criterionforum.org

Ah, ok! #-o

Regarding French grammar, is it Le feu follet as Criterion has written it or Le Feu follet, as I've always seen it. Even Faber and Faber's Malle on Malle has it written as Le Feu follet.

And speaking of Malle on Malle, I'll scan and share the pages on Les Amants and Le Feu follet when I get a chance.

Jason wrote:Regarding French grammar, is it Le feu follet as Criterion has written it or Le Feu follet, as I've always seen it. Even Faber and Faber's Malle on Malle has it written as Le Feu follet.

And speaking of Malle on Malle, I'll scan and share the pages on Les Amants and Le Feu follet when I get a chance.

I believe the French capitalisation rule is that the first word is capitalised and also the first noun if the title opens with a noun phrase:

e.g. Touchez pas au grisbi, Qui etes-vous, Polly Magoo?
e.g. Le Bonheur, Un Condamne a mort s'est echappe, Mon Oncle

If an adjective comes before the capitalised noun, that's capitalised too, but if it comes after, it's not:

e.g. Le Beau Serge, La Grande Illusion
e.g. L'Enfance nue, Le Feu follet

A quick look at Criterion seems to indicate that they capitalise only the first word (and proper nouns), which is the Italian rule, I think, not French. So they have "La bete humaine", for example (should be "La Bete humaine"). IMDB is no more accurate (e.g. "La Grande illusion").

So, Faber is right, according to what I've been taught, and Criterion is wrong.

I actually have this thread bookmarked for quick reference in times like this

domino harvey wrote:I actually have this thread bookmarked for quick reference in times like this

That's much more useful (and shows that my Bresson and Tati examples above are wrong!).

And it's definite articles only, not indefinite ones, so it would be Une femme mariee, but La Femme infidele. (And La mariee etait en noir)

But as that thread also noted, those rules have not been consistent throughout history, nor are they universally applied in French publishing.

Saw The Lovers last night and liked it for what it is--the lyrical awakening of a provincial-bourgeois housewife. Generally speaking, I'm fairly apathetic toward the lyric mode--it's had a "been there, done that" feel for me for a long time now, but Jeanne Moreau's performance combined with the camera "scandalously" lingering on her face during her orgasm really elevated those moments.

So often, the lyric interlude fades and we return to status quo, but here the following morning brings the lovers following through on their stated intentions even after the lyric spell has faded. It made for a few rather tense minutes! I'm not a Malle devotee, but I really like the way his films sometimes confound expectations (for example, the endings of The Lovers or Murmur of the Heart).

Also, the extras have a nice set of interviews, esp. the two Malle interviews. This is a really good package for the lower price-point.

EDIT: Having just finished The Fire Within, I think it's my favorite Malle. Wow!!! What an intense performance from Ronet!

toiletduck! wrote:

I wrote:Not being familiar with Fire Within (or most any Malle, really), just how loosely is Alain Leroy 'inspired by' Jacques Rigaut? The mere mention of the name in a doc short is enough to pique my curiosity in this release...

Anybody? Nothing?

The exact connection is that The Fire Within's source novel was published in 1931 and written by Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, who was a friend of Rigaut's. He based Alain Leroy on Rigaut. Malle altered some parts of the book so his version of Leroy probably resembles Rigaut very minimally.

Actually, Malle changed besides other things the cause of the addiction. In reality Rigaut was addicted to opium, whereas in the movie Leroy is in alcohol. La Rochelle also committed suicide in 1945.

The approach is very different between the film and the novel. Malle questions the notion of the existential, epistemological suicide, whereas for Drieu, suicide is the noble act "par excellence". (analysis of the film)

There is an excellent podcast in French here (search for the word suicide), and a blog about Rigaut here (also in French).

Indeed, I mentioned Malle didn't follow the source novel. It probably would have been too much to ask for Criterion to include Drieu's book with the release, especially since it's priced in the lower-tier.

Regardless, DVD Times has reviewed the disc.

Has the novel ever been translated?

Just watched The Fire Within and it's the best Malle I've seen. Also the best movie about alcoholism I've seen. Somebody should have tied Mike Figgis to a whipping post to watch this a few dozen times before making the wretched Leaving Las Vegas. Normally when a filmmaker bares his soul like this, it's unbearably self-indulgent. But Malle's typically cool distance is the perfect antidote.

Thank God for Netflix. I feel bad for anyone that blind-bought Les Amants, because holy smokes, what a leaden piece of shit! I know I'm notoriously down on Malle, but this catatonic mess was so much worse than I'd have ever guessed. He's capable of making great movies, but you'd never know it from this definitive reinforcement of the sophomore slump.

Leaden piece of shit? I actually thought this was very solid especially compared to the lackluster Elevator to the Gallows. Far from being a sophomore slump, I think Malle is finding his footing here and is in complete control by the time of his best film The Fire Within.

Hey, I liked The Lovers. I enjoyed it, didnt think it was a masterpiece or even near Malle's best, but not as bad as you make it out to seem.

A brilliant French professor of mine assigned me to catch a screening of The Lovers three years ago. I had a hopeless crush on her and desperately wanted to impress her, so I showed up early, sat in the front row and everything, yet I couldn't keep my goddamn eyes open. I straight-up told her I'd fallen asleep, and she said she couldn't blame me. Ended up writing about Zazie dans le metro instead. Great film.

Highway 61 wrote:Ended up writing about Zazie dans le metro instead. Great film.

An infinitely better film in every respect. Interesting to note that Malle's best films, such as Zazie or My Dinner With Andre, are primarily the cinematic product of their authors. Like the Classical Hollywood workhorse I always associate him with, Malle could turn in excellent work when given the right materials.

I love this movie. My favorite Malle, and a perfect example of how he was able tackle such an incredible diversity of subject matters and employ such a great variety of styles, while still maintaining the same sincere devotion to the material and the same earnest curiosity in almost every film.

But more importantly, does anyone know what kind of glasses Alain wears?

Malle admitted that he would have taken a much darker approach to this material had he made the film later - and I can understand that. Moreau's giggling fit (when her husband is referred to as a "big brown bear") is infectious. The" moonlight lit" trist is a highlight but comes too late to save this unbelievably (for Malle) banal melodrama.

Could anyone clarify what exactly is being referred to at 1:30, when Marina says to Alain "Once he gets his divorce" and Alain responds "Bravo. That's true love!"

DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, April 25th

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.

Malle is as frustratingly uneven as ever here. I know this film has its fans here, but I found this overly self-serious and mediocre in even its best passages. The languid pacing of the initial human interaction that opens the film never convinced me Malle knew why he was holding too long in the shot, and nothing that came after made me accept the inner turmoil or outer despair of the protagonist as anything other than phony posturing on the part of the filmmaker-- call it emotional slumming. As empty a film as suicide is a gesture

Has the Film Club finally given up and shot itself in the chest?