MovieChat Forums > Le procès (1962) Discussion > Explain this movie to me

Explain this movie to me

posted 15 years ago by adam_stringer
9 replies | jump to latest

Ok, I started watching it and I just gave up. I'm interested to see no bad comments on this forum, amazing for IMDB!

I thought this movie was going to be strange in an Eraserhead sort of way but it way just boring for me and Orsen Welle's character is impossible to make out what he's saying. I get that the plot is a little strange but is Franz Kafka's work meant to have no plot at all?!

I liked the idea behind how nobody is truly innocent really and that whole speech but the film just didn't make any sense, not in a good way but I actually couldn't hear a lot of it and the dialogue was patching with a lot of things I didn't understand or see the profound significance.

I've heard of people doing plays of this, so surely it must be a great novel/film with a cult following and I've enjoyed Orson Welles so far but this was just so boring and I gave it a chance. I could have thought Citizen Kane was boring but I don't need an action flick just to stimulate me.

So given all that, I'll probably go back to the film in about 10 years but I'll need some convincing. Can anybody sway me? I just don't get the hype.

[–] jklein8787 15 years ago

I too gave up on it. I am a huge Anthony perkins fan and Orson's Citizen kane and Touch of Evil are among the bets films ever. I just didn't understand it and wasn't sure what was suppose to be going on. I would like to give this another shot but would love to know what this film is really about.

[–] lightningcows 11 years ago

my own interpretation of the film is of a justice system that has turned into a kangaroo court of a kind, where the magistrates and the advocates have colluded for trials that never end. The accused depends on the advocates to argue on his behalf with the magistrates, but the advocates never really argue for the behalf of the client. Since the advocate never pushes for a meaningful hearing for the accused, the accused is always on trial.

In the movie that I watched, the dialogue didn't come off very well too, and though I was watching a DVD, it became apparent that the transfer was flawed, from some original source that was partially damaged. For the dialogue that I could hear, the dialogue and the pacing for that matter seems to be reminiscent of the those 40's and 50's films so it does take some adjustment from anyone more used to the kinetic feel of present-day films.

[–] saint665 15 years ago

This film isn't for everyone. You have to like "this sort of thing" so understand that it is excellent "for what it is." It's dialogue-driven and requires the viewer to pay attention. A second viewing is easier, as you have a better idea what to filter for.

I agree that the sound quality is sub-par, and it's occasionally difficult to tell what is being said. Most of what you might miss can be pieced together through context, though.

Personally, I think the film is worth watching just for the cinematography, but the surrealist narrative/plot have a life of their own. This film isn't supposed to make sense in the "real world" but it does have its own internal logic and consistency; during the intro, Orson mentions that it is "like a dream... a nightmare." I agree, and love it for that all the more.

I would recommend watching it again some time, but it is entirely possible you still won't like it. No harm, no foul. Still, this is a highly textured "art film" --something that is an acquired taste-- but I think it is most rewarding; every time I watch it, I notice some new detail or nuance that escaped me previously.

"If I knew it was harmless, I'd have killed it myself!"

[–] X-Evolutionist 15 years ago

I've never made it to the end of this movie, either. Since you opened up about it, I will to. I've tried watching it several times, each time it comes on TCM, but I've just never made it to the end.

X

http://X-Evolutionist.spaces.live.com/
http://X-Evolutionist.com/

[–] zephyr-123 15 years ago

I got that it's supposed to be surreal about 15-30 minutes into the film and stopped expecting it to be something that made sense. Still, I was also bored and had the same problems as others--the sound quality is bad and I couldn't understand what actors were saying--with the dialogue I could understand much of it was nonsense talk. I kinda got what the main theme was about though but felt like it was too long. I really think this story could have been told in an hour instead of two. About an hour or so into the film, I started to fast forward to find out what the "punchline" to all of it was.

Buffy: "Alright, I get it. You're evil. Do we have to chat about it all day?" -Amends

[–] thePaleface 14 years ago

Reading the book will help you comprehend each chapter of the story. Personally i dont think there is a simple meaning to this work, as with this collabaration of book & film there are omnifarious subjects all cohering to make the story of The Trial. Thus to name a few - Existentialism, totalitarianism, ignorance, pliancy, hypocrisy, servitude, etc.

Take it as you may (which is the beauty of films like these - everyone has there own interpretations) as this is only my notion on a admirable piece of work from Kafka & Welles

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] escalation746 10 years ago

It would certainly help if you are familiar with Kafka's books. It would also help if you were interested in films for their filmic qualities. The Trial is a master class in cinematography. The way it uses locations almost as characters themselves is incredible to me, actually taking my breath away.

Finally, it helps to know that the film is a comedy -- a very dark comedy in the Eastern European tradition.

It is one of my favourite films.

[–] kenny-164 10 years ago

I struggled with this film. It has been some time since I read The Trial, and other Kafka works for that matter. But I never had a problem understanding those works. And I do recall the book here, so it's not like I didn't understand the story.

I also noticed the truly excellent cinematography, enjoyed in particular the performances of Jeanne Moreau (in a too brief presence), Elsa Martinelli and a very expresive performance by Romy Schneider, a sixties actress of great beauty who i have not seen much in films.

The performances by Perkins and Wells, though, were problematic, and yes the sound is an issue.

I gave it a seven, which for me is a film worth watching, but probably not more than once. Most of its value came from the noted performances, but the book is better than the film.