criterionforum.org

I just saw this tonight, and I really, really loved it. Am I the only one who thought it was deliberately quite funny, and just a real delight to watch? I feel like the negative reviews calling it "dull" must be about a totally different film -- all those creaking floors and the wry use of the titles to call attention to just how silly these people are being, it's all pretty funny and very clearly poking fun at the artifices of the "period film."

sevenarts wrote:I just saw this tonight, and I really, really loved it. Am I the only one who thought it was deliberately quite funny, and just a real delight to watch? I feel like the negative reviews calling it "dull" must be about a totally different film -- all those creaking floors and the wry use of the titles to call attention to just how silly these people are being, it's all pretty funny and very clearly poking fun at the artifices of the "period film."

Hrm, I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it pretty funny, but I think you're right that characters are definitely acting more melodramatically because they love the artifice of it. However I think there's a point in the film -- like in most Rivette films -- where their make-believe world becomes real to them, and they are no longer playfully assuming theatrical personas.

Spoiler

And for me, this happens after the kidnapping.

"I think there's a point in the film -- like in most Rivette films -- where their make-believe world becomes real to them, and they are no longer playfully assuming theatrical personas."

Precisely. This might well be said to be Rivette's theme. You find it over and over in Paris Belongs to Us, L'Amour Fou, L'Amour par terr, La Bande des quatre, Haut/Bas/Fragile, La Belle Noiseuse and above all the complete Out 1.

And there's much humor in Don't Touch the Axe too, particularly as "Les 13" come off as a kind of drunken, left bank Keystone Kops.

I can only credit the indifference (Sarris) and smug hostility (Armond) to this film to its period setting.

A decidedly sub-adolescent attitude.

David Ehrenstein wrote:I can only credit the indifference (Sarris) and smug hostility (Armond) to this film to its period setting.

But Sarris seems to have been largely indifferent to Rivette throughout his career -- and not just to the few period films.

David Ehrenstein wrote:And there's much humor in Don't Touch the Axe too, particularly as "Les 13" come off as a kind of drunken, left bank Keystone Kops.

I guess I may have been too caught up in the general gaiety watching the film to step back and find much of the humor -- aside from Les 13, of course. Though I didn't see as much Kestone Kops as I did Howard Hawks in their brotherhood.

With Rivette, I feel his decisions always tickle me from the start of the film, and so I didn't notice anything more or less humorous in this film than I did in Marie and Julien or Gang of Four.

Well let's put it this way -- Rivette would never cast Will Ferrell.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Well let's put it this way -- Rivette would never cast Will Ferrell.

Don't be a Debbie Downer!

Balibar gets a lot of praise, and deservingly so, but I'm very surprised to see Guillame's being sort of glossed over in the reviews since I found his performance pitch-perfect, what gives?

Guillaume's perf certainly earns him a right of first refusal for any role requiring a one-legged man.

ltfontaine wrote:

domino harvey wrote:why in the world would they change one of the greatest movie titles ever to the most ZZZZZZ title available

Rivette has explained that, because the story was originally titled "Ne touches pas la hache," his film follows suit. Even for many of Balzac's contemporaries, however, the phrase as spoken in the story constituted an obscure historical reference.

Does Armand speak the line in the film? If so, is it explained in any way? Not that Rivette would miss a chance to introduce yet one more element of mystery into his film.

Having just seen the film, I must again reiterate what a wonderful title "Don't Touch the Axe" is-- that conversation (I know this is late but yes it is spoken in the film-- ie it's not "obscure") is one of the best in the film. Really a wonderful Rivette film, and perhaps the classiest treatment of blue balls in film history?

domino harvey wrote:

ltfontaine wrote:

domino harvey wrote:why in the world would they change one of the greatest movie titles ever to the most ZZZZZZ title available

Rivette has explained that, because the story was originally titled "Ne touches pas la hache," his film follows suit. Even for many of Balzac's contemporaries, however, the phrase as spoken in the story constituted an obscure historical reference.

Does Armand speak the line in the film? If so, is it explained in any way? Not that Rivette would miss a chance to introduce yet one more element of mystery into his film.

Having just seen the film, I must again reiterate what a wonderful title "Don't Touch the Axe" is-- that conversation (I know this is late but yes it is spoken in the film-- ie it's not "obscure") is one of the best in the film. Really a wonderful Rivette film, and perhaps the classiest treatment of blue balls in film history?

To be clear, the Balzac story was going to be called DON'T TOUCH THE AX, but before it was published Balzac decided to call it THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS. Langeais is most probably a play on "lingerie" and carries a playful tone, much like THE DUCHESS OF SEDUCTOWITZ might. I think both are fine titles, and while it bugs me that IFC made the decision to change the title, probably against the wishes of Rivette, it was a business decision and one that hopefully allowed for the film to make more money in the states. If it meant Rohmer's new film got distribution, I wouldn't care if IFC renamed ROMANCE OF ASTREE AND CELADON so it became TURD BLOSSOM.

justeleblanc wrote: I think both are fine titles, and while it bugs me that IFC made the decision to change the title, probably against the wishes of Rivette, it was a business decision and one that hopefully allowed for the film to make more money in the states.

A film titled DON'T TOUCH THE AXE would bring in more viewers than THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS.

tavernier wrote:

justeleblanc wrote: I think both are fine titles, and while it bugs me that IFC made the decision to change the title, probably against the wishes of Rivette, it was a business decision and one that hopefully allowed for the film to make more money in the states.

A film titled DON'T TOUCH THE AXE would bring in more viewers than THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS.

I disagree, respectfully. A title like that may appeal to more, but once they see that it's a costume drama they'll pass. Whereas those who would want to see a costume drama would see the word "duchess" in the title and then see that it is a costume drama and then see the movie and hate it.... but at least they saw it.

justeleblanc wrote:

tavernier wrote:

justeleblanc wrote: I think both are fine titles, and while it bugs me that IFC made the decision to change the title, probably against the wishes of Rivette, it was a business decision and one that hopefully allowed for the film to make more money in the states.

A film titled DON'T TOUCH THE AXE would bring in more viewers than THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS.

I disagree, respectfully. A title like that may appeal to more, but once they see that it's a costume drama they'll pass. Whereas those who would want to see a costume drama would see the word "duchess" in the title and then see that it is a costume drama and then see the movie and hate it.... but at least they saw it.

I'm with tavernier-- the title Don't Touch the Axe causes anyone to stop and at least pay attention if even fleetingly, while the Duchess of Whatever, I Already Stopped Listening does not

Maybe they should have titled it Don't Touch The Duchess"

So they stop and pay attention. Wow. They think it's another shitty Eli Roth film, and then they decide to see something else.

In addition to those who would see it merely because it's Jacques Rivette, IFC was hoping to attract people who would blindly see any costume drama. DON'T TOUCH THE AX doesn't attract that crowd.

justeleblanc wrote:So they stop and pay attention. Wow. They think it's another shitty Eli Roth film, and then they decide to see something else.

In addition to those who would see it merely because it's Jacques Rivette, IFC was hoping to attract people who would blindly see any costume drama. DON'T TOUCH THE AX doesn't attract that crowd.

You are the only one who thinks it sounds like a slasher movie. When I've told people the original title of this film, they become visibly interested. Period. That is half the battle. A Jacques Rivette film is going to attract Jacques Rivette fans and people who read a review-- people perusing an alternative weekly or daily would blindly read a review for Don't Touch the Ax before the Duchess of Langeais, and perhaps see something mentioned in the review that would get them in the seats.

I'm with Domino on this. "Axe" is a much more interest-catching title. I doubt many slasher film fans would mistake this for something they'd want to see (unless it got booked into multiplexes -- which seems unlikely).

I think the issue is that the two alternative titles, out of context, would imply completely different films, with mutually exclusive audiences. And the film itself (which I haven't seen) is probably one that would have minimal appeal to either.

I love the perversity of the axe title, if I were betting on getting bums on seats, I'd go for the duchess. At least the surface trappings of a period drama might convince a member of that audience to buy a ticket, whether they like the movie or not. For a lot of people the assumption of violence in the other title would automatically render the film 'untouchable'.

The saddest aspect of this discussion is that Jacques Rivette is so underappreciated that distributors need to figure out the best way of tricking people into seeing his films.

And let's not forget his best title: OUT 1.

Though, a few of his films have the best titles:

Paris Belongs to Us
Celine and Julie Go Boating

There's a part of me that almost wants to see a Gilbert and Sullivan type title:

The Duchess of Langeais, or: Don't Touch the Ax

Isn't that what Warner did to Polanski?

justeleblanc wrote:There's a part of me that almost wants to see a Gilbert and Sullivan type title:

The Duchess of Langeais, or: Don't Touch the Ax

Isn't that what Warner did to Polanski?

Not really since it was "Dance of the Vampires" before the title change:"Fearless Vampire Killers..." was never part of the original title.

Strangely this will be on German TV next week. I was really, really surprised, because I thought it hadn't even been in the cinemas.

Or is there another film, made in 2007, of the same name?

The German title is a translation of the English one, don't know why they don't use the original name.

What channel?

Have just seen the announcement as well. French original with German subs! Broadcast is on WDR, Saturday 29, at 0.25 in the night (so actually it's on Sunday 30, take care while programming your recorder, and remember you have to programme it one hour longer, as there will be the switch to Summer Time in that night!).

And yes, it's the Rivette film. Stupidly, that also means it will not be shown in the cinemas in Germany, I suppose. Dammit, I really looked forward to see it on the big screen first.

domino harvey wrote: Really a wonderful Rivette film, and perhaps the classiest treatment of blue balls in film history?

I'm not so sure. I’ve been thinking about this film for a while and here, fwiw, is my take (w/SPOILERS):

The couple in this film compete in an elaborate contest. In spite of being warned not to do so, the duchess opens by playing the coquette. The general, unable to make much headway against this, stomps about for a while and finally abducts her. This bold move causes the duchess to crumble; the general presses his apparent advantage, however, not by attacking, but by retreating. Now the duchess must go on the offensive, but her letters of entreaty go unanswered, and, she learns, even unread. Her counter-move is to issue an ultimatum and threaten a retreat of her own. The general, playing a game of brinksmanship, then moves too late. Now it is again the duchess’s turn to be pursued, and it is five years before the general even discovers the location of the cloister she has entered. By intrigue he gains an audience with the woman, but she is able to quickly retire again behind the veil. Falling back on his old stand-by, abduction, the general invades the cloister grounds, only to find the duchess has made a final retreat he cannot outflank. The duchess wins.

There is no reason to assume that either or both of the players did not enjoy the game. I am reminded of a chapter in Roger Shattuck’s Forbidden Knowledge (1996) entitled “The Pleasures of Abstinence.” Shattuck cites two examples—one from the life of Emily Dickinson, the other from a 17th Century novel, La Princesse de Cleves by Mme de La Fayette—to demonstrate a state of affairs wherein lovers suspend gratification so long that, apparently, the suspension itself becomes gratifying. I don’t know whether or not Balzac read Mme de La Fayette, but if he had, perhaps his story was a response, one that demonstrated something even greater than simple abstinence: the pleasure of provoking in one’s lover ever greater attempts at self-denial, adding to the pleasures of renunciation the pleasures of competition. Call it, if you will, Head Games of the Rich and Famous, 19th Century France Edition.

Btw, my suggestion for the best title in English: Careful With that Duchess, Eugene.