My Night at Maud's (1969)

Just saw this movie (again) yesterday. Still fresh is a quote of an other comment here - yes that is completely right - no signs of wear in story or filming - still satisfying and essential like a cold glass of water for thirst. After seeing all "the movies" over the years this is not at least because of the black and white filming balsam for the ears and the eyes but for the smooth quiet story too. One misses nothing - no digital effects no surround sound no color no superstar actors - in this movie it seems that "fim-time" stands still. Trintignant is very good but Mme. Fabian is even better - her black eyes and face with the beautiful black hair and her body acting says even more than the words she speaks - one should send her an Oscar today. One should try to see the film without tone on - would be a nice experiment..... The end is a surprise and one has to remain concentrated to get and remember the point - then the moral message for me is clear: giving means taking and taking means giving - always - no runaway from that at any time possible......and of course surely not in love & sex.

Fmovies: The first Rohmer i saw, and justifies his reputation of slow pacing and almost non-stop dialogue, but also his fame as a great director. He does not have anything of the joviality of his Nouvelle Vague friends Truffaut and Godard, which work i know better, being more serious and mature. The picture is filmed almost as a documentary, being very realistic, and in opposite of 99% of the movies, Rohmer doesn't move the camera all around in the dialogues, abusing of shots and reverse-shots, keeping the camera in one character. The many and long conversations are very intelligent, and all the characters are complex and interesting, specially the Jean-Louis Trignant' one, which reminded me of Prince Míchkin from The Idiot, because of the Christian quietness (Dostoiveski's words) that both have in common, i don't know if it was intentional. I usually doesn't like to rate movies, because it's hard to put how much you like a film in a scale of quality, but in cases of perfect works like this one, there's no doubt: 10/10

The third of Rohmer's Moral Tales, and quite unlike the previous two. The first two clocked in at approximately 23 minutes and 54 minutes, respectively. "My Night at Maud's", almost two hours. While the first two Moral Tales were basically first-person narration accompanied by visuals, which were secondary but stimulating nonetheless, "My Night at Maud's" is a dialogue-driven piece in which character's exchange personal philosophies and trade the ideas of their favorite philosophers like baseball cards. Although I'm not sure of which films are in Richard Linklater's (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset) DVD collection, it would probably be safe to assume that this is one of them.

Because it is a dialogue-driven piece, much more happens in the 54-minute-long "Suzanne's Career", Rohmer's second moral tale, than in "My Night at Maud's", which is about an hour longer. It can seem meandering at times, especially the first-half of the film, but put your trust in Rohmer. We're being bored to death for a reason. Listening to two Frenchmen discuss Pascal's Wager isn't very entertaining, but the payoff comes when, later on in the film, the characters are put into situations in which they have to make their own Pascal's wager, metaphorically speaking. The reward comes when we see these philosophies which they discussed tested in real-life situations, and we see how true, or untrue, to their ideals these characters are.

During the first fifty minutes, you may be bored out of your skull, but the way the film unfolds, you'll probably want to go back and watch the first fifty minutes again after it's over.

My Night at Maud's fmovies. Only Rohmer could concoct a love triangle based on the age-old Pascal Paradox. To risk all for the ultimate gain. A gamble. The level of dialog is seldom equaled in other films (even his own); this one's a delight from start to finish. It is also lovingly photographed and charmingly acted. A first rate film all around, and my favorite of all time. Start with this one, then try "Chloe in the Afternoon" and "Claire's Knee". His more recent movies downplay the level of sophisticated dialog, perhaps because it is less that way itself.

Can love be reduced to an intellectual calculation? Can faith? What role do the emotions play into this calculation? Blaise Pascal, a French scientist and philosopher, put down his thoughts regarding the Christian Religion which were published after his death and came to be known as "Pensees" or "thoughts". Here Pascal puts forth the case for belief: "Since the duration of our lives is but a moment and the state of death eternal . . . those who are guided by their own inclinations and pleasures without reflection and concern" for the reality of death eternal, are idiots and should be "condemned". He asks, "What would you wager? . . . God is, or He is not. Reason can decide nothing." And not to wager is not an option. Pascal reduces belief to a win/loss calculation with the following: "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing." MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S is a film devoid of conventional film devices to sway you one way or the other such as music, special effects, close-ups and general sentimentality. This is a film full of dialog and intellectual meanderings, but it is the emotions of the characters, those subtle distortions of the face, and the voice behind the eyes captured by a lingering camera that speak the truth. On the surface, this picture appears one dimensional and the end merely a continuation of the beginning, but under the surface, the characters have been transformed. One's actions may be controlled by intellectual pragmatism, but the emotions govern the inner world with a volotility that cannot be controlled. Single minded conformity to a religious proposition may bring security and comfort, but can love be divorced from the emotions? Can emotions be governed by the intellect? As to Pascals Wager, if one clings to this rigid proposition, despite the changing landscape of the emotions, perhaps shunning love itself, can the conclusion that "nothing is lost" still be held?

That's an intelligent film, provocative and still fresh despite it's 35 years old... This is the film which made Rohmer a worldwide known director in 1969. The beauty of "Ma nuit chez Maud" is that everything seems so natural, it seems that the camera captures situations which are not staged. It's like the camera is in a flat or in the street, and characters don't pay attention to it... Rohmer makes films as if they were documentaries!, that's an original and unique approach.

These are among the reasons, I think, for the freshness of the movie. Because the way people talk, cherish their own opinions and express emotions is something which still happens today in human relationships! The film contains exactly situations of the ordinary life -you don't see that movie and think "It's only a film!".

Good performance -as always- of Jean-Louis Trintignant and superb black and white cinematography by Nestor Almendros.