Maybe I just didn't "get" this film. Maybe if I were to see it again, I'd appreciate it more. But I doubt it.
There were some good things in the movie. The performances and the cinematography and all the nuts-and-bolts-of-movie-making and all were just fine. The pacing was rather slow, but I've seen worse.
And let me make it clear from the outset that I'm no prude, I have no problem whatsoever in the use of graphic sexuality in the telling of a tale.
My problem was with the tale.
First off, too much of it made too little sense. Having just watched the complete movie, I'm still utterly stumped about such questions as:
1) Why did the wife commit suicide? NOBODY in the film has a clue, not her own mother, not her own husband, not her lover, NOBODY. I am utterly convinced that this also includes the writer and director. (some here have suggested it was because she was married to such an asshole, but that's not much of a reason. She appeared to be rather uninvolved with her own marriage and had a lover and all. She could have just left either or both of them too. Nothing is presented to give us a clue to such a nutzo, ugly, bloody suicide)
2) Why did the husband CARE? Why was he in such grief over her, when it was clear that it was already a LOUSY marriage, that she didn't love him much, and what's more there was the implication that he married her for her money.
3) WHAT money???? He was supposedly a kept man, but how could she have amassed much of a fortune running a place that was one step above a flop-house?
4) What, oh what, oh WHAT did Jeanne want? I mean, why did she keep going back to Paul, when he was so obviously abusive to her? Especially after the anal rape scene (even if the rest of the sex scenes were consensual, that one was clearly not. She was in tears.) The only possible explanation is that she loved him, which is reinforced by the whole bathtub scene where she declares precisely that. But if she loved him, why does she *shoot him down in cold blood*???? Is she just supposed to be a psycho chick? This was my biggest "Huh!?!?!?" of the picture. Looking back over the film, I don't think I understand her motivation in one single scene.
So my other big problem with the film was its whole point-of-view, which I have to presume is the director's point-of-view. And what a nasty, misanthropic, anti-life point-of-view it is. The whole thing is consciously, deliberately, and relentlessly unpleasant:
o The people are unpleasant. There isn't a single likable person in the whole thing. You occasionally feel some sympathy for some of them (Paul over his suicide wife, Jeanne when Paul is being particularly abusive), but on the whole they are very unpleasant people.
o The setting is unpleasant. Paris is one of the most beautiful cities on Earth, but the director has gone out of his way to make it ugly.
o The sex is unpleasant. Sex is one of the most beautiful experiences life has to offer, but the director has gone out of his way to make it ugly.
o Life itself is unpleasant. Notice that there is only *one* character in the whole movie who is actually happy, and that's the shallow movie-maker boyfriend. EVERYBODY else is miserable: Paul, Jeanne, implicitly the suicide-wife, the wife's lover, the wife's mother... hell, even the hooker and her almost-client. NOBODY finds joy in love, nobody finds joy in sex, nobody finds joy in anything. Paul leaves behind a long trail of previous careers that he clearly found no joy in. Jeanne has a chance to be a movie star and finds no joy in it.
In short, the movie-maker here seems to have a very grim view of life which he is projecting to us here. Someone else here described it as "existential" and perhaps that is correct (existentialism never did make much sense to me). And I guess some people think that makes it "profound" or "genius" or something. Well, not me. I don't happen to believe that life is misery and everyone is neurotic. That has not been my experience, and I reject such a world-view vociferously.
So in the end, I gave it three stars: one for the scene with the wife's corpse, one for the cinematography, and one for the exceedingly pleasant to look at naked Maria Schneider. {For all the talk about how "erotic" this movie was supposed to be, the only part I found at all erotic were the scenes where she's casually hanging out in the apartment naked (such as the scene at the sink). I didn't find the sex scenes erotic at all, just, as I said, unpleasant. And let me second the comment someone made about how refreshing it was to see her full garden of hair, rather than today's overindulgence in shaving.}
In summation, when the movie was over, I had strong feelings. Feelings of depression, confusion, disappointment, and ennui. These are decidedly *not* the things I want to feel at the end of a movie.
There were some good things in the movie. The performances and the cinematography and all the nuts-and-bolts-of-movie-making and all were just fine. The pacing was rather slow, but I've seen worse.
And let me make it clear from the outset that I'm no prude, I have no problem whatsoever in the use of graphic sexuality in the telling of a tale.
My problem was with the tale.
First off, too much of it made too little sense. Having just watched the complete movie, I'm still utterly stumped about such questions as:
1) Why did the wife commit suicide? NOBODY in the film has a clue, not her own mother, not her own husband, not her lover, NOBODY. I am utterly convinced that this also includes the writer and director. (some here have suggested it was because she was married to such an asshole, but that's not much of a reason. She appeared to be rather uninvolved with her own marriage and had a lover and all. She could have just left either or both of them too. Nothing is presented to give us a clue to such a nutzo, ugly, bloody suicide)
2) Why did the husband CARE? Why was he in such grief over her, when it was clear that it was already a LOUSY marriage, that she didn't love him much, and what's more there was the implication that he married her for her money.
3) WHAT money???? He was supposedly a kept man, but how could she have amassed much of a fortune running a place that was one step above a flop-house?
4) What, oh what, oh WHAT did Jeanne want? I mean, why did she keep going back to Paul, when he was so obviously abusive to her? Especially after the anal rape scene (even if the rest of the sex scenes were consensual, that one was clearly not. She was in tears.) The only possible explanation is that she loved him, which is reinforced by the whole bathtub scene where she declares precisely that. But if she loved him, why does she *shoot him down in cold blood*???? Is she just supposed to be a psycho chick? This was my biggest "Huh!?!?!?" of the picture. Looking back over the film, I don't think I understand her motivation in one single scene.
So my other big problem with the film was its whole point-of-view, which I have to presume is the director's point-of-view. And what a nasty, misanthropic, anti-life point-of-view it is. The whole thing is consciously, deliberately, and relentlessly unpleasant:
o The people are unpleasant. There isn't a single likable person in the whole thing. You occasionally feel some sympathy for some of them (Paul over his suicide wife, Jeanne when Paul is being particularly abusive), but on the whole they are very unpleasant people.
o The setting is unpleasant. Paris is one of the most beautiful cities on Earth, but the director has gone out of his way to make it ugly.
o The sex is unpleasant. Sex is one of the most beautiful experiences life has to offer, but the director has gone out of his way to make it ugly.
o Life itself is unpleasant. Notice that there is only *one* character in the whole movie who is actually happy, and that's the shallow movie-maker boyfriend. EVERYBODY else is miserable: Paul, Jeanne, implicitly the suicide-wife, the wife's lover, the wife's mother... hell, even the hooker and her almost-client. NOBODY finds joy in love, nobody finds joy in sex, nobody finds joy in anything. Paul leaves behind a long trail of previous careers that he clearly found no joy in. Jeanne has a chance to be a movie star and finds no joy in it.
In short, the movie-maker here seems to have a very grim view of life which he is projecting to us here. Someone else here described it as "existential" and perhaps that is correct (existentialism never did make much sense to me). And I guess some people think that makes it "profound" or "genius" or something. Well, not me. I don't happen to believe that life is misery and everyone is neurotic. That has not been my experience, and I reject such a world-view vociferously.
So in the end, I gave it three stars: one for the scene with the wife's corpse, one for the cinematography, and one for the exceedingly pleasant to look at naked Maria Schneider. {For all the talk about how "erotic" this movie was supposed to be, the only part I found at all erotic were the scenes where she's casually hanging out in the apartment naked (such as the scene at the sink). I didn't find the sex scenes erotic at all, just, as I said, unpleasant. And let me second the comment someone made about how refreshing it was to see her full garden of hair, rather than today's overindulgence in shaving.}
In summation, when the movie was over, I had strong feelings. Feelings of depression, confusion, disappointment, and ennui. These are decidedly *not* the things I want to feel at the end of a movie.