the man who said The Royal Tenebaums gets better every time you watch in (In CAPS, no less). Pot. Kettle. Black.

Did you read the post that preceded that one?

swo17 wrote:Did you read the post that preceded that one?

Yes, swo. You know how I feel about Wes Anderson. [-X

It's not about agreeing/defending the opinion of the OP. It's about funk's endless excursions into hyperbole and the absolutism that permeates it. The boy's tone rubs me the wrong way.

Niale wrote:I blind bought this movie and It bored me to tears. I LOVE the head master... And that's about it. I am so fond of The Wages Of Fear that every so often I force myself to watch this, in the hopes that I will dig it... But I never can get into it. Although to be fair Im not CRAZY about most Hitchcock movies, The Wrong Man for instance is a movie that left so little impression on me... That I can recall only the Warner Brothers logo at the start. Maybe its a brain tumor.

IMHO, posts like this say so little that it's almost impossible to reply to them with any purpose. They're so glib about works that deserve real engagement that they discourage further discussion rather than providing any inroads into it.

If nobody minds, I'm going to copy and paste the writeup I did about this a couple of days ago for the 50s thread, since I'd like to discuss the movie and it sounds as though a few other people in here just watched it.

Goddamn did this one work for me. This is probably a situation where hitting all the right notes helps- a murder mystery that turns almost metaphysical, with Hitchcock-esque atmosphere of tension, carried as much by characterization as by plotting. What else could one want?

It's actually fascinating how much of the movie seems to have resurfaced in other forms- the typewriter with a page fully of suggestive nonsense in The Shining, the dipshit husband who doesn't seem to stay dead in Blood Simple, two of the three leads in remarkably different characters in Army of Shadows, and the detective was almost shockingly Columbo-esque (seriously, the cigars, the allusions to being from a lower class background, the snooping bonhomie, even his gravelly voice.) Even having seen some parts elsewhere, though, nothing seems trite or out of place.

The primary twist wasn't too hard to guess, at least once you get into the home stretch of the movie, but the double twist- with the boy suggesting essentially that this whole thing was some brilliant double reverse con on Christina's part, or a genuine supernatural return, without actually committing to that- undercut what predictability there was. Moreover, though, I loved that the first half of the movie is full of the sort of dropped clues you normally see in a murder mystery- the kid seeing the sedative, the neighbors marking down the exact time of the bath, the guy who saw the water in their trunk and so forth. More than enough to set up a back half that would be a traditional unwinding of the first half, and more than enough to set a mystery junkie on completely the wrong path.

As much as it has a bit of the ring of studio mandated changes, I'm not sorry that the magic detective catches Michel and Nicole- having Michel come out on top would be infuriating, however good a twist it made for. I'll have to watch the movie again knowing what's coming to see how well Nicole's characterization makes sense with that knowledge, but as is this is one of the strongest movies I've watched specifically for the project.

I'm quite surprised at how much more I liked this than Quai des Orfevres- same director, same general genre, not too far apart chronologically, yet one seemed unremarkable and the other pretty well blew me away.

triodelover wrote:

swo17 wrote:Did you read the post that preceded that one?

Yes, swo. You know how I feel about Wes Anderson. [-X

It's not about agreeing/defending the opinion of the OP. It's about funk's endless excursions into hyperbole and the absolutism that permeates it. The boy's tone rubs me the wrong way.

I don't KNOW why you're being so MEAN since I've POSTED about the film EXTENSIVELY in the PAST

mfunk9786 wrote:

triodelover wrote:

swo17 wrote:Did you read the post that preceded that one?

Yes, swo. You know how I feel about Wes Anderson. [-X

It's not about agreeing/defending the opinion of the OP. It's about funk's endless excursions into hyperbole and the absolutism that permeates it. The boy's tone rubs me the wrong way.

I don't KNOW why you're being so MEAN since I've POSTED about the film EXTENSIVELY in the PAST

LOL

I suppose I was "Begging for the barrel room" with that post. But eh, My desire was not to change anyone's mind, or indeed to further the "art" of criticism to new heights. I had kind of hoped someone shared my opinion of the film, as it is a movie I have tried to like knowing maybe that I SHOULD like it... But just not really finding a "inroads in" as Gregory put it. My opinion about the film is one im sort of self conscious about, knowing its reputation, and not wanting to trash it! just wishing simply to say hey, am I crazy or does anyone else not completely dig this? or did anyone else need a few viewings? I should repeat I don't believe I posted a "criticism" of the film, elaborate, groundbreaking, glib or otherwise...
Maybe I should have just taken pot shots at the other posters instead, which would have been "safer" then speaking my mind.

tachyonEvan wrote:...Does anyone know what the direct precedent for a supernatural suspense would be, outside of higher-budget "monster" films?

Not sure what you're asking about here, but you can obviously go back way before the advent of film to find examples of "supernatural suspense". Two examples off the top of my head that have been treated to multiple film adaptations would be Poe's THE TELL-TALE HEART and Henry James' THE TURN OF THE SCREW. Both of these stories share an ambiguity where the supernatural element may only exist in the mind of the protagonist. As a broad generalization, it was common for Hollywood films during the first half of the 20th century to provide a rational explanation for supernatural occurrences (as in DIABOLIQUE). The 1944 Ray Milland thriller THE UNINVITED is commonly noted as an example of a ghost story treated seriously with its supernatural elements left unexplained.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Goddamn did this one work for me. This is probably a situation where hitting all the right notes helps- a murder mystery that turns almost metaphysical, with Hitchcock-esque atmosphere of tension, carried as much by characterization as by plotting. What else could one want?

I was lucky enough to see Les Diaboliques during a mid-1980s big-screen revival knowing nothing about it in advance (it was my first Clouzot as well), and it absolutely blew me away: I can see why Hitchcock was worried that he had serious competition, and apparently he was quite surprised that comparatively few people picked up on what he thought were very strong parallels between it and Psycho, at least on the latter's original release.

As you say, while it works brilliantly as an exercise in suspense mechanics, it would be far less effective without the three main central performances at its heart (and, to a lesser extent, Charles Vanel's quizzical detective) and at least a hint of the genuinely supernatural. There's barely a second out of place - even tangential set-pieces like the one in which the headmistress is forced to eat the disgusting school food are all of a piece with the final texture.

DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, July 4th

Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.

This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen Curtis Harrington's Games, which riffs on this film to the point of even casting Signoret in basically the same role again?

I was also recently reminded of this film when revisiting Heddy Honigmann's Forever which juxtaposes clips from it with the grave of Signoret and Yves Montand