Claire's Knee (1970) User Reviews

Beautiful, authentic Rohmer film

[timmy_501 · 8/10 · 27 January 2009]

Eric Rohmer's style never ceases to amaze me: his characters and scenarios always seem realistic but not oppressively so. Furthermore, while on paper his films might sound stagey thanks to his direction they manage to be uniquely cinematic. This film is no exception; it has a tremendous amount of dialogue, perhaps even moreso than other Rohmer films I've seen but it never feels too talky.

The plot of this film revolves around Jerome, a vacationing man who is about to get married. He runs into an old friend who happens to be vacationing with his neighbor's family and he begins spending a lot of time with this family. Before long the neighbor's 16 year old daughter Laura develops a crush on Jerome much to his delight. Rohmer's treatment of his teenage characters is one place where the film really shines: he doesn't portray them as naive innocents or stereotypes but rather as intelligent, unique individuals. After quite a bit of flirtation, Laura realizes that nothing will come of their relationship and moves on. In spite of his lack of attachment to Laura, Jerome has difficulty dealing with her new indifference. He quickly turns his attention to her sister Claire, a girl who has very little interest in him. He seems to see this as a challenge; her perfect figure (particularly her shapely knee) fascinates him to no end.

Ultimately Jerome and the other adults seem more childish than the teenagers in the film: while the younger folk know what they want and react maturely if they don't get it the older folk are indecisive and petty; they want what they can't have. Jerome in particular constantly claims that he doesn't care about looks but he pursues the more attractive Claire even though she doesn't seem nearly as intelligent as her sister. The point here might be that maturity and age don't necessarily go hand in hand or that even the most sophisticated seeming adult can behave as a childish fool.

As usual, the film had some interesting, realistic characters. The film is also one of the best looking I've ever seen, probably in no small part thanks to the efforts of legendary cinematographer Nestor Almendros. Still, I couldn't help but feel that the themes of this film were not expressed as well as those in the very best Rohmer films I've seen. Still quite good and Rohmer is steadily becoming one of my favorite directors.

"It's not being closed in that oppresses me...It's too beautiful. Its all this beauty that exhausts me after a while."

[ssplotkin · 7/10 · 18 August 2007]

I decided to see this movie after I saw that in 1971 it made #1 and #3 respectively on Siskel and Ebert's top 10 movie list for that year.

Many of the other reviews do an excellent job at plot summary and imaginative interpretation, so I won't be redundant, but there are several interesting scenes that have double meanings that I hadn't seen explicitly pointed out… and there are also some scenes that in 2007 don't come across so successfully as they apparently did back in 1971.

The story takes place near Annecy in the French Alps, and revolves around the visit of Jerome a 35+ year old diplomat, to a vacation cottage where his friend Aurora an aging novelist, is staying with two young girls, the precocious Laura 16 and the beautiful and aloof Claire 18.

The scenery of the river (the River Thiou?) and surrounding mountains is simply staggering, and its hard not to be jealous of the easy life these characters have.

Note the physical intimacy Jerome has with Aurora, how they fondle and grope each other during conversation, then later between Jerome and the child Laura, as they cuddle together in the mountains. Contrast this with the unapproachable Claire, who Jerome desperately wants to get close to, but whose desires are unrequited.

This film is largely about the self-delusion of the diplomat Jerome, and the manipulative craftwork of the novelist Aurora, who plainly refers to the people she lives with, along with Jerome, as "Guinea pigs" to find inspiration from for her stories. In a moment of unintentional comedy, Aurora describes her life without any significant others, offering "I've been alone for more than a year. It's very pleasant."

In a telling exchange between Jerome and Aurora, Jerome confesses he is frustrated he has not made it into her stories. She then offers suggestively that even if he slept with someone the night before his wedding she still wouldn't write about him. "And if I didn't sleep with her?" he says. "The story would be better. Things mustn't happen." (sic) Well call me naïve but I like see a plot filled out with things happening. But here at least we see Rohmer's modus operandi.

Aurora suggests Jerome lead on the young Laura, so she has something to write about. Jerome eventually takes Laura for a hike on La Tournette. Alone they rest in each others arms, Laura asks Jerome if he's happier with her or his wife. After frolicking for a bit, the bearded Jerome suddenly starts making out with the 16 year old. She pulls away, saying she wants to be in love for real…

Soon thereafter we meet Claire for the first time, tanned and tone in a skimpy bikini, and her brash and handsome boyfriend Gilles. It's clear that Claire and Gilles are perfect for each other, both young, capricious, impudent, and beautiful. At one point Gilles drives a motorboat through a group of swimming campers, then tells the complaining camp counselor something to the effect of, "Take a hike, Grandpa".

Jerome admits to Aurora that Claire arouses old desires in him. He becomes jealous of Gilles and believes he doesn't deserve her. In one scene they all go out dancing. Note how the camera lingers on Jerome after he is rejected by Claire after asking her to dance. His emotions wander and ramble from frustration, to self pity, to false recovered confidence, to introspection. The precocious Laura notices it all.

The day comes when Jerome sees Gilles being intimate with another girl. When Claire and Jerome are alone taking shelter from a storm, he uses this as a weapon to break down Claire's guard. Its an age-old drama, the jealous guy tries to win a girl's favor by ratting out her cheating boyfriend. It never works as intended. In this case Claire cries, and Jerome uses the opportunity to caress her knee. It's as close as he will ever get. The camera cuts to the banks of the river, which are now dark, choppy, and muddy. Like the thoughts and emotions of the characters. It's as if nature is disapproving.

Later Jerome accurately describes the whole incident to the curious Aurora. He mentions how fortuitous the incident was, that he no longer desires Claire because its as if he's already had her (self-deception), and that she will now break up with the undeserving Gilles (not a chance, as her jealousy over Gilles only makes her more attracted to him).

When Jerome finally departs from the cottage, Claire pretends to be sleeping and does not see him off. When Gilles arrives shortly afterward, she bounds out of the house in full tennis apparel, implying she was in hiding from Jerome and presumably had no desire to see him again.

As Claire and Gilles sit arm in arm on a park bench while Aurora spies on them, it seems clearer than ever that Jerome was indeed the guinea pig, and has finally made it into Aurora's stories.

In praise of the pleasures of a comfortable bourgeoise life

[kurtralske · 6/10 · 28 June 2020]

There's a lot to enjoy in Claire's Knee: the relaxed easy pace, the charming characters, the warm and insightful conversations, the stunning scenery of the French Alps.

Unfortunately I can't find any way to identify or empathize with a world that is so comfortable, so boring, so unambiguous, and ultimately, so superficial. None of the characters seem to work; no-one ever seems anxious or troubled; nothing particularly bad or good happens, or seems likely to ever happen. It's a film of low-level emotions, and low stakes -- for the characters, and for the viewers.

In this bland world, the only question of importance becomes: will the main character, a man of 35 or older, seduce one of the two teenage beauties? No particularly momentous moral calculus is involved, and ultimately the stakes were so low that I could not bring myself to care. The character is good man, or he's a lecher, or he's neither...but I feel Rohmer did not give me any reason why any of this might matter.

Claire's Knee is a hymn of praise to French charm, bourgeois comforts, and inconsequential easy pleasures. If that's your thing, enjoy yourself with this film. Me, I'll be over there in the corner, watching films by directors that ask harder questions.

Warm, sensual and beautifully presented

[DennisLittrell · 10/10 · 22 July 2001]

The title of this charming film by Eric Rohmer is perhaps too provocative. It really gives the wrong impression, yet Claire's knee is exactly the central point of the film, although in a way that will surprise you. This is the story about a thirty-something year old diplomat, Jerome Montcharvin, who encounters two pretty girls, sixteen and eighteen years old, while on vacation at Lake Annecy in France (near Lake Geneva, Switzerland) a month before his wedding and finds that they affect him more strongly than he might have expected. It is especially Claire who brings out a side of his personality that is seldom exposed, much to the merry interest of his friend, Aurora, a writer, who has guided his interest in the girls, ostensibly as material for a story she is writing. Claire's Knee, it need be said immediately has not so much to do with the pretty girl's knee as it has to do with the protagonist's self-perception. Jean-Claude Brialy, who plays Jerome Montcharvin, brings a veracious mix of smug confidence and little guy vulnerability to the part spiked with a clear case of self-delusion that illuminates his character very well. And the girls are indeed very pretty, with Laura, played with coquettish innocence by Béatrice Romand, also being clever and slyly sophisticated, vulnerable and honest. In contrast Claire, played by Laurence de Monaghan, whose fawn-like beauty is perfect for the part, seems superficial and ordinary and a bit distant. I found myself more attracted to Aurora, played with a gentle and understated irony by Aurora Cornu. She provides the objectifying point of view for us to realize that while Jerome imagines he is a man in touch with his feelings and has an objective understanding of himself, he is really a man who fools himself about his motivation, a man who can be ugly when frustrated, as he is by Claire's lack of interest in him. The dialogue, written by director Eric Rohmer, which some have found excessive is anything but. It is instead clever and witty and at times profound as Rohmer relentlessly explores the nature of love, sex, sensuality and self-delusion. The cinematography of the lake and the French alps in the summer time is luscious, and the privileged, softly indulgent life style of the characters living around the lake provoked a twinge of jealousy in my soul. This is a beautiful film, worldly wise, warm, sensual and subtle as a dinner by candlelight.

Choderlos de Laclos revisited (and softened) by Rohmer

[ddx-5 · 9/10 · 5 July 2009]

In "les Liaisons Dangereuses", Isabelle de Merteuil defies Sebastien de Valmont to deflower Cécile de Volanges, a young girl, then to seduce and to reject Marie de Tourvel, a married woman. If he succeeds in accomplishing it, the bounty will be Isabelle herself.

Nothing as harsh in "Le genou de Claire", but there is the similar thematic about a gamble. Jérome (Jean Claude Brialy) meets Aurora (Aurora Cornu), an old friend (lover?). Aurora, a writer, is in search of a new story for a possible novel. She offers Jérome a gamble in the form of a love game ("marivaudage" as we say in French) involving Laura (Beatrice Romand), his neighbors daughter, who is obviously attracted by him, and, later, the Laura's sister Claire (Laurence de Monaghan) whose knee fascinates Jérome.

Unlike "The Dangerous Liaisons", not a single ounce of violence or dramatic events, everything will be just metaphorical: a half-stolen kiss and a stroked knee (and no excessive promised reward from Aurora). "Le Genou de Claire" is a filmed essay about friendship, love, sensuality, desire, fantasies and their incoherences.

As usual with Eric Rohmer, thoughts and emotions have to be said and not just shown, therefore everything is explicitly said by the characters. This is the reason why the Rohmer's movies seem unrealistic and talkative to the unprepared audiences. Some say that Rohmer is a writer who uses a camera instead a pen, but that primacy of the dialog doesn't prevent Rohmer to use the actor's play, the camera, the set's and costumes colors in a very accurate way. In fact, he is a real film director with a very personal style of cinematic language.

The cast: A Jean-Claude Brialy bearded like a pirate plays a charming young diplomat and he delivers his lines with natural ease and a sensual chemistry between him and the beautiful Aurora Cornu (a Romanian poet, novelist, and actress). Unfortunately the Romanian actress doesn't seem at ease with those long lines in French, and, in my humble opinion, she overplays quite a bit.

Beatrice Romand, 18 years old at that time, in her first true part in a movie, plays the 16 yo Laura. She steals the show, the light and the camera, and in view of some mind-blowing shots, for example in the Jérome's room, she seems to have been an obvious delicacy to light up for the great master Néstor Almendros, in charge of the cinematography. When the movie was released in 1970, the French medias became suddenly obsessed for a while by this very young actress, her exotic beauty and riveting charm. The clever and fizzy Béatrice appeared everywhere in the magazines and on the 2 (not more than two in 1970!) channels of the French TV! Then the fame faded away. The industry of entertainment prefers the blonds... The Beatrice's fans (I am a Beatrice's fan!) love Rohmer's "Le Beau Marriage", "Conte d'Automne" and Claude Faraldo's "Themroc", a situationist weird movie.

Laurence de Monaghan, in contrast with the dark haired and milky skinned Beatrice Romand, plays Claire, a tanned blond of cold beauty, in fact a perfect arrogant and stuck-up chick with perfect body, legs and knee, the famous knee, object of Jérome's desire.

For the fans of Fabrice Luccini, his short part as the young Vincent pontificating about girls is a "collector", not to be missed! By the way, still for his fans, not to be missed too there is his hilarious (and sulfurous) part in Walerian Borowczyk's "Contes Immoraux" (Immoral Tales) 2 years later. Keep in mind that "Le Genou de Claire" forms a part of Rohmer's "Contes Moraux" (Moral Tales)...

Time has passed, "Le Genou de Claire" remains amongst the Rohmer's most sensuous movie, and Claire's knee keeps on fascinating.

If I gave you a brief synopsis, you'd think I was summarizing a porno.

[fedor8 · 20 January 2012]

How many male-fantasy Lolita flicks do the French have to make before they finally tire of them? CK is like a "Barely Legal" porn film, but with no nudity and above-average dialogue. The fanciful way in which such movies are presented allows the more devious among film-buff perverts to openly enjoy teen-based male fantasies without feeling (too much) shame.

The movie starts off with three warnings.

Warning 1: Winner of some silly award.

Warning 2: Best French Film of the Year.

Warning 3: this is installment no.5 in Rohmer's pretentiously entitled "6 tales of morality" series. (Sort of like the goofy "Three Colours" series.)

You'd been warned at least.

Jerome stumbles onto an old acquaintance of his, a Romanian writer (Aurora), played by an "actress" who I couldn't at first decide was an amateur or continually high on drugs during the shoot. (Her odd behaviour is fascinating.) Jerome hasn't seen her in years, and yet he can't get his hands off her. He is constantly touching her, hugging her, stroking her hair - while he tells her of his engagement to another woman (Lucinda)! C'est la vie. That's how they do it France, I suppose. Or at least Rohmer's France. We find out that Jerome had lived in Morocco. Did he touch women like that THERE?

In this strange Rohmer-world people bump into each other often, whether they be in the Riviera or even Beirut. Either Rohmer-world has a population of only 59 people, or he is telling us something about "destiny". How profound. I'm getting the jitters already. (I always get the jitters when a deeply intellectual French director is about to reveal something amazingly new to me about the world, life, and destiny.)

"When something pleases me, I do it for pleasure", says our thoughtful knee-worshiping hero. Wow. You can't get any more perceptive than that. I'd have expected that from the Pythons, but Rohmer is full of surprises.

Speaking of unhinged French hedonism, an underage girl called Laura appears (17, but 16 here). This is a French movie, so a potential underage seduction story always lurks around every corner. Sure enough, very soon the lurid Romanian woman tells Jerome that Laura is in love with him. (Child-molesters/film-students, get ready to unzip your pants.) Just a minute after she says this, she mentions the possibility of them sleeping together. Ts ts. Won't they EVER "leave us kids alone"? Aurora even says that "there are no innocents these days", sort of trying to undermine the seriousness of this little forbidden-fruit sexual affair, and to suggest that if it happens it carries no victims in its wake. If Aurora hadn't been a writer/diplomat she's have had a perfect career as a Madame in a brothel.

Aurora pushes the idea of an affair with Laura to Jerome, justifying it by saying she needs them both "as an inspiration for her (filthy) novel". (We're lucky Aurora wasn't writing a murder mystery or she might have asked Jerome to kill someone.) Or perhaps she just wants to sneak up to the keyhole? In any case, she mentions her own multiple affairs with "very young boys". (We can only guess the age. 11?). Voila! Now Rohmer's titillation is complete; those thirsty for virgin blood can now smile!

Turns out, Aurora was right: Laura indeed has the hots for this skinny middle-aged man. Every other French movie seems to at least touch on this "forbidden" male fantasy.

"In the 6 years with Lucinda I've never tired of her," says Jerome quite seriously - yet hilariously. 6 years is hardly a "test of endurance" or compatibility when: 1) you'd cheated on your fiancée "with several affairs", 2) you "split-up with her 5-6 times", proving that perhaps you DID tire of her, as much as 5-6 times even, and 3) you spend many weeks and months separated from each other. Duh, Rohmer, duh.

Jerome actually has the cheek to suggest to Laura's mother that he cannot guarantee self-control when alone with her underage daughter Laura when he says: "I'm not so sure (about being level-headed i.e. keeping it in my pants). Perhaps you should count more on your daughter to be level-headed (i.e. keep it in her pants)."

Laura is given dialog that is absurdly adult/sophisticated for her age. Rohmer suggests that an uber-intelligent young girl such as Laura is more likely to involve herself in such a reckless older-man adventure, but in reality it's quite the opposite: dafter girls do this. Besides, ever meet a 16 year-old girl who talks like this? Rohmerian science fiction with aspirations of wisdom-drenched "art".

The 46th minute of the movie, and Claire's knee finally makes its first appearance. What can I say? It's a 15 year-old female knee, like any other. But the ideal age for French writer-directors, and Jerome later describes her bony body as HIS ideal. (She's built like a stick, what a perv he is.) And shouldn't the movie be called "Claire's Knees", plural? Women usually have two of them, and both look the same to me. At this point, I sort of half-expected Aurora to nudge Jerome into seducing Claire too. She might have become a true pimp. But there was no need; by this point Jerome had tasted blood!

The way Jerome endlessly rationalizes (through over-intellectualizing) his basic sexual urges is quite funny (no idea whether this is intentional). He keeps talking about Lucinda's perfection, how he needs no other women, and yet he chases every skirt he sees. Some people hate Rohmer's dialog, but I thought it was fascinating/amusing how this "exalted thinker" tries to justify lustful, hedonistic and decadent urges through semantic diarrhea. Sugar-coating taboo sex? Yup.

In the end, Jerome submits his daily report to Aurora of his flirting-with-teens shenanigans, actually boasting about his "courage" of having fondled a 15 year-old's knee. Hooray for French cinema.

Sle-azy.

Portrait of vile misogynist, harmless narcissist, or normal male? You decide!

[Turfseer · 6/10 · 13 July 2022]

Director Eric Rohmer believed that the closest type of art to film was the novel. Hence, expect his films to contain a surfeit of intelligent dialogue but with a lugubrious plot. Such is the case here with Claire's Knee, the fifth of his "Six Moral Tales" series of films.

The moral issue explored here is whether Rohmer's protagonist, diplomat Jérôme Montcharvin (Jean-Claude Brialy) is a good guy vis-à-vis women, or not.

Jérôme is on a holiday at Lake Annecy in Southeastern France on the eve of his wedding to a woman he's been in a relationship with for about six years. The fiancée does not accompany him as she's away at work.

Jérôme runs into an old friend Aurora (Aurora Comu), a novelist and immediately begins flirting with her. It appears that the old friend is quite used to his flirtatious ways and plays along with his game of seduction up to a point but ultimately makes it clear that she's single and not looking for anyone.

Aurora is staying with Madame Walter (Michele Montel) who has a 16-year-old daughter Laura (Beatrice Roumand) and a daughter by another marriage, the early 20ish good-looking Claire (Laurence de Monaghan) who will soon appear visiting both her mother and half-sister. Also in the mix is Claire's boyfriend Giles (Gerard Falconetti).

Jérôme insists that he has an "open" relationship with his fiancée which I suppose justifies (in his mind) fooling around with other women. With Aurora he's a little obnoxious but nothing outside how a normally aggressive male might be.

But there's something more sinister (and you could argue misogynistic) as he makes a play for 16-year-old Laura. The teenager is decidedly precocious and while they're out on a hike on a mountain, Jérôme tries to kiss her. Although attracted to older men in general, Laura instinctively pulls back and emphatically realizes that Jérôme simply wants to get physical with her with no real feelings behind his advances.

Jérôme then sets his sights on the older Claire. He badmouths her boyfriend Giles by telling her that he saw him with another girl. Jérôme's ploy doesn't work, and he knows it. Jérôme deceives himself into believing he's acting magnanimously by partially admitting defeat but perversely indicating he's ready to accept a "consolation" prize by stroking Claire's knee.

It's Jérôme's bizarre way of propping up his ego in the face of another rejection. Jérôme is able to accomplish the maneuver with Claire while she's in a moment of melancholia (suddenly doubting that Giles is faithful to her).

Aurora remains bemused with Jérôme as he recounts his pyrrhic victory with Claire's knee.

As it turns out, Jérôme looks awfully foolish at film's end when not only Claire and Giles reconcile but Aurora then confesses, she has a fiancé. But the clueless Jérôme will never know it.

Notably, Jérôme never forced the issue with any of the women so to my mind, a view of him as a harmless narcissist is the most accurate.

The acting here (some by non-professionals) is quite good as the dialogue is occasionally difficult--replete with wit and ideas. The question is whether you want to spend your time as Rohmer dissects his profile of a loser. It's a slow-going journey so keep that in mind if you're willing to sit through all the way to the end.

an undeniable acme in Rohmer's awe-inspiring oeuvre

[lasttimeisaw · 9/10 · 22 July 2016]

After a dispiriting encounter with THE COLLECTOR (1967), the fourth number of Rohmer's SIX MORAL TALES, I feel elated that the fifth entry CLAIRE'S KNEE has rekindled my passion in Rohmer's body work, his superlative insight as regards self-boosting pretension over real agenda inward has reached a high-point in this basically nothing-has-happened miniature.

A high-flying diplomat Jérôme (Brialy) has returned to Lake Annecy to sell his family house, one month prior his wedding, he will marry the woman who he has an on-and-off relationship over 6 years. By sheer chance, he meets his old friend, the novelist Aurora (Cornu), who has lodged in Madame Walter's (Montel) lake house at the foot of the mountain nearby, to finish her latest novel.

While the two reminisce about the past and update each other with information of the intervening years, Aurora is slightly agape to know that Jérôme decides to tie the knot, in her view, he is not a marrying type, but Jérôme claims that he and her fiancée has reached a perfectly and mutually understanding phrase - an open relationship as long as there is nothing too serious to undercut their marriage, which implies that two-timing is not a problem at all.

Later Aurora introduces Jérôme to Madame Walter and her teenage daughter Laura (Romand), who, strikes up a crush on Jérôme. Aurora is stuck in writer's block, so Jérôme volunteers to be her guinea pig, to explore the situation with Laura, then reports back to Aurora with all the details. Laura is genial, precocious, coruscating with contradictory ideas (the love/dispute relation with her mother, bored/fascinated by the picturesque scenery), she is not afraid to admit her feelings for Jérôme, but when the latter attempts a wet kiss, she brushes him aside, teases that she wants to be totally in love, not with a soon-to-be-married man, yet the truth is that she will embark on her study in Britain, sooner than Jérôme's due date.

Jérôme enjoys Laura's company, takes her mountain hiking and riding in his motorboat, tries to cop a feel when timing is proper and fails epically, but how can any man not lap up the gratifying feeling of being the receiving end of a teenage girl's passing fancy?, although Laura's candid sophistication is something saps him of any further actions. However, before soon, Laura is no longer his main focal point, because Claire (de Monaghan), Laura's slightly older half-sister, a sultrier blonde arrives, so is her boyfriend, a muscle-showboating jock Gilles (Falconetti). Jérôme involuntarily develops a fetish for Claire's knee, tender, smooth and immensely arousing for his taste, he confesses to Aurora, and takes the ultimate task: to touch Claire's knee under her full consent.

So, obviously Gilles is the weak point to achieve his mission, expressing to Claire that she can find someone much better than Gilles is a stock line from a sour man who is not even qualified for competition, but insidiously avenges to break up a seemingly matched couple on a shaky pretext, it doesn't work usually, as the heart wants what its wants, there is always some behind-the-closed- door magic potion can retain a relationship, so who would take an onlooker's subjective opinion seriously, especially he is a total stranger? However, Jérôme seizes a golden opportunity, dismantles Claire's defence by aiming her Achilles heel, a young girl's intuitive insecurity, and he accomplishes his task, almost grotesquely surreal, during those time-still minutes, a whimpering Claire glances at Jérôme, whose hand is continuing rubbing her knee, she seems baffling but doesn't care to stop since it seems to be an innocuous gesture, still, in the eyes of a beholder, a latent sexual tension has reached its breaking point.

In Jérôme's self-satisfactory version, his act is bold but meritorious, not only he fulfils his primal desire, it is also beneficial for Claire, to save her from the hands of a philander, so, he leaves with triumphant brio to his approaching wedding. Aurora stays, and in the end, from her eyes, we see what happens afterwards between Claire and Gilles, it is a far cry from what Jérôme has envisioned. It is all mapped out under Rohmer's master-plan, one's shallow and subjective vision versus what happens in reality, most of time, we are prone to feel conceited by our own judgment and perception, yet, most of it is indeed a fanciful illusion, a bubble masterfully bursts under the strikingly scenic palette and a spare cast.

The acting is above-par, a heavy-bearded Jean-Claude Brialy effortlessly alternates between a welcoming rapport with an amateurish Aurora Cornu (the Romanian-born French writer, who visibly glimpses into the camera many a time and inclines to speak her lines with eyes zooming in on the floor, but those tics doesn't impede the narrative, on the contrary it renders a vérité feel), an engaging and heart-to-heart communication with the newcomer Béatrice Romand, and his voyeuristic limerence with an attractive but vapidly uninterested Laurence de Monaghan. Told in a style of visualising diary entries in a one-month span, CLAIRE'S KNEE is mostly about talking, and talking could be tedious or overbearing, or sometime both, it all depends on who's talking, and how do the repercussions pan out, here Rohmer has found his feet and to say the least, the film is an undeniable acme in Rohmer's awe-inspiring oeuvre, a significant cultural legacy bequeathed to all mankind.

Jerome's Kneeds

[jcappy · 7/10 · 3 September 2022]

I think the moral point of "Claire's Knee" (probably not Rohmer's) is that Jerome's conversion from womanizer to a serious and challenging relationship with Lucinde, is flawed. And that the flaw is his invoking the escape hatch of an "open marriage." He (or his new persona) half believes that he will not use it, but the accidental presence of two enticing teenagers at his Lake Annecy vacation sets the stage for his self-delusion, his devaluation of intimacy, and for the resurfacing of his sensuous ways.

For "open marriage" as a cover for "adult," is really another form of ambivalence and duplicity. What it means to Jerome is that the door of puerile fantasy is at his fingertips. Thus in the rarified air of Annecy, in the flow of summer, thin, mod teenagers Laura and Claire become not only sex objects to Jerome, but potential love partners--one at 16, assessed as adult enough, and the other 18, assessed as legal. We see them together, he invariably clothed for late autumn weather, they for mid-summer. In the emotional cat and mouse games that ensue, Laura and Claire are, to him, mere temptresses, and perhaps part of a self-test, and not, in any sense, young women with lives of their own & chosen boy friends. Instead, their boundaries begin to blur under his voyeurism, his not so subtle acts of aggression, his familiar touching, fondling, pointed remarks, and prescriptive suggestions. He offers them no affection, no friendship, and no communication.

How could it be otherwise given their demure youth, beauty and his permissive "open marriage," and when possessing them is his goal--pederasty and fetishism his means. But his fling with inspiring youth having fulfilled his KNEEDS, he can now discard Laura and Claire without in any way having deviated from his new mature male role-- as willfully possessive as he's been. Whether Lucinde has actually signed off on the "open" deal or not, she, despite her maturity, worldly success, and her sculptured character, must be no more than a symbol to Jerome, extracted for his KNEEDS, which must come first before commitment and support.

the film that created a whole new class of fetish...

[A_Different_Drummer · 9/10 · 19 November 2013]

First, some ground rules. You can compare, for example, Japanese films to Chinese films to Korean films to Thai films and, by and large, you will find more in common than different. Ditto for US, Canadian, British, etc. But when when you get to French films, my friend, the rulebook goes out the window. These are the people who, lest we forget, brought us some of the greatest philosophers in history, so, drinking espresso and asking how many angels can dance on the head of pin is pretty much genetic. (This observation also explains the dilemma of Quebec separatism, ie, there is more interest in debating it, than in actually doing it, but I digress.) Which brings us to the (arguably) most successful work of moralist Eric Rohmer, the drenched-in-voice-over Claire's Knee. (Which title BTW has a lot more class in French, "Le genou de Claire", it flows trippingly off the tongue). The story? What story? A no-longer-in-his-20s-but-still-in-the-game diplomat is off visiting a friend in what could easily pass for Narnia (the French are always visiting or celebrating or eating, in these sort of films) where, via the above-mentioned voice-over, he is debating the essential nature of men and women. Just when you thought this was so boring you would have to slit your throat with an unpopped kernel of corn, the film livens up with the arrival of someone's teenage daughter, named, coincidentally, Claire. She is beautiful but, typical of French films, she is innocently unaware of the effect she has on men (see AND GOD CREATED WOMAN to watch this very "French" theme taken to absurd lengths -- the film that launched Bardot.) While the women in the group discuss the girl's "figure" like they were looking to buy cattle, our hero makes the fatal error of getting too close to her knee while she is on a ladder above his eye level. I wish I could tell you more about the plot but that is pretty much it. To satisfy his newfound craving, he spends the rest of the film trying to simply touch that same knee, much the same way an ex-smoker will go after nicotine gum if they can't get the real thing. This is actually a nice little film and, as advertised, Rohmer's best. Depending on your country of origin, and your own opinion as to how many angels can actually dance on the head of a pin, you are either going to love it or hate it.

An Academic Vacation Where Little Happens

[atlasmb · 6/10 · 29 September 2014]

Our protagonist, Jerome, returns to his vacation home to sell it. There, he runs into an old acquaintance, Aurora--a writer who asks him to get involved with a teenage girl, Laura, so that she can get material for her writing. The premise is interesting but his relationship with the girl offers little worth writing about or filming.

Then Jerome meets Laura's step-sister, Claire, and becomes fascinated with her knee. This is an even more interesting idea, but again the result of his fascination is less than fascinating.

"Clare's Knee" is one of Eric Rohmer's "six moral tales". Some might find moral issues within this story, but I think it deals more with philosophical speculation. Jerome and Aurora--in what I see as a particularly French approach to film--pontificate on and speculate about the best way to deal with young lovers and the value of such relationships. It is little more than discussing the best way to bake a ham. And while it might be self-indulgent, the greater sin is its boring quality.

This is Jerome's story. Ninety-five percent of the film centers on him. If he were to exhibit passion or obsession, then the viewer might find the emotions within this story. But he and Aurora clinically dissect the action and, worse yet, the director does not give us a gateway into his emotions. This is not "Lolita", where Humbert would have us understand his obsession with a knee.

In the end, we find that Jerome really understood little about anything. The quality of the photography is enjoyable, but it can't make up for the unartistic nature of this film. Some have called this film "warm" and "sensual". I found it to be neither.

LET'S TALK OF A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW

[notofdisdimention · 9/10 · 9 October 2019]

Well, I came across this movie while reading Roger Ebert's Awake in the dark and thankfully was able to get a chance to get a hold of Éric Rohmer's masterpiece Claire's Knee. I hadn't read Ebert's review (usually I watch a movie before going through the reviews) so was not sure what was I going into - haven't watched any trailer as well so I was not sure what this would be about, but with my experience with foreign movies I was sure it would be good and I guessed by the name that it suggested something like Lolita or many other movies based on such abnormal (sometimes immoral) desires.

So, when you start with the movie you are somewhat aware where this is going - the expected storyline basis the title- but soon comes to these well-performed characters and while getting engrossed in the discussions between characters on love, choices, life, etc. you get more understanding on the way each of them sees the world - what they desire? what they like? and why they do so? The great part with such discussion was that first, it didn't go into a preachy tone- that x is right and y is not, each of them had their views which they justified by their past or by their behavior - it reminded me of the Before trilogy and, second, while listening to such great lines, one start thinking and contemplating of one's own stand on the topic of love, moral & desires.

There is a scene where the protagonist talks about a notion where he as a person do not have desires on the beauty aspect of women but because of a character his friends ask him to play, he started thinking like that character, and somewhere knowingly or unknowingly he too as a person starts to have those desires. The beauty of this notion is that this happens to the viewer as well, you don't look at claire's knee or her in that sense- but because the movie tells you that this is important - this is beautiful - and to be desired you look for it in that passionate way. You too, play the character in the movie.

Smooth Operator

[nycritic · 7/10 · 1 September 2006]

If you look closely at the screen, and go past the bucolic setting that Eric Rohmer has painted as if he were creating his own calendar for the year, there is an ugly perversion lurking just behind these bright, sunny colors, and a wolf walks around in sheep's clothing egged on by a wicked witch. LA GENOU DE CLAIRE (CLAIRE'S KNEE) is extremely, astoundingly deceptive as it's frank in exposing the corrupt beast at the center of this story. Jerome is a diplomat set to marry his fiancée Lucinda out of duty, and is staying at a guest house in the town where he used to live. There he meets authoress Aurora who is none too discreet to mention that the landlady's sixteen-year old daughter, Laura, has the hots for him. Aurora even encourages him to make a pass at her, which he does... while Laura proves she has a strong intellect that makes her much older than her age would imply. Jerome and Laura initiate a series of conversations that bring them near sex on a high hill, and despite the age difference, Eric Rohmer and Nestor Almendros' camera captures an eroticism sizzling between the two actors.

Into the picture comes Claire. Claire is blond, pretty, a real looker, and has a boyfriend, Gilles. Something snaps inside Jerome: it's the moment when he acknowledges a conscious desire that was bubbling with Laura only scenes before, but because he is a diplomat, he won't consummate. His attention then falls on her exposed knee -- Claire wears a lot of miniskirts -- which he places his hand on in a casual way and therefore, gets some internal, secret gratification. Now, while this may seem rather boring for the viewer expecting to see Claire become a Lolita-like nymphet (she, in fact, is rather colorless like her pale nature, and is completely into her boyfriend, rarely having conversations with anyone else but him) or Jerome become a sex-obsessed maniac, it's interesting to just sit back and view the dynamics of a man caught in a desire so strong that the only way to act on it is to repress it and make it as passive and casual as possible with the act of placing a hand over her knee. Only later in the movie does this action generate some ugly consequences, and Jerome becomes exposed as the corroded human being that he is.

A deceptive movie, CLAIRE'S KNEE may irritate viewers because of its incessant talk, and in French, to top it off. I'll admit that while it worked in MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S because the characters were likable, here, because Rohmer's cast is almost entirely of unknowns except Jean-Claude Brialy (looking much more masculine than his early Sixties heydays and playing his part with an enormous, sensual restraint), the dialogue sounds flat and somewhat mannered here and there, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rohmer was looking for a natural feel. Even so, for anyone patient to listen to these people prattle about the game of love and sex, it's worth the watch, if in fact it's not as memorable as MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S, or even in CHLOE IN THE AFTERNOON, the last of his Six Moral Tales.

technically competent but too creepy to be enjoyed

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 3 March 2006]

Technically, this was a very good movie. The cinematography was beautiful and breathtaking--the setting really enhanced the film. Plus the acting was very good--no complaints there.

However, the story itself felt very creepy and disturbed me. A 35 year-old guy meets an old lady friend and becomes close to the family that this lady friend rents a room from. The mother seems about 35 or so and she has a daughter that appears about 13 or so--maybe 14. There is also a step-daughter who looks about 16. Through much of the film, this man seems awfully familiar with the girls--going so far as kissing the youngest on the lips passionately and rubbing his dirty paws all over the knees of the older girl, Claire. The movie's title, by the way, was chosen because this guy turns out to be a "knee freak" and he is turned on by this teen's knees. This is all orchestrated by the old lady friend, who to me seems like she's encouraging this. THIS IS WAY TOO CREEPY for me and I am amazed that NONE of the comments so far mention the inappropriateness of this weirdo. Yuck.

one of the best movies made by Rohmer

[PSZABADI · 1 October 1998]

This is one of the best movies of Rohmer's earlier series of moral tales. The movie wonderfully depicts the complicated relatioship between the hero and his desires, represented by Claire, and the reality of Claire's younger sister, who as masterfully played by Beatrice Romand. This is a wonderful comedy of manners, in which we can laugh at all the characters, how in their attempts to fool others, they only fool themselves. Rohmer has intricately plotted every action, I enjoyed every moment of the film.

Formidable!!

[CelineetJulie · 8/10 · 28 December 2005]

Like most of Eric Rohmer's work, you will either enjoy the laid-back atmosphere and chatty characters in Claire's Knee, or find it all incredibly boring. I happen to love them. It's rare to find movies that don't want to be sensationalistic and violent, but would rather present universal questions and then investigate them throughout the course of the movie.

I would recommend Love in the Afternoon as an entry into Rohmer however, as it is a little more pacey for those unfamiliar with his style. And my personal favourite is "The Green Ray"... but don't start there as the subject of the film is about boredom!

it took me all these years to see another Rohmer movie

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 28 September 2019]

The first Éric Rohmer movie that I saw was "The Marquise of O...", which I watched because I had read the novel in a German literature course in college. I've finally gotten around to watching another one. "Le genou de Claire" ("Claire's Knee" in English) is part of his morality series, focusing on married (or about to get married) men tempted by other women. John Wakeman called these movies "subtle psychological investigations about what characters think about their behavior than about their behavior itself". In this case, career diplomat Jérôme (Jean-Claude Brialy) finds himself attracted to the daughter of an old friend.

It's a slow-moving film, but deliberately so. It takes time for the characters to develop. It adds up to a profound, intellectually stimulating story. While slow-moving, it turns out interesting (which is more than anyone can say for the empty, pointless movies that Terrence Malick has turned out in the 21st century).

Definitely one that I recommend.

Almost too subtle

[indenticit-mykool · 6/10 · 7 July 2007]

All I would add to the previous comments is that Rohmer's films are subtle ... almost too subtle. You can watch them and think "nothing's happening here", then, over time, they come back into your mind with new insights and for me anyway, I want to watch them again. The thing about this film is that Claire is almost completely silent, unlike her younger sister, so we get no sense of her personality at all. The question is, "How much does she manipulate what happens?" For example, the final scene happens because she asks Jerome to take her across the lake even though she knows her boyfriend is not there and it is clear there is a storm coming. Did she do this to be alone with him? She did it before at the volleyball game, deliberately injuring herself (at least, that is what her boyfriend implies when he is perplexed that she hits the ball in exactly the way he told her not to). This requires her to sit, surprise, surprise, with Jerome and have her sore finger massaged by him. See - -it's subtle. Watch it again and see that Claire's apparent passivity and silence is actually extremely manipulative. That's what makes Rohmer's films so emotionally complex and interesting. They go beyond simplistic good character/bad character dichotomies as in most movies.

Another Viewpoint

[jromanbaker · 10/10 · 7 February 2021]

'Claire's Knee' is arguably the most well-known of Rohmer's films, mainly for the attraction of the young girls in it. The title is a come-on and the heterosexual sheep of the sensation seekers follow. It is a clever ploy, but it is not only the girls that the camera lingers over. What of the young men, equally in a state of almost permanent tight swimsuits? When we first see a hand placed on Claire's knee, it is so filmed that we see a double-eroticism: the crotch of the beautiful Gerard Falconetti, as well as Claire. There is a bisexuality of image. And despite famous critics always talking of the girls and women in Rohmer's films, what of the young men in such films as 'Pauline at the Beach', 'The Aviator's wife' , 'My Girlfriend's Boyfriend', 'A Summer's Tale' and 'Full Moon in Paris' where one of his sexiest youths is pivotal to the ending of the film?

All are beautiful young men, and visual proof alone shows that Rohmer chose them as equally for their beauty as the women. As for showing more mature men as sexually attractive beings, they can be seen in many other of his films. I have said recently that Rohmer is my favourite director, and he rarely disappoints. But to return to 'Claire's Knee'. I read the film as a fiction within a fiction. A female author (excellent Aurora Cornu) uses in her way the ambiguous guest played well by Jean Claude-Brialy to find her a story. And once the story of various flirtations and semi-seductions is achieved the film draws to a close. She has her scenario, but Brialy in a scene near the end with a mountain storm breaking, attempts to destroy Claire's love for the young man played by Gerard Falconetti. This is the strongest scene for me in its Laclos-like 'perversity' in reducing her to tears so as to achieve his erotic goal. It is here that we wonder if the whole scenario has been built on questionable truths, and that what people say is certainly not what they are thinking. How much do we create fictions for others? Rohmer, with a light touch and with images bathed in natural beauty (this time by Lake Annecy) seduces us into questioning how much we are self-created fictions. A great film to be watched countless times.

The only moral tale I disliked

[hmoika · 6/10 · 24 September 2020]

I'm a huge fan of Rohmer's Moral Tales (and his Tale of Springtime, and Tale of Summer), but Claire's Knee just left me.....waiting for.......waiting for what? Not sure. All I know is: I did not "enjoy" what I heard and saw.

It's not just because this was the only moral tale to be set outside of a French city, though it didn't help as far as I was concerned.

For the first time in a Rohmer film, I did not care about the characters. I guess that explains it right there.

But I love so very many of his films. We're all allowed to cough a time or two.

Acclaimed and anticipated drama

[martinpersson97 · 10/10 · 10 July 2023]

This award winning drama by the ever great Eric Rohmér is definitely a film I was looking forward to watching - after all the praise it had gotten and all of the great actors involved, as well as a director I am definitely a big fan of.

And safe to say, it is indeed a masterpiece in every sense of the word. The actors all do an incredible job, and the cinematography, cutting and editing is, as per usual with Rohmér, incredible and very characteristic.

It is very cleverly written and features some great dialogue, and splendid character work.

Overall, an incredible film that is definitely recommended for any lover of film!

Thought-provoking

[harappa · 7/10 · 8 July 2001]

Ok towards the end of the movie, watch out for the scene where Jerome takes leave of Aurora - as they walk towards the boat - Aurora looks straight at the camera for a full second! Why don't they cut that out?

What the heck - its a nice Sunday evening movie - waiting for the work week to start. Makes you think and re-evaluate your attitude towards love and fidelity. Not that mine changed.

A VERY Sensitive Film For The VERY Sensitive Viewer !!!

[JoeKulik · 9/10 · 10 August 2016]

I will tell you right now that this film is NOT for everyone. I can think of MANY legitimate criticisms that a film fan might have of this film.

As Roger Ebert pointed out, this film "happens" far above the level of the literal storyline. In fact, the literal storyline is rather weak compared to most others. The REAL storyline of this film happens on the levels of the emotional interactions between the characters, & at the level of the resultant subtle increase in the self awareness of the main character Jerome.

However, at least for me, it is a very beautiful film because it gently probes and reveals the very stuff of social life, even the social life of you and me. Through the mechanism of what is really a trivial story, Rohmer holds up a mirror to the human condition, and reveals to the viewer who is sensitive enough and patient enough truths about the man-woman relationship, and about social life in general that would be impossible to reveal in a straight forward prose essay. [e-mail]

The Usual French Yawner on the "Game of Love"

[mcdooley · 4/10 · 29 May 2006]

First let me say, I have seen some very excellent French films, both relatively recent ones and some of the classics from decades past. It would be preposterous either to condemn or praise a country's cinema across the board. But there is a genre of French film where I can barely make it past the first reel, and often don't, and that is the meditation-on-the-nature-of-sexual-love genre.

In that arena, these folks have a positive genius for taking two interminable talky hours to tell us nothing of consequence whatsoever, and certainly nothing we didn't already know. Love is complex, both painful and pleasurable. Yeah, all right already, we get it. Please, move on to some issues that are located above the waist for a change.

I could tell you something about this film specifically, but there are plenty of other descriptions of French films like this that you can simply plug in here, so I'll save us both the time.

Radio Erotica

[tedg · 6 September 2002]

Spoilers herein.

I only know a dozen or fewer Rohmers, but to my mind this is the best. It is because of the self-referential plot, where the writer of the film is a character. It is typical Rohmer, but more clever than usual. Within the double-written story is an embedded fantasy (about the sublime knee).

You need to completely relax when sharing these films. They are meditations which encompass illustrated essays. The actors are horrid, but so understated that it works. Just like the sensual but overexposed photography. It all underscores the highly abstract nature of the space, and that is its greatest virtue. Very little moves within a scene, and there is little art in the transition between scenes. The transporting is all in the stillness.

And that allows you, if you are so inclined, to fill in the visions as if it were facilitated radio. Along the way in this film, I actually became obsessed myself. This man is special, and I do not know what I will do when he stops making white space as my cinematic anchor.

Ted's evaluation: 3 of 4 -- Worth watching.