MovieChat Forums > Ma nuit chez Maud (1970) Discussion > Any fans care to explain why this film i...

Any fans care to explain why this film is so great?

posted 19 years ago by INDYATMN
34 replies | jump to latest

The name Eric Rohmer has popped up in my reading material every now and again so I figured I'd check this one out. Especially since it seemed to be so highly rated by everyone. But, for the life of me, I found the storyline meandering, to say the least. There are constant discussions about Catholicism and other philosophies but I still couldn't get a bead on what point, if any, Rohmer was trying to make. The characters are constantly exploring many ideas but I don't get a solid bead on any of the personalities in the film, other than Maud. The main character doesn't fall for Maud but tells Francoise he's in love with her - leaving the viewer with no idea why. WORSE, is the fact that Francoise, UTTERLY OUT OF THE BLUE, tells the main character she loves him! WHAAAAAT?!!!! When did this happen?! How did it happen!? Are we supposed to just take this at face value? WHY and HOW does Francoise fall in love with this guy? She barely knows him! Who is she and why does she feel the way she does? Who is Vidal and why does he feel the way he does? Who is the main character and why does he feel the way he does? God only knows.

I get a sense of Maud and her belief system, but even with her I'm left completely confused as to what she sees in the main character. Am I supposed to feel a sense of tragedy/sadness at the end of the film, when five years later Maud runs into him again? Am I supposed to think the main character should have stayed with Maud? Why would I? Why would anyone?

I like that there was meat to the discussions and found the scenes between Maud and the main character fascinating, but given that this film is concerned with basically only four characters, it seems alot more thought should've been given to given us characters we could empathize, or at minimum, understand behaviorally.

I'd really love to hear from a fan of this WHY and WHAT you like about this. Because I honestly found it to be series of strung-together philosophical discussions where not only are no conclusions drawn, but no real point seems to be made! I guess pointless discussions might interest someone, but it makes this a great movie!? And, again, the characters, esp. Francoise, seem to have very little internal logic and motivations. I don't get it.

[–] IkuharaKunihiko 19 years ago

I'm not a fan of Eric Rohmer but this movie got me trapped. I think the main character, Jean-Lois, is not one dimensional. At the begining we find out he is a sworn Catholic, but the one who is struggeling with with his principals and those of his religion.

The begining of the movie was a little bit empty, but I, just like you, was fascinated by the sequence in Maud's apartment. The dialogues they had were totally direct and Jean-Lois was fascinated by the things Maud said. Those were the things he always wanted to think about, but was too scared of.

When Jean-Lois lied on her bed and Maud took her pijama's off just to sleep naked a small smile appeared on my face. And that's something that only happens when I watch Bill Murray movies.

-----------------

However, I think its a pitty that the sequence in Maud's apartment wasn't the main one. I was a little bit sad to find out the last 35 minutes of the film were about Jean-Lois and Francois, but they were still good because Maud's words gave him the courage to meet with her( again, how can you ask "WHY did she fall in love with him?" I think it was enough to do so when he said: "I don't have an excuse to meet you so I'll just ask: what must I do to meet you?").

If the Maud apartemnt sequence was the only one in the story this could have been a masterpiece. However, even without that it's still an excellent film about how people like the conservative Jean-Lois can change and loosen up. And if you don't like it then you don't. I like it. It's just like a joke. Either you laugh or you don't. Explanations can't help.

[–] grybop 8 years ago

it's still an excellent film about how people like the conservative Jean-Lois can change and loosen up

I don't think he ever really changed or loosened up. He never dared to have sex with Maud, and seemingly married his predestined wife, living a "petit bourgeois" life, as they said in the movie. He was fascinated by Maud's ideals and way of life apparently, but he never overcame his inner obstacles, his own sense of morale.

Which is a pity, I might add, but so very true with many people.

[–] thamer-h21 8 years ago

the way Eric Rohmr shot the film , and the pace of it , gives you , a deep idea about changing someones' belief and thought , its a philosophic film discuses a religion and love . which will lead to a conservative marriage

[–] Greenteeth 19 years ago

I'v seen four or five Rohmer films and I don't consider any to be a masterpiece. I do like them all because Rohmer is so good at showing us how much of life is lived in converstaion. I identify with many of his characters even though we are from different countries.

[–] Gonzo_Knight 18 years ago

I'm a big fan of Eric Rohmer and have seen and liked many of his movies. That said, I consider this movie to be his absolute worst. I understood the moral dillema at the heart of the movie but I didn't find to be much of a dillema at all. Certainly not something that justified the running lenght of this film.

"Left is Right and Right is Wrong".

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan0283part2 17 years ago

I have to disagree with your final statement which I think is a pretty common view among filmgoers these days. The "We've seen it all before" sentiment. To me (that is to a 23-year-old who, for mathematically obvious reasons was not alive in the 60's) a film like this is diametrically opposed to reality TV, paradoxical as that may sound. Whereas reality TV takes real people and turns them into caricatures, fictional-seeming stereotypes we can peg in 2 seconds, a film like this takes the author's creations and fleshes them out into lifelike individuals.

To my eyes, the mainstream - and I use the word loosely - cinema of the past 40 years (or perhaps 30) has been a constant regression. While the technology improves (and I use that term loosely as well, given the complete phoniness of most CGI), everything else has seen a marked decline.

What was truly innovative about the films of the French New Wave was their life force, embodied by radical technique, new approaches to narrative, and naturalistic performances. The superficial aspects of the movement have been soaked up to be sure, but the classics still shock and provoke because what was really so important about them has been completely cast aside.

[–] nubka 17 years ago

The main charcater did not sleep with Maud...

[–] uubuntu 17 years ago

Actually, the main character DOES sleep with Maud. He does not have sex with her. It was unclear (to me at least) whether he chooses not to have sex or whether she rejects him because he cannot make up his mind.

[–] uubuntu 17 years ago

Is the story "great"? That depends on whether you believe the Rohmer achieved what he wanted, and whether you liked the experience of the movie. Rohmer makes "shaggy dog stories" -- with meandering plots and frustratingly inconclusive endings -- and is something of an acquired taste. But his movies are what they are, and if you like them, you'll think they are great. If not, you'll find them to be endlessly irritating.

Movies are like beer in that sense. If you like easy-to-drink beer, you'll be happy with Amstel Light (the "Shawshank Redemption of beers"). But if interesting and unique tastes appeal to you, you may prefer some idiosyncratic local brew whose flavors are hard to pin down. Rohmer's movies tend to be like light Japanese brews -- light watching, but with difficult-to-identify fascinations and confusing finishes.

Yes, the story meanders. I think that Rohmer's "moral point" lies in the conflict that Jean-Louis (the main character) feels between spiritual-based desire (Françoise) and intellectual/physical desire (Maud). Interestingly though, it seems that the interaction with Maud (and Vidal) forces Jean-Louis to seriously act upon his attraction to Françoise. He realizes that without the necessity of action, his desire for Françoise will never evolve into a life-relationship.

The fascinating point lies where he cannot make up his mind about whether or not to have sex with Maud, and that SHE rejects him after seducing him intellectually and morally.

[–] phoebe_west 16 years ago

The point of Francoise is that she is the ideal of whatJean-Louis would want in a wife. Maud is not. Therein lies the point of the 'Moral Tales'. These films are meant to be character driven in the sense that one may make certain decisions that lead to a kind of contentment, but do not feed the soul.

[–] donmac117 16 years ago

Because it made you think.

[–] stefangutten 16 years ago

Question to those who know his work well: Which film of Rohmer's should I start with? The famous QT-quote is that you have to see at least one, though I'm open to watching several before making up my mind. I just wonder which it is wise to begin with.

[–] romanticnihilist 16 years ago

This is clearly a masterpiece. The discussions on Pascal and Christianity alone. are utterly fantastic.

I enjoy knowing the pattern of the 6 moral tales and then watching them unfold. They are all the same pattern. We are introduced to a woman at the beginning of every Moral Tale and then she goes away. Then another woman takes up the bulk of the film. At the end the protagonist always goes back to the first woman.

It is interesting that knowing this pattern does not take away from the enjoyment but rather enhances it. Also, for a simple plot structure each moral tale seems completely different. Anyway, I loved it. One of the best film cycles ever. Pretty solid all around. This is up there with the Decalogue.

Roman

[–] Borowczyk76 16 years ago

Every installement of Rohmer's moral tales is inspired by Murnau's "Sunrise" (and uses the basic plot as it's blueprint). That's why the main character always comes back to the first woman.

[–] romanticnihilist 16 years ago

Wow! That is fantastic. Where did you find that out? I guess it is a favorite film of Rohmer? Thank you for that information.

Roman

[–] BwlBoy 16 years ago

Religion is not one of my interests and as the script is laden with it I was not overly impressed with this film.

[–] Borowczyk76 16 years ago

Then you can say goodbye to 40% of what cinema has to offer.

Whether a film explores religious, political or social themes, it all comes down to "culture". Watching a film is the equivalent of getting a glimpse into someone ELSE's life, their point of views, their opinions. You don't have to agree with what is being shared, but you can then compare their ideas to yours and perhaps get something out of it... That's how humans grow as a species, by continually learning and experiencing things, whether it be of interest to you or not... Your comment is basically like saying, "Nah, I'm not interested in learning anything else that I don't already know about!".

*sigh*

[–] BwlBoy 16 years ago

"Then you can say goodbye to 40% of what cinema has to offer".

A statement like this seems to say it all about you mate. You've just plucked a random number out of the air which is impossible to quantify. Even if this somehow was found to be accurate I have never seen a film which invests as much of its time quoting religion or moreover does so without being remotely interesting. Bergman does it a lot in his films but I like what he does. Funnily enough probably my favourite Bergman film is Winter Light.

"Your comment is basically like saying, "Nah, I'm not interested in learning anything else that I don't already know about!" ".

This is just plain ignorant and warrants you going on my ignore list.

[–] Borowczyk76 16 years ago

Yeah of course I picked a random number! How the hell can I know exactly how much of cinema deals with religion? But obviously, there are MANY films that DO deal with the subject (and not just western religion). Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't get my point! And I guess that says a lot about you too now doesn't it!? It's so easy to just brush someone off and say they're ignorant...

Your first comment sounds incredibly ignorant. You should actually reread and hear how it sounds when someone who's not familiar with your inner thoughts might interpret it. But! Your love of Winter Light contradicts this first comment. So what'll it be BwlBoy? Is religion as part of your interests or not? Is a movie bad simply because it deals with religion? That's certainly what you made me believe there!

Oh I forgot, you're snappy mood put me on your ignore list! So there's no point in discussing this in an adult fashion now is there? I can pretty much say whatever I want since you won't be reading this... but nah.. might as well do likewise and ignore you as well. Grow up!

[–] Borowczyk76 16 years ago

Perhaps it was! The man did write for Les Cahiers Du Cinema. I believe I read that information in the booklet Criterion' had included in the Six Moral Tales boxset (which is absolutely stunning).

[–] pushnlacs 15 years ago

Well theres the beatiful cinematography and the fact that despite being nothing but dialog the film keeps you interested. For me a film doesnt need action to be great, hell action can be just as boring as anything else. But dialog alone insnt enough either, a film needs to be interesting. And this was.

Also theres what I took from it as I posted in another thread...

...I personally am not interested in the philosophy, at least not the specifics, but only what insight it gives us into the characters personalities. For me it boils down to this. For all of Jean-Louis' "morals" hes really done nothing but aid himself while as a result he hurts others(and himself in the long run). Now I ask, how moral is that?

I dont believe as its been mentioned that Maud is alone(i.e. punished) because she lacked faith while those with it have been rewarded. IMO Maud is a victum of others "faith". Jean-Louis wouldnt really take Maud seriously because she didnt meet his "conditions", yet his blonde despite everything else passes due Jean's pre concieved notions.

Here the "sinner" has been granted a "happily-ever-after" while the goodhearted Maud is left alone.

Thats not to say theres anything wrong with "beliefs" but theres a big difference between having faith and thinking as Jean does. Faith is more of an excuse for him.

Then theres the fact that I dont think Jean knows what love is at all(or he chooses not to accept it). Instead he chooses the his lovers based on a concious level ahead of time instead of letting love take its natural course. I think this is proven by the fact that he picked out his blonde to be his wife before even meeting her and from that point on wasnt going to let any one or anything stop that from happening hence blocking himself off from the possibility of true love(Maud). Thats not to say that I do not believe in knowing the person your going to spend your life with the moment you see them, Im saying that I think that exactly happened only with Maud. But Jean was to stubborn to accept that.

IMO Jean and his Blonde will not be happy in the end. Plus maybe its just me being a hopeless romantic but I wanted to see him and Maud together.

Im sure Im way off from Romer's own interpritation but hey this is how I saw it.

Plus the main reaon I really liked the film = MAUD!

[–] Semi-evolutionary 15 years ago

Many things to say about this wonderful movie.
Actually, for all the amount of time in philosophical discussions and in churches (not all that much of the latter actually) it really did not strike me as heavily religious at all. (Serious about life in a highly intelligent, almost wry, 20th century way, which is a form of religion perhaps.) If it were preachy, pretentious (so far from that is it!), or maudlin, believe me, I would not have stuck around, instead of watching the DVD twice within a few days. Once for the shrugged-off artfulness and situational delight, second for the mystery and poignant comedy.
To cut to the chase -- aside from all the great subtleties about life and relationships, there is, as the person just above me just said -- MAUD! What an incredible incarnation by this actress, previously unknown to me! One of the most wonderful and intriguing (and very simply and stunningly pretty) women ever portrayed on film, all in a very understated way. A classic woman of this sort, certainly an archetypal FRENCH woman of an identifiable sort. A quiet, deliberate bit of serio-comedy (like life, right?).

[–] lisztnet 9 years ago

Could you be more specific ?

[–] Eumenides_0 14 years ago

I saw this movie in awe at school. I consider it great because everything in it meets my standards of quality: the acting, the dialogues, the photography, the humor. It sneaks up on the viewer with that simplicity and lightness that only great art possesses.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

[–] Bilwick1 14 years ago

All of the above, plus the title role is played by one fabulous babe.