Gerard Philipe is on the phone to Edinburgh

There will be no Forgotten today, what with something called the Cannes Film Festival keeping them busy over at something called The Daily Notebook, formerly The Auteurs’ Notebook, at Mubi, formerly The Auteurs.

So you have to wait a week to read about this movie, I’m afraid.

He really IS on the phone to Edinburgh, or so he says. He claims he’s talking to Valerie Hobson. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? Anybody know the film?

Here’s another great Gerard movie UK readers can buy for cheap:
La Ronde [1950] [DVD]

About these ads

14 Responses to “Gerard Philipe is on the phone to Edinburgh”

  1. Is this Monsieur Ripois by Rene Clement?

  2. Got it in one!

    Very nice film. “My (b)log shall have more to say about this later.”

  3. Truffaut wrote an article on the film in THE FILMS IN MY LIFE, not a favourable review(as he was deadset against Clement) but it made the film seem interesting. He mostly attacked the film for it’s handling of the source novel.

  4. david wingrove Says:

    If Truffaut had a thing against Clement, that may be because he realised Clement had way more talent. Never underestimate the power of envy!

  5. He was also undoubtedly jealous of Gerard Philipe — demosntrating abilitie at picking up women Truffaut could only dream about.

    Of course Clement was exaggeraing as G.P. had only to stand still for mobs of women to descend upon his luscious self.

    Really teriffic film. Raymond Durgnat has written about admiringly. Fascinating in the way it underscores the differences in style between the British and the French. And it does so totally in terms of personal style, rather than dialogue. The story itself looks forward to Room at the Top (in which the woman was French rahter than the man.)

  6. GĂ©rard Philipe:

  7. Apropos French actors, I’m very fond of the films of Michel Auclair. He was born in the same year as GP. Auclair was the spitting image of a friend of mine.

  8. Gerard’s contemporary equivalent is Louis Garrel

  9. David Boxwell Says:

    Sheer perfection in Vadim’s Eurotrash update of LIAISONS DANGEREUSES (59).

  10. Sheer perfection in just about everything!

    According to Chabrol, Truffaut was an insatiable and very successful babehound. Of course, that probably only happened after he became a successful director…

    A lot of Cahiers attacks seem based on filmmakers distorting their source novels, something their favourite Hollywood directors got a free pass on. I can understand that double standard happening, but from the outside it looks a little strange and unfair. Of course, I suspect I’m unduly harsh on a lot of British cinema for similar reasons.

    Speaking of Raymond Durgnat, I’m finally returning to his The Crazy Mirror, starting tomorrow! For work-related reasons which I cannot yet reveal…

  11. I only get upset about it when filmmakers remove the interesting parts of a novel or miscast it, both things that happens a bit too often. Maybe that’s why I prefer filmed short stories overall (not that those can’t be botched as well). I always had a bone to pick with the Cahiers writers of that era about some of their stances.

  12. Actually a major complaint for the magazine’s anti-Huston animus was his handling of literature. Rohmer attacked ”Moby-Dick” saying it never should have been made because the book was perfectly composed as it is. Truffaut attacked Claude-Autant Lara for his handling of Stendhal(adaptations which starred Gerard Phillippe) and Raymond Radiguet(which was actually a theme of that famous article about Un Certain Tendance). Basically these writers were artists of the first sort and the directors were hacks with no sensibility vulgarizing these films.

  13. I can sympathize to some extent. Minor books often do make better films than masterpieces, and the cases of great works benefitting from adaptation (Othello–Otello) occur when the person adapting is a genius in their own field. Autant-Lara and Huston probably considered themselves to be more like craftsmen.

    Huston’s Moby Dick is obviously a minor thing compared to Melville’s novel, but asides from the central miscasting I like it a lot and wouldn’t wish it away. I’m not sure producing a good film from a great book should be considered a sin. There need to be more good films, not less.

  14. Oh I am for literary adaptations, Merchant-Ivory created the climate for Scorsese’s ”The Age of Innocence” which is a masterpiece of cinema as is ”Tess” by the Great Roman Polanski adapted from Thomas Hardy(wish he adapted ”Jude” instead of Winterbottom). And Rohmer adapted Kleist’s ”Die Marquise von O…”(in an example of method directing, he took two years to prepare, just so he could learn the 18th Century German needed to write the dialogues). And a major portion of Truffaut’s filmography are adaptations, everything from Ray Bradbury to Henry James.

    In fact you could make a case that their agon with Autant-Lara, Clement, Huston provoked Truffaut and Rohmer and others to adapt literature just to prove that they can do better. The competitive spirit in art is very important, and every new generation attacks their predecessors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 411 other followers

%d bloggers like this: