MovieChat Forums > La mariée était en noir (1968) Discussion > very togue in cheek? spoliers.

very togue in cheek? spoliers.

posted 17 years ago by bristarman
8 replies | jump to latest

did anyone find this film extremely funny? it's a great comedy:
1) how did julie find the guys?
2) the shooting accident was because of the group aiming at a weather cock!
3) when she killed the guy with the wife and kids thunder and lightening happened to announce itself in time to muffle the sounds of the guy being sellotaped in the cupboard. there would've plenty of air in there anyway! the door was wood!
4) the kid saying it was miss becker! ha ha!
5) the first guy - she tipped the water into the plant! threw her scarf off the balcony and told him to get it! then he fell and the dummy was sooo obviously a dummy it was done on purpose - very likely a tribute to the wonderful dummy used in hitchcock's vertigo.
6) the train and plane journey - the use of primitive (even for 1968) blue-screen effects for the scenery - a tribute to the wonderful use of this in north-by-northwest. truffaut usually filmed on location.
7) when julie took off on the plane a tiny plane pulled up to the airport and the best-man guy got off! ha ha!
8) the funeral! that was great!
9) stabbing the guy in prison! ha ha ha!
10) bernard herrman's over the top score that emphasised very small character movement! and the use of the wedding music!
11) (should be after 2) - 'le mountain...le mountain...le mountain'!

i thought this film was great!!!

[–] rsgre 16 years ago

I only saw this once, mainly as a curiosity because it was the final collaboration with Bernard Herrmann. Thought it was crude, dumb, cynical, and very depressing...in other words....a waste of time...!!

RSGRE

[–] nosnojsirhc 16 years ago

nope, first poster is spot on and rsgre got it all wrong...

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mcornett 15 years ago

If you read the novel, there's a hugely ironic twist at the end. In it, the men were driving by the church at the time they were walking out, and she puts all her energy and resources into finding them so she could kill them.

SPOILERS BELOW!!!

The men are innocent; they were just driving by. The real culprit was her husband's former business partner; both were involved in shady deals. (That's part of the irony...finding out the husband she idolized was a criminal.) In the movie, there's a character she encounters twice, and once holds at gunpoint. Remember him? In the book, he's the real murderer, and it's even pointed out that she held the gun that killed her husband.

In the end, a clever police officer traps her and reveals the truth to her; she is devastated and denied any real revenge, as the real killer has already been arrested and she had her chance to kill him and let it slip.

That's one thing that disappointed me a bit about this movie. I had read the book in my teens and when I finally had a chance to see it, I kept waiting for the final twist...and it was cut completely from the story. It's still a good movie, but as in most cases, the book (by Cornell Woolrich, and I think it's been reprinted) is vastly superior.

Autobiography in six words: "Baby, you ain't seen nothin' yet!"

[–] pipeoxide 15 years ago

Definitely produced a few chuckles...
- I love it when Coral checks his mail and says 'yup, Coral, that's for me...I am Mr Coral' and continues nibbling his baguette. Then he admits the amount of women he's had can be counted on one...no, TWO hands ;)

Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

sorta funny. i guess.

A bird in hand makes hard to blow nose-Confucius

[–] Balok-2 15 years ago

12) When Mr. Coral goes to the concert, he's told that it started three minutes ago, but the cellist is already playing the *second* movement of the sonata (Beethoven's Cello Sonata #3 in A major, Op. 69) -- and the first movement lasts about 9 -- 10 minutes. Then again, since the concert seems to end before she's played the third movement of the sonata, maybe it was only 5 minutes long!

--Balok

[–] anders-puschel 12 years ago

Not funny, no. Flippant, rather, I thought. For the reasons you enumerate, and others. I get the sense that Truffaut couldn't be bothered to care enough about the story, and is just going through the motions. Still, he has good command of the visuals, and that makes the movie watchable, but in no way very good.
Does anyone know more about what the critics said in France on its release? I understand that they more or less panned it, but what was their specific criticism?