|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 2, 2024 14:33:40 GMT
This month Jlewis and I will be looking at four European art films directed by Joseph Losey. These pictures were made after the director had been blacklisted in Hollywood and went abroad. He remained in Europe for the remainder of his career and never made another American film.
Join us for a discussion about:
1/6..EVA (1962)
1/13..THE SERVANT (1963)
1/20..THE GO-BETWEEN (1971)
1/27..MR. KLEIN (1976)
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 6, 2024 15:01:49 GMT
Essential: EVA (1962)
TopBilled:
Losey directing Baker and Moreau
 Joseph Losey was blacklisted in Hollywood in the early 1950s and since he would not cooperate with, or should we say cave in to the pressure exerted by, conservative lawmakers trying to “clean up” the American film industry, he went abroad. During the early part of his expatriation in Europe, Losey was unable to work under his real name but he still found jobs directing lower budgeted fare in Italy and England. By the late 1950s, Losey had become fairly established in the U.K. and was by then allowed to be credited on films with his own name. During a period in the late 1950s, he had collaborated with rising star Stanley Baker and the two men got along well. They’d go on to make quite a few more motion pictures together during the course of the decade that followed. Baker was a rugged Welshman who typically played working class blokes or villains, basically hard characters, whereby he could exude his own tough sex appeal. He’d become a star nearly as important as fellow Welshman Richard Burton.When Burton turned down the lead male role for EVA, it was offered to Baker. At the time another director was attached to the project but Baker insisted that if he were to do it, he’d want Losey in charge. So the job of directing went to Losey. This was a fortuitous event in many ways. Part of the script contained sequences in Venice, and Losey had already made a film in Italy. Plus, the leading lady would be played by provocative French actress Jeanne Moreau, and she’d collaborate with Losey on two other occasions in her long motion picture career. In the title role, Moreau is at once beguiling and repulsive (because she is supposed to be both in this very complex role of a man-eater). While watching her seduce Baker’s character and the various other men who have the fortune and misfortune of crossing paths with her, we can’t help but wonder what some of her motivations are. Is this a sport for her? Or is she just a mixed up femme who can’t fully commit to one man, because she is essentially a money grubber? It’s almost too polite to call her a high class prostitute for she is cruder than that. In an ironic sense, she is probably tougher than Baker, and that is part of what makes the film appealing as a pseudo-perverse piece of drama.Not only is Moreau’s Eva an enchantress and minor goddess, she is also a witch. She will transform a man like Baker into a sub-species, wield considerable power over him for her own sadistic pleasures then become cold and indifferent, while he’s begging for more. As Baker becomes more ensnared by her devious behavior, he is also becoming purified by the process because at some point he has to realize and decide what a healthy relationship is for him. In the beginning he’s engaged to another gal (played by Virna Lisi) but she doesn’t appeal to him the way Moreau does. Lisi is probably too proper, too much the stereotypical good girl. Another reason Baker’s attentions turn from Lisi and he falls into Moreau’s trap, is because he is hiding his own big secret and that secret, if exposed, could destroy him.We learn that Baker’s character is falsely celebrated as the writer of a story that’s been turned into a hit film. As others suspect, he stole the story and the original author is deceased. So we have Baker living this extravagant life across Europe that occurred in a largely unexpected way. In some regards, this probably mirrors Losey’s own new life and fame as a filmmaker who became celebrated in Europe for his directing, which is something he didn’t plan on happening. But unlike Baker’s character, Losey’s success was legit. Though I did wonder if Moreau’s character, a beautiful but calamitous siren, had been a composite of all the Evas Losey may have known in his own life. ***Jlewis:
This international art-house picture was directed by Joseph Losey for the French and Italian companies Paris Film Productions and Interopa Film but with a mostly English speaking cast, all set in scenic Venice. The title character is played by Jeanne Moreau, fresh off of the blockbuster JULES ET JIM and, again, playing the seductress. The man she captivates here is successful Welsh author Tyvian Jones (Stanley Baker) who is basking in the glow of a movie adaptation of a book of his by Italian maestro Sergio Branco Mallone (Giorgio Albertazzi) and also engaged to marry Francesca Ferrari (Virna Lisi), an assistant to the director who, in turn, is caught in her affections between the two men. Of course, Eva (or Eve as in the Genesis story) Olivieri enters the romantic triangle to make it a romantic rectangle. She and her business partner Pieri (Checco Rissone) break in to Tyvian’s accommodations after a boating accident. Tyvian’s initial reaction is to throw her out but her charms turn him on and…well…as we all know, this was still a man’s world where men make advances and generally don’t receive a “no” in response. She does at first by giving him a good wallop, but she is experienced with dealing with multiple men in various professional behind-closed-doors ways. When he pursues her again later, one questions who is seducing whom. She is the one who takes the initiative of unbuttoning his shirt for their official consummation.Unfortunately, money is the primary reason she hooks up with Tyvian. In contrast, he develops an obsession with her that ultimately destroys both his career and personal life. We have seen stories like this before in cinema and it never ends well. I should point out the jazzy score of Michel Legrand. He worked with just about everybody in the business…or so it seems. That includes Orson Welles in his later career period, Barbra Streisand, Clint Eastwood and even worked on famous TV movies like BRIAN’S SONG. His score here is much more subtle than elsewhere but it certainly enhances the meandering moods on display.Equally good is the camera work of Italian veteran Gianni Di Venanzo with its trendy focus on perfect compositions and deep focus. There are many images here that would look wonderful as fine art images for a museum wall with over-views from stair-cases, close-ups of Eva in small mirrors and behind huge goblets she drinks from (enhancing her facial features in glassware distortion). Sometimes there are insert shots of fireplaces (to suggest how the flames of passion are erupting); or images of our primary couple often shot together on one side of the wide-screen with solid white walls and staircases (in a black and white film) occupying the other half to create a see-saw balancing act. Much here too can appeal to fans of Architectural Digest since I think Di Venanzo loved the buildings where he set his camera in much more than the humans performing. There are even shots in vineyards for no reason apart from “when in Italy, always showcase Italy” shtick.Needless-to-say, much of the artsy appeal should have been applied to a much better story. Personally, I felt the biblical and psychological references ridiculously overdone like the shot of him with fruit in his mouth after being “tempted” by Eva into the sack and back to confront Francesca, the “God made Adam” singalongs and the use of carnival masks during much true-and-false confessional talk. He marries Francesca but his reputation is put on the line when it is revealed that his best selling book was penned by his deceased brother instead of him. I struggled to relate to these characters despite some good performances overall but, on the plus side, Jeanne’s Eva always looks ravishing thanks to both director and cinematographer being as captivated with her as Tyvian. Eva already reminded Tyvian that she is not in L-U-V with him but the sex is so wonderful that he literally collapses in her glow. Although the ending is not too obvious and, in typical New Wave editing style, is so convoluted that some of us viewers are not certain exactly WHAT happens until there is a discussion afterwards. Yet, it is easy to determine that this relationship is doomed to destruction mid-way through the two hour running time. There is much going-nowhere bickering back and forth of “I want you!” and “but I don’t want you and I love to gamble…” (No, they don’t use those exact words but it pretty much boils down to it.) Contrary to popular belief, couples who fight together don’t always stay together.Unlike JULES ET JIM, Jeanne’s character is not a casualty of the great tragedies in the final reel but my guess is that some sort of karma will hit her in the future for her indifference to others’ sufferings. Fittingly, she plays Billie Holiday’s “Willow Weep for Me” in a key moment when obsession brings Tyvian back for more repeats of humiliating rejection.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 13, 2024 17:45:35 GMT
Essential: THE SERVANT (1963)
TopBilled:
Servant leader
 Part of what makes this Joseph Losey film so intriguing is the shifting of power between the two lead characters. It upsets a balance and changes the original structure of the relationship between boss and employee, to the point where a significant role reversal occurs. As a result of this huge change, lines of decency become blurred.When the lines start blurring, there is confusion about who is really in charge. Will one of them have a stronger chance of gaining total and lasting power over the other? Some role reversals don’t last, with the status quo being restored, so the original dynamic is reinstated. But that doesn’t quite happen here. Dirk Bogarde’s title character grows even more powerful, to the degree where he eclipses the power that James Fox’s character, the employer, had in the beginning. Ultimately, Fox is overshadowed. This leads us to some questions. If Fox relinquishes control, is it because deep down he wants to? Does he get off on giving up his role as master and switching to a more subservient posture under Bogarde? The story doesn’t quite go into a sexual scenario between them, since great pains are taken by the filmmakers to demonstrate both men are heterosexuals……however, Robin Maugham the writer of the novella upon which Harold Pinter’s screenplay is based, was homosexual like his uncle Somerset. Although I haven’t read the novella, I wonder if it’s more suggestive in terms of what is really transpiring between the men. They do not need to turn into lovers for the story to be effective; but there is something kinky about one man who has power over another giving up that power and letting the one under him take over. Another question is just how mentally incapacitated the two characters become. As Fox loses control, he seems to become more depraved. And not only that, but more imbecilic. There is loss of intelligence, a loss of soul (if he ever had one); and a loss of overall coherence. In the same token, when Bogarde’s servant character starts wielding control, he is suddenly without parameters. He becomes perverse and possibly insane himself.I think too much has been made about the film being a commentary about the social class system. Quite frankly, I find some of that rather boring. To me, the story is more intriguing and daresay meaningful when it is about two men (and it could just as easily be about two women) gaining more understanding of each other’s roles in life. They seem willing to explore what the other one has had, and what it would be like if they had those same rites and privileges. I believe that is what Losey is directing us to understand.***Jlewis:
Off to England for our next Joseph Losey film, this being the first of a trio with famous writer Harold Pinter involved (and he gets a prominent cameo on screen in a restaurant). We covered one before, ACCIDENT, as an Essential quite a while ago and will do the third title next week that succeeded it. Overall, the Losey-Pinter collaborations hold up fairly well as cinematic entertainment after many decades even if they may not be the types of films most of us would view a second time due to slow pacing and intense, pessimistic themes.Yet I personally favor them a bit over EVA which, despite how much as I enjoyed Gianni Di Venanzo’s Museum of Fine Art camera compositions, was a rather peculiar, mush-mash oddity. The performances in that last film were still pretty good but those in THE SERVANT are even better, thanks to more meat in the literary material as based on a popular novel by Robin Maugham. Hugo Barrett (Dirk Bogarde) is hired as a manservant by a snooty tycoon with Brazilian jungle real estate interests, known mostly by his first name of Tony (James Fox, who is “introduced” in a role not entirely unlike his aging one in the Merchant-Ivory classic THE REMAINS OF THE DAY three decades later). The impressive town mansion looks rather austere at first as it gets renovated for Tony’s moving in. Susan Stewart (Wendy Craig) is dating Tony (kissing constantly) and is frequently annoyed that Hugo is always…around. She initially asks Tony to fire him. Yet Hugo has his own romantic interest, Vera (Sarah Miles), whom he persuades Tony to hire as an additional maid. At first, Tony and Susan relish their uppity lifestyle. Catherine Lacey as Lady Agatha Mounset and Richard Vernon as Lord Willie Mounset are among the “swells” whom they hang out with and provide some amusing side moments. Despite the plush surroundings, there is not much privacy for everybody in residence.. and it seems that both bosses and servants have rather energized libidos.Later Tony discovers that Hugo and Vera are not exactly the siblings they portray themselves as they are caught in an “incestuous” situation that isn’t really. Making the situation more complicated, Susan discovers that Tony and Vera are in cahoots as well since his outrage over his manservant enjoying his…all-his…lover is enough of a revelation in itself. She makes a hasty departure but later returns when she feels sorry for him. Tony starts to unravel in alcoholism but his relationship with Hugo intensifies, thinking he can not survive alone without him. This mirrors EVA in a way though there is nothing romantic/sexual going on between the guys as there was between the previous couple in the previous film. (Intriguingly, our director and writer go all out to emphasize just how heterosexual these characters are.)This is a very erotic film even though everybody stays mostly clothed. Twice we see Vera spread across the serving kitchen table as if she is a main course meal. The scene of Tony and Vera in his easy chair suggests quite a bit that would have shocked movie-goers in 1963, with her legs spread apart and his head somewhere…in between. Likewise, Vera is spraying the cologne on Hugo in the bathroom in giggling excitement as he behaves equally turned on, the symbolism blatantly obvious.Tony arrives home with Susan in tow to reveal a shadow of Hugo against the wall supposedly naked while fooling around with Vera with the conversation on the soundtrack confirming this. EVA, with Jeanne Moreau exposing her bosom briefly, was a testing ground for this follow-up that pushed the envelope further. No doubt, British viewers were finding the Italian-French influence at the local cinemas quite an alternative to the staid and chaste entertainment available on the “telly” at the time. A few other similarities to EVA worth noting include the frequent playing of long-playing records featuring brooding lady crooners, Cleo Lane replacing Billie Holiday here. Quite striking are the overhead shots of spiraling staircases that I initially thought were a novelty of cameraman Di Venanzo’s in EVA but, with a different cameraman (Douglas Slocombe) involved in THE SERVANT, I now realize that this is more the specialty of director Losey instead. Another plus are the winter landscapes outside that add a drab setting to contrast with the more lively but spiraling downhill activities indoors. The house begins resembling the way it looked before Tony and Hugo moved in with so much in disarray as the latter gets the former addicted to alcohol and loose living. Servant and boss switch roles of dominance and subversion (a key component that got this film high marks with the critics but will be less likely to be understood by modern viewers less acquainted to British class systems of yesteryear). Both Vera and Susan re-enter the picture after leaving, initially siding with Tony over Hugo before falling victim to the other as if he is some Dark Force they can not avoid the temptations of.Dirk Bogarde is particularly good in his performance here, especially for one more famous for his nice guy, leading man roles. The final scenes are insanely crazy with even laughing ladies-hired-for-fun involved. Maybe not as over the top as PERFORMANCE which teamed James Fox with Mick Jagger later in another similar switching of personalities but, again, giving both Fox and Bogarde the chance to ham up their off-the-wall theatrics. All in all, a peculiar but still highly entertaining melodrama.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 20, 2024 13:30:10 GMT
Essential: THE GO-BETWEEN (1971)
TopBilled:
 "I need you to take a letter to someone for me."It took almost twenty years for filmmakers to adapt L.P. Hartley’s bestselling novel about a troubled pre-adolescent boy caught between two social classes, whose role in a romantic scandal brings about the loss of his own innocence. Not only do we see how a significant series of events from the past can shape a person’s whole life, we have a story that conveys themes most near and dear to Hartley. The most urgent theme is the title character’s ongoing loneliness. Young Leo (Dominic Guard) is a middle class boy in 1900 who spends vacation time at the estate of a school chum whose family is upper class. When the friend (Richard Gibson) takes ill, Leo is left on his own, just as he will be for much of his life. Leo has issues of mental imbalance, which are exacerbated by circumstances beyond his control. When we glimpse the elderly Leo fifty years later (played by Michael Redgrave), we see he is even more lonely and withdrawn than ever. In real life, Hartley moved in various social circles but was a closeted homosexual who could never enjoy a publicly intimate relationship with another soul.Combined with the theme of loneliness is bereavement. We find out that when Leo was younger he began delivering letters between his friend’s sister (Julie Christie) and her lover, a farmer (Alan Bates). It was a clandestine relationship with far-reaching implications. Leo ended up witnessing a sexual act, then the lover’s suicide involving a fatal gunshot. A pregnancy resulted with the young woman forced to marry someone of noble standing (Edward Fox) who claimed paternity of the unborn child.What’s interesting about the structure of Hartley’s narrative, which director Joseph Losey and screenwriter Harold Pinter mine to considerable extent, is the sense of broken time. Older Leo has repressed certain memories of those earlier childhood events. Only now in advanced age is it all coming back to him. The film is less linear than the novel, since Losey and Pinter feel freer to play with the chronology. The story is told not only as a series of intriguing flashbacks, but with flash forwards as well. That uneasy feeling of never quite knowing where we are in time as the story plays out on screen, provides a sense of disarray about the events…thus making us more able to understand how a childhood scenario has had profound and long-term effect on the psyche of our troubled protagonist.There has been speculation about how much of Hartley’s own psyche is evident in Leo. Also, some modern-day critics think the film is not so much about class and money, but about a horrible awakening related to the main character’s sexual feelings. I suppose we can continue to guess how much all that, if true, represents individual personal struggles faced by Hartley.***Jlewis:
 Major studio MGM-EMI backed this one (Columbia aiding in later distribution) with writer Harold Pinter again teamed with director Joseph Losey. Unlike our previous efforts, this is a period piece mostly set seven decades in the past (filming in 1970, story set in the early 1900s) with costumes to match. We are far from London and all of the hustle and bustle, enjoying the lush country estates in Norfolk. Always the visual artist, Losey seemed quite captivated by all of the stately architecture of the mansion (Melton Constable Hall) and the nearby churches with plenty of zoom shots overhead and folks far below walking up and down stairs. Marian Maudsley (Julie Christie) takes a young Leo Colston (Dominic Guard), astrologically a Leo too with birthday on July 27th and accused of “flying too close to the sun and getting scorched,” into town to buy new clothes. He is a guest of fellow schoolmate and one of Marian’s brothers, Marcus (Richard Gibson). Lo and behold, she makes great use of him by pampering him in such a way. Also in the Maudsley family are the stuffy parents (Michael Gough and Margaret Leighton) who dote on this little friend of Marcus with equal pampering as if he is their own son.
Slightly confusing are flash-forwards to the present with modern automobiles and trains in the same locales. It is apparent soon enough that an older Leo is recalling these events as a man in his sixties, played by Michael Redgrave (who had just done another period piece, RYAN’S DAUGHTER, recently that would earn him an Oscar in-between the filming of this one and its release). L.P. Hartley’s novel was published in 1953 with these later scenes set sometime in the late forties or early fifties but some of the autos look sixties-ish in some shots here.Our backstory is rather simple. Marian is engaged to marry Viscount Trimingham (Edward Fox), approved by the family and owner of a neighboring estate, but she has taken a fascination in the tenant farmer working with him on that same estate, Ted Burgess (Alan Bates). He is much more earthy and rugged in his behavior (blasting bunnies with his big gun and declared “savage” by Mommy Maudsley at a cricket match). This was an ideal post WOMEN IN LOVE role for Bates (even though he did THREE SISTERS in-between these titles) since he gets to be in various stages of undress and act all thirsty for carnal exploits. Julie Christie gets to rehash her DOCTOR ZHIVAGO Lara and DARLING Diana personalities, being all poised and Victorian in some scenes and thirsting for instant physical satisfaction in others. Little Leo winds up in the title role delivering notes between the two, first officially encountering Ted when he accidentally invades the estate while exploring the great outdoors and getting some medical aid for his scuffs. Summertime gets hot and the desires heat up accordingly. The notes lead to a physical union between the secret lovers and they actively make use of all of that body to body contact. Yet Leo discovers he is more of the Gemini-Virgo Mercury type and makes the fatal error of revealing too much to mother Maudsley who demands him to take her to a disappearing Marian during the stormy night of his 13th birthday. What they see creates quite the Victorian (or early Edwardian Age) scandal and an unexpected suicide results. However, there were fruits from the union as revealed five decades later by 80-ish year old Marian to Leo in confession.Gerry Fisher supervised the camera work here with an emphasis of close-up shots of Leo looking at others often from a distance or high on a balcony. It is all absolutely gorgeous to look at. Fittingly, we get a scene of a Victrola being wound up to play a disc that matched our record playing scenes in EVA and THE SERVANT, along with plenty of stairs…and more stairs. I think a major theme here with Losey is that humans taking stairs up and down signifying their changing social status and control over their destinies in life. Overall, the first three quarters of this movie are beautifully done with considerable build-up of the different characters. Then it all falters with some choppy editing towards the end and the major death scene merely shown in freeze-frame without any explanation as to “why.” I have not read the novel to compare it to this screen adaptation so, maybe, some of the plot-points are purposely kept nebulous for a reason. However, I felt that this movie was a disappointment in the end despite how much effort went into the period costumes, set designs and wonderful camera work.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 27, 2024 17:52:49 GMT
Essential: MR. KLEIN (1976)
Dark period in French history
TopBilled:
 This later cinematic effort by director Joseph Losey was critically acclaimed, and it received César awards for Best Film and Best Director. However, it was not commercially successful. This is because French moviegoers shunned a story that depicted a dark period in their country’s history. Specifically, the film chronicles a time in 1942 when Jews living in France were rounded up and hauled off to concentration camps. I suppose that’s something people may not wish to remember, as it is a reminder of shameful political decisions.Not only does Losey’s tale present an unflinching account of what happened, it makes no excuses in how it depicts the horror of such anti-semitism. As we all know, anti-semitism hasn’t been entirely eradicated…it is still occurring today. So, what we see on screen happening to the title character (Alain Delon) is just as relevant now as it ever was. Of course, there is much irony in Klein’s dilemma. The most ironic thing is that Klein himself exudes some anti-semitic arrogance. He has benefited financially by the expulsion of Jews in his country. Some of the wealthiest Jews are in a hurry to flee, before the police hand them over to the Nazis. To raise the money necessary to fund their travel to the United States, they meet with Klein and sell him their rare and valuable objets d’art. Klein is able to amass these cultural treasures at a considerable bargain, because the Jews are desperate for cash to escape.Therefore, it is some sort of bad karma that befalls Klein who is suddenly wanted by police for questioning about his own ethnic heritage. He must prove he is not really Jewish, and that perhaps he has been mistaken for someone else who may be similar to him. As I watched the film, I wondered if Klein had made powerful enemies. Were the Nazis eager to get their hands on the artwork he had collected? Maybe he was being set up. Or, maybe he really was part Jewish and had long suppressed that part of himself. It’s an intriguing premise, since his whole identity is now called into question.For the first half of the story, we do not know if Klein will be successful in his attempts to prove he’s not a Jew. As a result, there is a fair amount of suspense in this story. He goes from being blasé about it, to becoming more alarmed. Later in the film, when he cannot prove he isn’t Jewish, it seems all too certain he will wind up being sent to Auschwitz where so many of the Jews he had exploited have ended up. Bad karma turns into an inescapable fate for him.The film is brimming with paranoia and excellent performances. This is probably Delon’s best work after 1970. You can tell he cared about the statement the scenario is making on behalf of the character. He infuses more thought into this role than others he has previously played. Besides Delon, we also get Jeanne Moreau in an extended cameo; and it’s always a treat to watch her on screen. Moreau had previously collaborated with Losey in EVA (1961) and they would work together one more time in LA TRUITE (1982).***Jlewis:It is Vichy France of 1942 with war raging on (but taking a back seat on screen here…one wonders if there is even a war) and every Jew is in hiding or attempting an escape from continental Europe. Supposedly the events are based on true stories with different names involved but I suspect a lot has been exaggerated for cinematic drama. Alain Delon plays Robert Klein, an art dealer who thinks he has nothing to hide from the authorities, being an Alsatian Catholic. He suddenly discovers another man with the same name as him has been utilizing his mail services to either avoid detection or to sabotage him in some way. Thus, this story is all about him trying to prove he is not one of The Others being persecuted.He visits an apartment and even rents it because it has supposedly been occupied by his imposter…and his imposter even had an Alsatian…dog…and a copy of Moby Dick that his mistress Jeanine (Juliet Berto) reads in bed in an earlier scene. Although connected with our previous trio of titles with two gramophone playing scenes, we only get a few modest stair scenes here. There is much decadence on display that is fascinating: well-to-do folks have mansions with (obvious) missing paintings on the wall, suggesting difficult times when valuables must be sold merely to survive. Jeanne Moreau as Florence appears in just such a setting. Curiously, the star of EVA has a minor role here despite prominent billing.Although this story may be far-fetch at times and certain aspects not explained well enough, it is still easy to relate to our main character despite his initial arrogance. A great many of us have experienced, at least once in our lives, some degree of identity theft, if usually on a more mundane, financial level with others getting access to our credit card or bank information. Although the political landscape in the United States is tilting uncomfortably towards the far right in terms of local politics with increased intolerance towards non-Christians, immigrants and other minorities (the drag musical highlighted here reminded me of how politicians in some states like Florida have recently been pushing an anti-transgender agenda to get votes), we have yet to experience the same kind of systematic persecution and extermination of humans as revealed in the aftermath of World War II and following the dictator take-over of certain countries later in the 20th century.There are a few interesting speeches here aimed at ridiculing an earlier generation of French citizens (this being filmed in the year 1975, thirty years after the war and five years after THE SORROW AND THE PITY created a huge fuss at the box-office) who acted “indifferent” like a “flock of sheep” to those minorities oppressed in their own communities. Likewise, Robert himself does not indicate he was concerned all that much about the plight of the Jews (even benefiting financially in a way at their expense) until he himself was suspected of being one.A key scene early on shows a woman being examined naked and likely cold by a medical examiner checking for non-Aryan characteristics. Later, Robert is sleeping under the covers naked and acts in a mockingly modest fashion to Florence that he needs to get into his robe; my interpretation of that scene (perhaps incorrect?) is that both consider themselves high enough up in the social totem pole to not worry about such humiliations. The story is basically a who-done-it with Robert playing detective to determine who is posing as him and trying to confirm answers to the authorities before it is too late. He also tries to locate a mystery woman supposedly connected with the other “Robert.” In the process, he loses many valuables in his plush home to police confiscation (mostly paintings he profited from that were originally owned by refugees fleeing the Third Reich). His mistress leaves him but he also gains a dog…an Alsatian (German Shepherd) that resembles a dog in a mystery photo and seems to recognize him as the other “Robert.” His aging father (Louis Seigner) raises doubts about his ancestry that could harm him in the present and his close associate Pierre (Michael Lonsdale) and others (Francine Bergé and Massimo Girotti are also included in the cast) all react in either support or frequent questioning as his phobias of inevitable arrest gradually become a reality.Early on, he is confident in the French government always doing what is right, but that confidence goes out when “the Law” no longer supports him. There are some striking similarities between the ending here and that of THE GARDEN OF THE FINZI-CONTINIS with its wealthy Ferrara family thinking they could remain sheltered against the atrocities experienced by others…until it was too late. I personally favor that film over this one but still enjoyed how this one played out as well with equal doom. I personally consider it the best of the four titles we are reviewing this month.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jan 28, 2024 14:50:22 GMT
MR. KLEIN was a good choice for an Essential posted on this Holocaust Remembrance Day, as is HITLER'S MADMAN in the Neglected Films thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 28, 2024 15:54:54 GMT
MR. KLEIN was a good choice for an Essential posted on this Holocaust Remembrance Day, as is HITLER'S MADMAN in the Neglected Films thread.
Losey is one of the most interesting blacklisted directors. His films just got better. MR. KLEIN is an important effort on several different levels.
After I finished watching MR. KLEIN, I wondered how it would have been done by Alfred Hitchcock. The story contains so many deceptions (some of them self-deceptions), so many chances to build suspense, and so many political situations being reflected through the individual characters. But I honestly don't think Hitchcock could have done it any better than Losey did. |
|
