wonderful film

Criterion is coming out with it soon, with Le Beau Serge.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I found this pretty disappointing. Any other FNW film I've seen at least has some really stand out memorable scenes, but this one didn't really have any. I guess he beat Godard to 360 degree pan shots since he was the first to make his first 2 films. Godard also liked to end a lot of those era movies with deaths.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

1) Ugly, flat b & w. Contrast this to the use of b & w elsewhere, e.g., 1930's-1940's US film studios, German expressionism, Italian neorealism, etc. Chabrol has no idea of how to use light and shadow.

Les Cousins certainly looks better than a number of films in the categories you mentioned. I mean, it's certainly better looking than Rome: Open City, for example.

To say he had no idea how to use light and shadow is utterly asinine.

2) Clumsy edits and camera work.

Edits were very smooth, and the camera work was exemplary.

3) Overwritten dialog. Too much babble.

If you're going to criticize Charbol for this, just avoid the New Wave, especially Rohmer, in general.

That isn't a flaw though, that's a choice. Some movies are dialogue driven, others aren't.

4) Party scene, tho fun, not credible and over the top.

If you think that, it's a reflection of your life experience, not of the movie. There have been parties way wilder than anything in this film.

5) Polar dichotomy between cousins too b & w, too clean, and artificial. Charles being a momma's boy and Paul a playboy is more simplistic caricature and stereotype than true characterization.

No it isn't. Both characters are shown to have their positives and negatives. Just because at base they're polar opposites doesn't mean it's a literal angel-devil thing. Both are fully realized characters.

6) Bookseller is a contrivance to state a point of view, not a necessary or believable person.

Again, speaks more of your experience than it does objective reality whether he's a "believable" person or not. I hate the "believable" criticism because it's an assumption by the critic that their perceptions are objective and what fits into them constitutes believable.

He's a minor character who serves a limited function. So what? There's nothing wrong with that. Do you think there were no such character in Neorealist or Hollywood movies?

7) Charles becomes unsympathetic villain by kicking Flo out and firing gun at Paul's sleeping head.

Oh this is hilarious. You're accusing the film of being black and white morality wise, then in the same post label Charles as an "unsympathetic villain" because of some bad things he does. Do you not see a huge contradiction?

It's also just an immature criticism. The film doesn't condone what he does, in fact it doesn't really make any moral judgements. Charles is a sympathetic person but also flawed. Yeah, almost killing his cousin wasn't right. Doesn't make him a villain, it makes him a three dimensional character.

As for kicking Flo out, did you forget that she dumped him and lived in the same house as him while romancing his cousin?

8) Ending is meaningless, just happenstance, shock for the sake of shock, and out of keeping with the rest of the film.

Except that the ending was clearly foreshadowed.

and it wasn't just for the sake of shock. Paul had, mostly inadvertently, destroyed his cousin's life, and this was the literal personification of it.

"It's just you and me now, sport"-Manhunter

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Have to agree with what bluesdoctor wrote, I would add

9. The use of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde prelude is really tired and cliched, even for a movie made in 1959.

I watched this today off my DVR as part of the series of Chabrol films that I recorded off of TCM. I liked Le Beau Serge and especially Story of Women much better. A weak 6/10 for me, most of that because of Jean-Claude Brilay's performance.

reply share

add reply

formatting help