Archive for Claude Autant-Lara

Frobe Light

Posted in FILM, literature with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2022 by dcairns

LE MEURTRIER aka ENOUGH ROBE, from the Patricia Highsmith novel The Blunderer, screened at Edinburgh Filmhouse a few years ago and through sheer carelessness I missed it. My sister,a big Highsmith fan, attended and enjoyed it. So, when I got hold of a copy, sadly only the German dub, I had hopes.

It’s… OK. I was hoping Claude Autant-Lara still had great filmmaking in him in 1963, because I always hold out hope for the cinema du papa even though I love the nouvelle vague also. Peaceful coexistence is my goal.

Unfortunately, the movie is only really compelling when Gert Frobe’s onscreen. He brings the entertainment. The leading man is Maurice Ronet, a good actor but perhaps not a true star presence. Yvonne Furneaux and Marina Vlady are too one-note as unsympathetic wife and sympathetic mistress. Robert Hossein is like a second Ronet.

Highsmith was rather clearly trying to capitalise on the success of Strangers on a Train, with another story of two men with murderous impulses locked in a life-and-death struggle. Here, Frobe is a guilty wife-killer, whereas Ronet is just guilty — he feels responsible for his wife’s death, but isn’t. However, circumstances are conspiring to put him in the frame, and Hossein’s neurotic detective is determined to nail both men, but setting them against one another.

Everyone is weird and twitchy in this, but only Frobe has the equipment as actor to really run with it. Hossein’s part would have been better handed to a more nervous and inventive player. Ronet has the right kind of glumness, but it gets tiresome. A gentle melancholy was fine for LE FEU FOLLET. This is melodrama.

Frobe — shambling, gurning, sweating and myopic — an uxoricidal Magoo — can’t steal the show because he isn’t in it enough. He steals the bits he’s in, though, leaving the rest of it hanging in shreds.

Haven’t read the book so I don’t know to what extent otherwise the flaws of the film are inherent in the story — I’ve found some of the Highsmiths I’ve read — Ripley Underground for instance — simply too implausible. The problem with this one is simply that Ronet, at the centre, doesn’t hold, maybe because he’s not active enough. But Highsmith protagonists are often active in ways that are hard to figure out — even Ripley doesn’t always seem to know why he’s doing what he’s doing, and Highsmith can’t help him.

The Sunday Intertitle: Inn Trouble

Posted in FILM with tags , , on October 29, 2017 by dcairns

One of our most enjoyable discoveries of the last few years was Claude Autant-Lara’s L’AUBERGE ROUGE, a wickedly macabre anti-clerical farce set in a mountain inn where the hosts have taken to murdering and robbing their guests. So I was excited to discover an earlier (1923) version of the same legend made by the often brilliant Jean Epstein.

On a bad day/film, Epstein could be dull, but he’s great fun in experimentalist mode, as he is here, essaying a spooky tale literally told after supper by some snobs in periwigs, by candlelight and everything. And it’s great to see him working with macabre material, as he does so effectively in THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER.

One could quibble — many of Epstein’s visual experiments are too dramatic for their circumstances. Intercutting between our heroes riding through the night — quick cuts of riders flashing by, hooves cratering mud — with the crowded hostelry ahead — a more languid wide shot, repeated — he creates a degree of hilarity because nothing’s actually happening in the inn. It’s a simple journey/destination treated as if it were a chase to the rescue.

Then, when the innkeeper gestures with his towel to demonstrate that the joint is so crowded you can’t even find a seat, Epstein attaches his lens to the towelled hand and pans it round the room, like a ’20s Sam Raimi. Huzzah! But Eh?

But then, when the creepy old woman sneaks up behind our main guy, and Epstein extends the moment for max suspense, and gives us the subsequent card-reading with giant close-ups (some of them impressionistically blurry) and giant title cards and looming hands — it’s REALLY GOOD. Silent horror films should always go this far. Hardly any do.

Whore Leave

Posted in FILM, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 7, 2015 by dcairns

 

vlcsnap-2015-01-07-10h15m44s161

“If she’s not a whore, she’s a bore,” was one of Billy Wilder’s writing rules, but it’s not as bad as it sounds. In an era where women were typed as sexually virtuous or otherwise (unlike today, of course), Wilder excelled because he rejected such black-and-white distinctions, always looking for the lustiness of the virgin or the romantic leanings of the slut.

THE WORLD’S OLDEST PROFESSION is a 1967 compendium film which largely misses any such nuance, but it’s of some interest since it’s one of the few places where you can see the nouvelle vague and the Cinema du Papa butting up against one another. What makes the whoring boring is that nearly all the (male) directors adopt a jocular tone which seems quaint to the modern viewer, and not particularly funny. It probably doesn’t help that the film’s chronological traipse through history prevents the producers from leading with the strongest short. Michele Mercier dons fur bikini for Franco Indovina, showing prostitution to be as old as the sabre-tooth, Mauro Bolognini visits ancient Rome ahead of Fellini with Elsa Martinelli as an aloof empress, Philippe de Broca posits Jeanne Moreau in the age of the French Revolution, but none of them has any real wit, perhaps because none of them really has anything to say about the subject. It’s sometimes the case in anthologies that the one with the least reputation will try the hardest, and here German TV director Michael Phleghar Pfleghar transcends his unattractive surname, which sounds like a nasty lung infection, with a jaunt through the Belle Epoque in the company of Raquel Welch. For all its breezy tone, trendy technique (zooms AND freeze frames, Herr Pfleghar?) and luscious art nouveau sets, this earns points for daring to suggest that making a living on your back might not be all jollity and multiple orgasms.

vlcsnap-2015-01-07-10h17m28s162

Claude Autant-Lara tackles sex work in the sixties. Perhaps he was desperate to show himself up-to-date and with it. But actually, though he doesn’t have any point to make in particular, his tall tale about a belle de nuit and her chauffeuse/poncette is the most amusing of the film’s chapters. It has a walk-on by the great Dalio, who outclasses everyone around him, and it has a number of daft ideas bolted together in a ramshackle but at least unpredictable manner.

The next transition is where it gets exciting, as we cut directly from a director who dates from the avant-garde scene of the twenties, to Monsieur Contemporaire himself, Jean-Luc Godard, who effortlessly blows his predecessors out of l’eau with ANTICIPATION, OU L’AMOUR EN L’ANS 2000, a slight reprise of ALPHAVILLE and a farewell to wife/muse/collaborator Anna Karina. I’m sure I read somewhere that the movie was a contemptuous send-off, with JLG humiliating his straying wife with a shot where she drinks from a spray can, framed to look as if she’s being urinated on. I’m not sure I buy this. One would have to ask what Godard has against his male star, since he films him the same way, and one would have to assume that Karina had no idea what was going on and was incapable of defending herself. The spray is a fine mist, not a squirt of liquid as it easily could have been, and just seems part and parcel with the movie’s bizarro sci-fi nonsense.

vlcsnap-2015-01-07-10h14m07s201

Judge for yourself. Hmm, it may be a tiny bit sexual.

vlcsnap-2015-01-07-10h14m43s66

Heh heh heh.

Whereas Lemmy Caution drove into Alphaville from outer space in a car, our slow-talking hero (from a world where time moves at a different rate) jets into planet earth by plane, in shots recalling LA JETTEE, only moving. As with his ETRANGE AVENTURE, the director conjures his future world entirely from available locations, in this case CDG Airport and an anonymous hotel. The first woman provided for our weary traveller doesn’t stimulate him because she won’t talk, though she does have a remarkable dress, which she removes — Godard serves up b&w photography, avant-garde soundscapes, and full-frontal nudity, making his segment seem like not just a different era but a different century of cinema from the rest.

(It’s interesting that when intellectual filmmakers like Herzog (in WILD BLUE YONDER) and Godard do scifi, the science tends to be completely bogus pulp nonsense. The genre conventions of sci-fi are ripe for satire always, but are these smart guys really so ignorant or uninterested in the way things work? And throwing in random science words is only a very vague approximation of how pulp space operas operate.)

Karina is shipped in as replacement and explains that in the far-flung year 2000, prostitutes all specialise, so that they either do physical stuff or just talk. So Karina just talks, or rather recites. Like Captain Kirk, the visitor must show her the ways of love… The show isn’t any more progressive politically than those before it — Godard was pretty slow to “get” feminism (BRITISH SOUNDS, made for Granada Television in the UK, addresses women’s issues with a short discussion in voice only while the camera stares impassively at a naked pubic triangle, as tone-deaf a visualisation as you could wish for; and as late as ARIA he was still using naked women as set dressing) but cinematically it’s advanced, alright. The writer B. Kite once suggested to me a good way to view the old and new waves. There was undoubtedly brilliant popular music before rock ‘n’ roll, but its arrival released a lot of energy.