Providence (1977) User Reviews

A complex movie, made charming and great by great performances

[coolfast84 · 8/10 · 7 June 2007]

Providence is not an intellectual or artsy film, in the usual meaning of the word 'intellectual'. Is more a literary movie that experiments with the idea of an author, who is not only a novelist, but a playful and cynic god. In this sense, Providence is reminiscence of an idea exposed by the great Spanish writer and thinker Miguel de Unamuno in his novel Niebla: the author can play God inside the world of his creations, make fun of his characters worries, reactions and words.

In Unamuno's novel, the idea is exposed with undeniable clarity. In Providence is far more complex, because there are also more psychology, absurdity and surrealism. Viewers can find a sarcastic but profound treatment of problems like adultery, Oedipus Complex, family hatred, social classes, pessimism and murder.

But, in my opinion, Providence is a great film, not by Resnais pompous direction or by the much complicated literary ideas exposed in the story: this film contains one of Dirk Bogarde's and John Gielgud's best performances ever. Bogarde, the master of extreme elegance and excessive but charming mannerism, and Gielgud, with his mastery in giving words an independent life -as Derek Jacobi does-, bring humor and irony to this very pretentious work of Resnais.

PROVIDENCE (Alain Resnais, 1977) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 3 March 2008]

This one's surely among the strangest efforts to be made by an internationally-acclaimed film-maker; incidentally, even if Resnais was never credited with the writing of his films, the fact that they all deal – indeed, play – with concepts of time and space (to say nothing of the conventions of cinema itself), makes him a veritable auteur. The film marks the director's first – and, so far, only – English-speaking work (but which may well have presaged the path that Resnais' subsequent career would take, where in later years, it would be all but overtaken by adaptations of English stage plays!); the script here was written by David Mercer (best-known for Karel Reisz' surreal 'Swinging London' comedy MORGAN: A SUITABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT [1966]) and features an eclectic powerhouse cast led by Brits Dirk Bogarde, John Gielgud and David Warner (Morgan himself!), and Americans Ellen Burstyn and Elaine Stritch.

The narrative revolves around dying novelist Gielgud who reflects on his life and family; so far, so good – but it's set against a backdrop of military action that's closing in on the titular country-house where he resides (the name of the location itself is never mentioned). Besides, events depicted during the first half emerge to have been mere fantasy on Gielgud's part (he imposes his thoughts on people and even wills them in specific places to their own amazement!). In fact, we first see Bogarde prosecuting private Warner for the murder of an old man (whom the latter says had asked to be killed because he was turning into a werewolf – at one point, Warner himself sports extensive facial hair!); Burstyn, Bogarde's resentful wife, then takes the acquitted Warner as her lover – and her husband subsequently suffers the recurring presence of the private's "famous footballer" brother (who beats up the eminent lawyer when confronted by him!); also, Bogarde's ageing mistress (Stritch) turns out to be a dead-ringer for his own mother who committed suicide…

Mercer's ambitious and clever script is uneven, however: offering, on the one hand, literate – and frequently bitchy – dialogue that would seem like an actor's dream, but also lapsing into gratuitously repellent detail on occasion (such as Gielgud taking a suppository and, later, shown using the lavatory – his particular illness, in fact, is treated in quite rigorous fashion! – or the pointless flashes to the autopsy being performed on the 'wolfman'). Unfortunately, the film peters out during the straightforward last act in which Gielgud is visited by his family (where it's also revealed that Bogarde and Warner are actually brothers!) for an open-air dinner – they squabble some more and, finally, Gielgud asks to be left alone.

Apart from the cast, two other major trump cards the film has up its sleeve are Ricardo Aronovich's exquisite cinematography and Miklos Rozsa's typically lush score (which fits the movie surprisingly well). Moreover, PROVIDENCE swept the board at that year's Cesar Awards (the French equivalent to the Oscar) and, all in all, in spite of its faults and not inconsiderable length, the film is too weird (and stylish) to be ignored – not to mention, funny enough to be enjoyed by adventurous viewers.

Providence - a film that improves with re-watching

[tony-greig · 8/10 · 19 July 2006]

Clive Langham spends one of many tormented nights in bed suffering the terminal stages of bowel cancer. He is a successful writer, or so we are led to believe by him. Whether this proves to be delusion or truth, like so many of the other scenes within this film, we will later discover. In the terminal throes of his condition, with his pain controlled by morphine, he tries to recall scenes from his life, his family and loves. A combination of arrogance of personality, the side effects of the morphine, and the constant sleeplessness caused by agonising twinges of pain, creates a confused picture encompassing episodes of his life filled with distortion, with family members seemingly out of place, much like a bad dream remembered. His bitterness of personality, backstabbing nature, and flashbacks heavily laced with his morphine medication, as well as his preference for one of his sons, creates for the viewer a finely woven mesh of his life and fears. In one scene he is terrified of that time after death that he may face a post mortem examination. We witness a brief glimpse of his fears with a true but grotesque scene of a real post mortem. He feels the victim of his conniving family; however it is likely that they are the victim of his lifelong controlling personality. When dawn breaks, the normal world is discovered and the day is set up for the imminent appearance of his family at lunch. The final scene is beautifully set, with a fine picnic lunch set outside, enjoyed by all participants. The viewer discovers the reality of family relationships with the caring nature of his supposedly errant son shown in stark contrast to his own recollections and distortions. Will he continue to wilfully misinterpret the situation? How much of his viewpoint is composed of his own personality, the condition from which he suffers, or the side effects of medication? We are left wondering. The day gradually draws to a close and Langham basks in safe oasis of his family, their love and support, before facing again, the demons of the night.

A blazing masterpiece

[jfb-4 · 10/10 · 18 February 2003]

Don't be put off by what people (including lovers of the film) say about its initially being confusing. Even the first time through, it is madly enjoyable second by second, and it needn't take long to figure out what is going on. In fact, once you know that we are into a dying man's dreams/fantasies/wishes regarding his own family, you have all you need to make sense of virtually everything straight off. By the end, everything has locked into place in a most satisfying way. The contrast between the man's dreams about his family and what you see when they appear in person near the end is one of the most delicious things in the whole of art.

Playfully bizarre and thought provoking

[howard.schumann · 9 December 2002]

How often do we awake from our dreams in a sweat, not knowing what is real and what is illusion? Especially if we are feverish, our dreams can turn close friends or family members into ogres and hateful creatures (or possibly werewolves) who are bent on our destruction. Such is the case with novelist Clive Langham (John Gielgud), a dying 78 year-old writer who is working on his final novel in the playfully bizarre 1977 English language film, Providence, by Alain Resnais (Hiroshima Mon Amour, Last Year at Marienbad, Muriel). The film depicts how physical and mental anguish can distort our view of reality. A poetic screenplay by playwright David Mercer and powerful performances by John Gielgud, Ellen Burstyn, Dirk Bogarde, Elaine Strich, and David Warner provide strong support.

Clive does not go gentle into that good night. During one horrific night, all the pain of his life and disturbing family relationships boil to the surface. In the novel being played out in the author's mind, his family members, sons Claude (Dirk Bogarde) and Kevin (David Warner), and Claude's wife Sonia (Ellen Burstyn), mysteriously become the main protagonists, assuming roles as prosecutors and defendants, feuding spouses, and extra-marital lovers. As Clive goes deeper into the maelstrom, images become more and more hallucinatory. The denouement is witty, baffling, irritating, and then finally transcendent. To say that the ending is a surprise is a major understatement.

Providence may exasperate you but, if you have patience, it can be a richly rewarding experience. As with all thought provoking and multi-layered films, multiple viewing may be required for full appreciation. Providence was voted the greatest film of the '70s by an international jury of critics and, at Telluride, Norman Mailer called it "the greatest film ever made on the creative process".

One of the Greats

[davidf33 · 10/10 · 2 October 1999]

A double header of complex imagination (first part) and painful recrimination (second part) in this film of deep feeling and hurt seen through the eyes of the dying author (John Gielgud). David Mercer's script includes all his life long angst of the relationship of father and son, although now in his final years fought out with more complex and participating female characters in the ghost of his dead wife, who doubles as his son's mistress (Elaine Stritch) and daughter-in-law (Ellen Burstyn).

The acting is pure poetry with John Geilgud at his refined best as the drunken and dying author in part celebrating his life of drunken womanising and in part regretting the pain that he has caused, in particular to his family. Dirk Borgarde performing the impossible task of being two imaginary characters and one real one with seemless effort. As the son of the dying author he carries all the pain and hatreds of the dying father both in the old man's fantasy and in his real life of inherited disillusionment. His relationship with his wife and mistress (in practice his mother! complex eh!) changes from the deeply loving to the perceive accusatory of the old man's increasingly drunken imagination.

Ellen Burstyn gives one of her finest film performances as the long suffering wife ,but in the end all the plaudits go to the writer. The style may be only that of the one-liner but each of them hits as an aphorism from the greatest of philosophical minds. The revolving characters of the final part of the authors dreaming make a bewildering tapestry of the imagination.

A fabulous movie, but one that will take many viewings to actually comprehend the complexities of it. Set that video!!

Providence

[lasttimeisaw · 7/10 · 2 June 2012]

At the age of 90, Alain Resnais' new film YOU AIN'T SEEN Nothing' YET (Vous n'avez encore rein vu 2012) has continued to stun the Cannes this year, although ended up empty-handed, which reminds me a cruel matter-of-fact that Alain has eluded my watch list completely, so as a starter, PROVIDENCE, his 1977 experimentally maturer work may suit the case, plus it's in English.

So conspicuously, Resnais' opus is quite difficult to chew, the film charts an aging writer's one sleepless tormenting night with his imagination world of a plot mingles with his closest relatives, profoundly literary and surrealistic.

The interrelation among its characters are not being unveiled until the last episode of a real world luncheon for the writer's 78 birthday, when his two sons and one daughter-in-law arrive, there is a pure revelation in this paragraph, no matter how irreverent or symbolistic its previous segments are, Resnais did manifest that the deepest humanity underneath a well-protected hypocrisy, an individualist rumination.

The film might be uneasy to watch since the performances are flaky (David Warner is rather awful and hollow in it), the structures with their implausible consequences are never quite straightforward enough to be participated enthusiastically. Dirk Bogarde and Ellen Burstyn are less-exploited reckoning on their knack, so only Sir John Gielgud's soliloquy of a pain- molested night is a substantial career-defining work, but the sway is too marginal to lift the whole film.

For me, watching the very first work of a maestro is always a tentative challenge, as it hardly gives any trace of characterization or personal antics there to dig, but I smell somewhat of a bourgeoisie blasting and sarcasm which I don't quite comprehend yet whether could be pigeonholed among one of Resnais' trademarks or not, but the film's heady otherworldliness surely invites me into a distinguished world of Alain Resnais, hope PROVIDENCE is not the best he is able to bestow.

In Vino Veritas

[SixtusXLIV · 9/10 · 5 October 2007]

Since so many good comments have been written here, mostly on the psychological side of the characters, and they are all excellent, I decided to comment upon a very present entity and that is WINE.

Notice that, until the last scene, everybody drinks white, mostly CHABLIS, an acid one. But on that last scene Resnais shifts to RED. It is no accident, it has in my modest opinion, a way that illustrates a very fundamental change in the feelings that occurred in that lunch.

Criticism and over-analysis, ever present till that event, give way to peaceful acceptance of the characters by the father, Without hypocrite sensibility, that he refuses, but with warmth and tolerance.

Well, I do believe, by some 55 years of experience, that white wine (dry, European style) makes one restless and sometimes bitter.

Red wine makes one more relaxed and happy.

I do not know which kind of wine Resnais prefers, but since he is a Breton I would not be surprised, that it is WHITE. Maybe that is the reason why His movies are so difficult to decode. They are also some of the most magnificent works of cinematic art..

a more accessible experiment from Resnais

[cherold · 7/10 · 1 September 2023]

For maybe 10 minutes or so, Providence is as confusing as any of Alain Resnais' films. But once you understand what's happening, it's a surprisingly understandable. Weird, yes, but not "I'm so confused weird." Just, "wow, that's pretty wacky stuff."

In fact, for all the crazy events and strange relationships, Resnais seems set on not confusing his audience too much, even including a last section that makes everything explicit. Which I quite liked.

While this is Resnais at his more explicable, it still has the experimental coldness of most of his work. I enjoyed it as an intellectual exercise and found it entertaining, but I wasn't drawn into the story, such as it was, and I didn't connect with the characters.

Still, overall this is one of Resnais' more enjoyable movies.

Same director, same subject, another masterpiece

[flasuss · 10/10 · 27 August 2005]

In Providence, his only film in English Language, Resnais again approaches the most recurrent subject in his career: the memory. Here, he explores how one's feelings can affect it: the life of the writer reflects directly on his view of his son and the wife of this one, and their respective (supposed) lovers, which actually are a representation of the writer's alienation, guilt and self-depreciation. It shows how memory can be more painful than any pain of the flesh, and even worse than reality itself. Like everything i've seen from Resnais so far (Night and Fog, Hiroshima Mon Amour, Mon Oncle D'Amérique and one of my favorite films, Last Year in Marienbad), this one is a very deep and original masterpiece.

Elitesque & Smooth, just like drinking Wine!

[samxxxul · 7/10 · 9 July 2020]

Providence tells the story of Clive Langham (John Gielgud), a dying author who is trying to finish his last work before he leaves. He tries to complete a novel, the characters of which are based on his own family members, but little by little we realize that his perception of these elements is are modified in a surreal environment full of symbolism. He plays fairly well with that perspective: he makes it credible thanks to great, felt performances especially by the great Dirk Bogarde and David Warner that makes it's way through rigorous drafting to look natural and improvised. Alain Resnais here has the time to impose succulent in between and innuendos, fantastic metaphors, and intelligent, thoughtful ramifications of the human condition. It totally shakes up the narrative of what it means to be a film and introduces many elements that are used more commonly today such as the 4th wall break and dream sequences and his cinematography is slow moving, yet smooth, just like drinking wine. The photography and production design are lush. I especially enjoyed the scenes shot at the Garden, the H. R. Giger paintings on the wall in one scene somewhat mystifying. Elitesque and superb. There are so many great lines from the film like: Where Dirk Bogarde says to his lunch companion, "What's the matter with you? We've known each other for thirty years and trusted each other for nearly ten."

"Successful, civilised, tolerant, intelligent. And somewhere behind it all we scream. We scream. Soundlessly."

'I despise violence, it smacks of spontaneity.' Dirk Bogarde

Needless to say, "Providence" is a must for Arthouse fans.

Providence: high art of Gielgud

[oscarhopkins · 9/10 · 8 April 2005]

Not enough can truly be said for this film. Equally, nothing can change people's reaction to it; it is an art piece which separates people. Early reviews from the period of its release seem unfriendly at least. Many reviewers found the film pretentious and constructionally difficult. Many claimed it attempted more mystery than it had a right to. I feel this was a film ahead of its time, and any pomposity in the film comes not from its center, but from its central character, Clive Langham (John Gielgud). This, more than almost any film of the 20th century, is a film which rewards the viewer for multiple viewings. If you are often accused of being obsessive, overly-analytic or just plain artsy, this film will tickle you in some very personal places. The message I will refuse to comment on, though it is very deeply personal to me, and, I would say, to all writers. But the "crux of the biscuit," if you will, is this: examine the title in relation to the film.

Not for the casual viewer!

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 31 August 2016]

Alain Resnais made some nice films...and he also made some bizarre artsy films, such as "Last Night at Marienbad". This is one of the more artsy ones...and because of that, it has rather limited appeal. I just cannot imagine the casual viewer wanting to see a film like this...mostly only Resnais groupies and folks who like this sort of thing.

The film is apparently all imagined from the viewpoint of a man dying in bed (John Gielgud) and he imagines all sorts of weird things. Considering it was made in 1977, I was a bit surprised by the language (it's very explicit at times) and the autopsy scene which looked a lot more real than I thought you could do at the time! Overall, a very confusing, strange and difficult film. So strange and difficult I must admit I didn't enjoy it very much.

A hilarious trip

[manuel-pestalozzi · 10 April 2003]

This is one of the strangest movies I know. French intellectual aesthete meets contemporary British playwright - this should be the title of Providence. When two completely different cultures meet for a common project, the risk of failure is enormous. But in this case something interestingly and uniquely hilarious was created. Providence is a feverish dream that was successfully created for the screen.

The dream sequences of an old, dying writer, played by John Gielgud are absurd in a very British way. John Gielguds's upper class "king's English" voice-over adds effectively to its strangeness. As usual in contemporary British plays, sex and bowel movements are of the utmost importance . no, the script as a whole is neither very original nor particularly funny. I liked the incongruous, illogical situations though. Every now and then, in the most impossible situations, a strange, sickly looking football player (he seems to have fallen off Monty Python's Flying Circus) jogs limply past.

Director Alain Resnais is responsible for the dreamscapes, and they make Providence worth watching. Real settings are artfully distorted into haunting, surreal spatial sequences. Foreground and background, light and darkness, different textures and beautiful color arrangements are expertly arranged into a world of its own that is never too far from reality. One is sometimes reminded of Magritte's surrealistic paintings. Strange sounds add to the almost psychedelic effect the dream scenes have.

The acting is remarkable, especially Dirk Bogarde as the writer's slick, cynical «dream son» gives an outstanding performance.

A brilliant film, viscerally satisfying

[Darroch · 10/10 · 21 July 2006]

This film is a rare treat in which both the head and the heart are dazzled by a real work of art. Alain Renais' beautiful and brilliant "Providence" might play as intellectual absurdism at first glance, until one realizes the point of view from which the movie is being told. It's a pity we had to wade through decades of tedious, stilted performances from Geilgud, but it was worth the wait because in "Providence" he springs full flower with a stunning turn as a second-rate British novelist, who will never be as good as Graham Greene. Geilgud is ably supported by Bogarde, Burstyn, and Warner as his seeming calous children. Powerful stuff.

A great strange film

[bfcg · 10/10 · 4 November 2004]

Obviously, Providence has not been created to be understood at a first glance. Dream, nightmare, reality, you're never sure that you are in one of these fields. But, one thing is real : it's a great movie. It has been said that the life and personality of Howard Philips Lovecraft (1890-1937), the famous fantastic novelist which created the Cthulhu myth, was a big part of inspiration for the dying hero of Providence. I'm not sure of that. But, it is a matter of fact that HP Lovecraft spend most of his life in the city of Providence. Nevertheless, Providence is a captivating movie played by such great actors (Gielgud, Bogarde...) and Resnais' camera is writing an atmosphere all along the story. As it was a novel on paper, not a movie on celluloid. Maybe is that why this movie is so magic.

my favourite film

[moonmobile · 10/10 · 4 May 2006]

This is my favourite film of all time. I first saw it many years ago, and it still remains my favourite. A masterpiece of subtle humour, irony, surrealism and commentary on what is real and what is fiction with a fantastic score and wonderful imagery. It also features some of my favourite actors - Dirk Bogarde, David Warner.

Like another reviewer here I also frequently check to see if it has been released on DVD and am disappointed and puzzled by its continued non release. It is not as though it figures an obscure director and actors and it is Resnais' only film in English!

I would also like to agree with other reviewers who says that it manages to capture the interior process of how a writer or creative artist works. There are very nice touches. As the writer (John Gielgud)gets progressively more sozzled on white wine, we see the characters he is imagining all standing around in the most improbable of settings with glasses of white wine in their hands.

Fascinating, densely layered film

[AlsExGal · 9/10 · 10 November 2017]

John Gielgud stars as an old, dying, drunken writer, who spends a sleepless night thinking up his next novel's story in between bouts of pain and self-reflection. Most of the film is his imagined story, with a haughty lawyer (Dirk Bogarde) who has recently lost a case against a soldier (David Warner) who has committed a mercy killing. The lawyer's wife (Ellen Burstyn) brings the soldier home after the trial, and there is much back-biting and threats of adultery. The lawyer himself is also having an affair, with an older journalist (Elaine Stritch). One of the complicated factors in the film is that the writer has envisioned people from his real life as his characters: his sons are the lawyer and soldier, his daughter-in-law the unhappy wife, and his own deceased wife as the lawyer's mistress! Also in the story-within-the-story is a lot of background action involving young soldiers rounding up the elderly and placing them in concentration camps, as well as the threat of terrorist bombings.

This film is a brutal and honest study of the creative process. Gielgud was one of the English language's greatest stage actors, but filmmakers never seemed to use him very well, at least not often. Here he has arguably his finest role, and even if just for his delivery of the film's final line, I would say he deserved an Oscar. Bogarde as well is fantastic, and just as deserving of accolades. The film also boasts some truly remarkable art direction and set design. I'm not sure how many of the exteriors and interiors were sets and which were locations, but they looked exquisite, even down to some H.R. Giger paintings on the wall in one scene. From what I've read, this film was poorly received here in the U.S., but was a great success commercially and critically in Europe. Recommended for the more adventurous film goers.

One to stand beside "Marienbad"

[MOscarbradley · 9/10 · 21 April 2023]

Filmed in English, (though originally in France with the actors dubbed into French then 'dubbed' back again for an English-speaking audience), from a screenplay by David Mercer yet unmistakably Resnais and set mostly inside the head of dying novelist John Gielgud. I have to admit I hated "Providence" when I first saw it finding it both arch and pretentious and at the time I couldn't quite understand why so many international critics thought it was a masterpiece.

Maybe it seemed to me to be an old man's movie or at least a middle-aged man's movie, a picture about being old and dying but now that I'm a relatively old man myself I finally 'get' it and "Providence" does indeed feel like a masterpiece and a worthy companion piece to "Last Year at Marienbad".

As I said it takes place mostly inside the mind of dying author Gielgud who spends his long sleepless nights mostly drunk and in pain, this thoughts a mixture of memories, some real, others imagined and amalgamated with ideas from the novel he's writing and in which his family are the characters. Dirk Bogarde, (superb), is his fey son, at least fey in Gielgud's mind. Ellen Burstyn is Bogarde's wife, Elaine Stritch his mistress and his mother depending on Gielgud's point of view and David Warner both Burstyn's lover and Bogarde's half-brother.

Like "Marienbad" it's a memory piece, even at its most fantastical and, of course, it's highly literate as perhaps you would expect from a film about a writer and it's often very funny. It may never be as profound as it thinks it is, a smart doodle by a great director enjoying playing with his audience and this time round, to quote a particular Oscar-winning actress, I liked it...I really liked it.

Camp classic struggling to get out of art film.

[brefane · 4/10 · 20 March 2010]

Stunninngly edited, beautifully photographed and featuring a rich soundtrack, esteemed French director Alain Resnais' first English language film combines some of the hoopiest dialog you've ever heard with an elegantly fragmented film style. Set inside the mind of a terminally ill writer played by John Gielgud, Providence is essentially a trivial and talky domestic drama set against a background of war as composed by the dying Gielgud using his family as prototypes for his characters. David Mercer's pretentious, literate dialog is a mixture of Harold Pinter and Noel Coward, and the actors, particularly Ellen Burstyn, perform with a miscalculated earnestness that makes them, like the film, seem downright silly. Nonetheless, Dirk Bogarde is dryly effective, and Gielgud's narration is entertaining. Gielgud was named Best Actor by the New York Film Critics Circle. With an old-fashioned, bombastic score by Milkos Rosa, allusions to werewolves, a graphic autopsy scene, allegorical overtones, and the occasional bomb going off in the background, Providence is a curio that's worth watching, but shouldn't be taken anymore seriously than say Ken Russell's Crimes of Passion(84). A critics' darling, and master of film technique, Resnais has never been a favorite of mine, though his classic non-fiction short, Night and Fog(58), is a beautiful elegiac poem and Last Year at Marienbad(62) is an intriguing enigma. The NY Times review referred to Providence as Alain Resnais' "disastrously ill-chosen comedy". Watch it for Gielgud, Resnais' chic, and laughs.

A cold, intelligent exercise in the art of film making.

[grahamclarke · 28 November 2004]

Renais "Providence" has all the hallmarks of cinema at its artistic best. Every component of film making is expertly handled. David Mercer's literary screenplay is a joy to listen to, especially when delivered by the likes of Dirk Bogarde and of course the legendary John Gielgud. The visuals are haunting and perfectly shot with detailed attention to set and costume. Miklos Rosza's soundtrack is in total accordance with the work as a whole, never intrusive, while adding to the rich tapestry that is "Providence". Renais too has assembled a wonderful if somewhat odd cast, which suitably serve this somewhat odd film.

Gielgud plays a dying author whose mind is racing with fantasies peopled by members of his family. His character Clive Langham is depicted as a ribald, sensual, womanizer. Yet his fantasies, making up the bulk of the film, are curiously cold and stark. They are played in bleak settings with an ever present sense of impending catastrophe, though remaining totally devoid of emotion. These imaginings are at completely at odds with their creator. The extreme incongruousness of these fantasies with the character to whom they belong, remains a mystery. This detracts much in the way of emotional impact which is very much lacking in the film, whether intentional or not. The elimination of emotion leaves "Providence" a cold, wonderfully intelligent exercise in the art of film making.

Renais has assembled an intriguing cast headed by the superb Gielgud. Dirk Bogarde whose performances have often been tinged with a cold, sauve superciliousness brings this unpleasant quality to an unparalleled level of extremity. Even the usually over emoting Ellen Burstyn delivers a restrained performance. Elaine Stritch has to be the oddest choice for the role being so contrary to her well known persona. Never has a more unlikely coupling been presented than Stitch and Bogarde as lovers. Yet in this emotionless void, even that becomes acceptable.

"Providence" is a highly unusual, important film and shouldn't be missed by the discerning film enthusiast. Yet despite the wealth of cinematic craft on display it remains an unsatisfying experience.

The "evils" that we project on others

[kris-oak · 8/10 · 2 September 2006]

Old, severely ill with with a piece of writers block and another piece of insomnia, John Gielgods protagonist one night, dreams up broken pieces of a story based in his own subconscious and emotional relationships to his family and friends.

And this night, racked with the pains of his illness and his guilt over a life spent living, it all combines into a claustrophobical nightmare. Or is it the truth ?

Resnais in this film presents us with with a very human condition; the possibility that we all construct the story of our lives to a larger extent, from pieces of the subconscious that we re not aware of or aren't just fit to handle objectively.

Beautifully shot, with John Gielgod as a master actor, supported by Dirk Bogarde and others, this movie was, I think, my first Resnais movie; it sticks with me in the passionate way of straight emotions like love hate or whatever you desire, combined with the small faults that makes us all human; unable not to come back to again and again.

It ends beautifully with a kind of a promise about the human soul.

A great film

[makingmovies · 8/10 · 9 October 2014]

Synopsis for Providence by Pierre Gautard

CLIVE Langham (played by John Gielguld) is an old writer with health problems who still enjoys the gifts of life, as his gusto of his daily white wine. He is a storyteller and he tells us of his family, especially of his sons. He has two sons: one is CLAUDE Langham, the official one, a successful lawyer (played by Dirk Bogarde), the other KEVIN Langham or Kevin Woodford (played by David Warner) his illegitimate son, remembrance of some past relationship he is not sure of.

But the way CLIVE, the author, changes several times in his storytelling the behaviors of his siblings makes us gradually suspect they are only characters in his story, the creatures of his writer's increasingly intoxicated imagination, products of his writer's block, his hopes, his hesitations or angst, his findings, and finally tells us of the joys, humor and suffering of the whole creating process in writing a novel. Nevertheless CLIVE has to comply to one of the very few rules of dramatic writing which states there is no story without conflicts, and therefore feels compelled to give his characters antagonism, some educated aggressiveness, and the more often than sometimes sex-obsessed image of cynical people entangled in their neurotic denials with uneven bravados on the surface, the whole story being spiced with insistence and English humor. In his storytelling, CLIVE acts as master of the world, but when his characters resist his demiurgic wanton caprices and vagaries, he complains they give him a hectic time and he rants it's them who build up his anger against them, so he is the one who has to change them.

This is how, sometimes, after being told once, a scene turns out to be only a draft and has to be replayed with a difference. So we see it again, as CLIVE finds other behaviors and other dialogs over the same characters predicaments and commitments, that would fit his scheme and demiurgic pleasure. The same can happen to a prop, a background, a door, a passing extra. They can be altered, displaced, transformed, appear or disappear on sight, as the mood of the characters or the scene changes, or as CLIVE's whims meddle in.

As CLIVE's point of view is preeminent in the storytelling, Alain RESNAIS brilliantly stages CLIVE's complex behavior by using different parts of the house in different ways. The BEDROOM from which CLIVE speaks can be said to be his SELF with both CLIVE's doubts and certainties over his work. The back of the house, its BACK TERRACE, where most of the strange changes occur, is undoubtedly his SUBCONSCIOUS, his backstage, subject to CLIVEs fantasy, to his fancies and whims, and logic uncommon. But the FRONT of the house brings us back to REALITY and will cloture the story. This is where, IN REALITY, his family finally arrives for his birthday, and CLIVE welcomes them on the FRONT lawn for lunch. They are perfectly normal and even quite sympathetic people, getting along with each other, and not the embittered, devious players CLIVE described earlier in his story. Peace at last.

After all, this is a secret comedy about life, all in the way it is told - and John Gielguld's best experience as he stated it.

A true artistic masterpiece, by a true master of the art

[cread · 2 October 1999]

A dying artist, beautifully acted by Fainsilber, struggles to complete one last book before he dies - the plot of which becomes confused with his own troubled life as he thinks and dreams his way through the night. This was the first film in English for master film-maker Alain Resnais, and also happens to be one of his best. Using a variety of surreal cinematic techniques, Resnais is able to capture the characters of everyone in the film perfectly and his style - combined with excellent scripting - makes for an experience that will not be forgotten. Although the first half of the film will probably be spent in confusion, before you actually realise what is going on - I had to see this film several times before I was satisfied - it is worth struggling to understand this complex and thoroughly entertaining artistic movie.

Superb intellectual drama and an awful shame that it is not in available on DVD

[dimbda · 27 October 2004]

I saw this film at release and have seen it several times since and this motion picture still holds up, a seemingly complex story that unravels steadily

throughout the film. Resnais uses every dramatic device available to tell what becomes a moving and tender portrait, not least visual puns, particularly a

sequence where Dirk Bogarde drives across "town", in which a very simple

montage predates digital morphing as seen in current commercials, smoothly

linked through the activity of the character. All good Resnais films include an examination of the minds of his characters and this is a superb twist-and-turn reality that involves us completely. The acting of course is flawless and includes a wonderful pairing of the great Elaine Stritch and Ellen Burstyn. David Warner, a personal favorite, is actually given the opportunity to act and steps up to the plate and compliments Dirk Bogarde's cool and wooden portrait. I regularly look for this release on DVD and am consistently disappointed. Could someone

publish it soon?