christian_fournier

Let's face it: the film has a slow start and the pace is leisurely. But the psychological portraits are finely chiseled, and this microcosm of a catering outfit is endearing. Many of the foibles (& strengths) of French society are painted with a light touch, up to and including the marriage customs of up and coming -but not quite upper class- wealthy patrons. Some of the characters appear a bit exaggerated, but after all they may well have been painted from real-life models.

I can understand why critics on both sides of the Pond have snubbed this movie; but I believe it to be quite watchable, with many episodes which are funny or touching. My vote is 7/10.

Here in France, Franck Dubost was known as an actor in nonpretentious movies, and I was not expecting much of this one. But as an author & director he shines! ___ The scenario breaks new ground: handicap was taboo in movies - in France just as it is in Hollywood. The film covers the subject with sensitivity, avoiding the obvious pitfalls. ___ Actor Franck is better here than his usual self; but the stellar performance is by Alexandra Lamy: energetic, empathic and beautiful. Elsa Zylberstein gives a good performance in a small part. Claude Brasseur & Gérard Darmon do the job. ___ Overall a good movie, eminently watchable.

This is my third viewing, & each time I have found this movie mesmerizing.

Excellently played (inter alia) by Juliette Binoche, Kristen Stewart & Chloe-Grace Moretz - the middle-aged famous actress at the height of her career and fearing decline, the hyper-efficient and smart assistant with strongly held opinions, & the young upcoming actress with an incredible self-assurance, a knack for publicity in the internet age, and a complicated love-life.

As has been pointed out in another comment, the film is multi-layered: There is 'the 'age thing in a changing world'; there are several interactions (past & present) with authors & actor partners & directors (in the play and in film projects); there is the depiction of a successful actor's lifestyle; and - most importantly - there is a very accurate depiction of an actor's work on the play: rehearsing the lines, reflecting on how to play one's character and discussing the changes the director has made.

For this latter layer, I am reminded of a little known film by Jean-Luc Godard which - when I saw it in the US in 1970 - was strangely titled "One plus one": a one-and-a-half hour 'no comment documentary' on the Rolling Stones rehearsing in studio their single "Sympathy for the Devil"; for the viewer, an eerie sense of getting into an unglamorous but vital side of artistic life, a peep into the work that makes great plays great!

Of course, a last layer is made of the surroundings of Sils Maria. The Maloja Snake spectacularly appears twice in the film; its symbolic meaning (if there is one) is tied to two momentous events: the suicide of the author and the brutal breakup between Maria (Binoche) and Valentine (Stewart).

Olivier Assayas's scenario is to have almost no scenario: the film is a linear description of a moment in an actress's life. The interesting part, the complexity, is not in the scenario but in the minds of its characters. __ .

This movie is an excellent thriller, gripping from beginning to end, well directed, well acted and with a great musical score. At the first viewing, one might think the action a bit slow-paced; but on the second & third viewings it becomes clear that almost all of the sequences are necessary to make the action unfold implacably, like a Greek drama.

Now for the spoiler part : The dramatic ending, with the death of Mathieu from a car accident which -it is implied with no attempt to subtlety- comes from a hacking of the electronics of the car leading to loss of steering-control, appears to me both unrealistic and disingenuous.

Unrealistic because - apart from the imaginary "hackability" - roads lined with rows of plane-trees have become a thing of the past in France. Prevalent until the mid-50's and the cause of many deadly crashes, they have been systematically upgraded since - either enlarged with the cutting of the trees or lined with crash-barriers. In Ile-de-France (the Paris area) they are nowhere to be found.

Disingenuous because there is no chance that an airline manufacturer, or any of its subcontractors, would even think of ordering the assassination of a BEA (or NTSB) enquirer; engineers are not mafiosos! Apart from the moral aspects, being discovered would simply kill the company (or cause it to be so deeply restructured that this is impossible for a top manager to even consider).

Complotist theories have now become rife in our social & political life; and the supposed crimes of "big state" and "big business" have weighed a lot in public opinion during the Covid crisis and the 2020 US elections. But who is responsible for this situation? As another reviewer has noted, there is an analogy between "Black Box" and "Three days of the Condor" (1975). For almost fifty years now, directors and scriptwriters have taken the evils of big state and big business as a matter of course -starting in Hollywood, soon followed by the rest of the world.

This makes for entertaining films, but is it socially responsible? We all now that over time dripping droplets can drill a hole in the strongest granite! And the paradoxical thing is that the dangers of conspiracy theories will soon become the hallmark of many blockbusters: The essence of Hollywood is a charming and dangerous irresponsibility. __ .

Apart from a few concessions to the conventional mores of our times, as noted by another reviewer, this movie is astonishingly faithful to Balzac's austere and moving book: the story, the actors, the atmosphere are those I had in my imagination while reading the book.

Some reviewers have focused on the avarice of Félix Grandet; in the book, Félix is definitely a miser, but first of all a ruthless business operator who, inter alia, manages to squeeze the Parisian creditors of his late brother in a masterly manner.

My interest focuses on Eugenie. She is a strong character; not being rebellious she is unbending to the will of her father. She has been born and raised in the austerity of Provincial life, and her cousin Charles has been the only ray of sunlight in her trite existence. And there is a special complicity between the three women, Eugénie, her mother and the servant, in the face of the tyrannical master of the house, a complicity which makes life bearable.

When Charles is unmasked as an egregious liar about the promises he had made to Eugenie, her dream is shattered and she knows this is irredeemable ; she then has a gesture of true grandeur!

One can interpret this movie - and the book - as a faithful rendition of the condition of women in the early XIXth century, subservient in body and possessions but independent in their soul. Many of Balzac's writings in "La Comédie humaine" are an exploration of the feminine mind, and in this Balzac is a very modern writer.

There is a French word for this film : "jubilatoire"! The themes addressed are all very sensitive within the French political and cultural scenery, and they are treated with a rejoicing carelessness. Some reviewers have derided - sometimes violently - this depiction of a "melting pot à la Française"; I find this unfair. The melting pot in France is a reality, although there definitely are tensions.

The miracle of this film is that it contrives funny situations from serious subjects, and thus manages to slip under the pall of political correctness which has invaded the French scene and is starting to get on the nerves of many.

Viewing "Le nom des gens" (The Names of Love - a misnomer title) is a welcome relief, a breath of fresh air. Of course, the two lead actors - Sara Forestier and Jacques Gamblin - immensely help by their talent for a natural acting not devoid of tenderness. __ .

I have just watched "Apocalypse Now Final Cut" (2hrs 50mn of it) after having watched the original release more than 40 years ago. I must say I have been totally gripped by this so-called "Redux" version.

I have read quite a number of the viewer's comments & I do not share the opinion of those who do not like the "Final cut". For me, this version is - in spite of its length - better than the original release.

The obvious reason is that the screenplay of the film is made more powerful by becoming at last understandable! In the original release there were so many cuts that the progression of the story was almost impossible to fully understand.

A more diffuse reason is that this film is not the tale of a "hit and run" military operation: it is a journey into the mind of a man who is fascinated by the study of the mind of the man he is sent to execute; the progressive acquaintance of Willard with the file of Kurtz cannot be rushed without depriving the film of some of its meaning.

Similarly, the final events in the Montagnard's base under Kurtz command gain considerably by not being rushed: this makes for a deeper comprehension of the sequence.

I understand why several reviewers have been made uneasy by the Plantation sequence. Being French, I too was uneasy at the disagreements openly expressed in the Planter's family and the whining about Dien Bien Phu. But, although it might have been handled better, there is a reason why Coppola has included this sequence in the screenplay: The itinerary of Kurtz has many similarities with that of a number of French officers in the Expeditionary Force who were totally committed to winning the war, up to the point of emulating the tactics of their Vietminh foe - seeking to intimidate by cold blooded cruelty, but also seeking to win hearts and minds by adopting the mores and mindset of the population of their assigned district.

This "Indochinese syndrome" is exactly what has seized Kurtz, and one can better understand the order to have him killed when one thinks that several French officers of a similarly misguided extreme devotion to their self-defined duty have rebelled later (in Algeria) against their legitimate government! __ .

A delicious movie! Thirty years ago, I saw it on TV but could not catch the title. I remained puzzled for ten years until, in a chance meeting, I could describe the synopsis to a film critic who said: Oh, it's obvious. This is Avanti!

Billy Wilder, in adapting to the screen this Samuel A. Taylor play, was at the apex of his trade. The dialogues are both witty and tender, and well served by Jack Lemmon and Juliet Mills (who had to put on fifteen pounds to conform with the scenario - and in spite of this kept a lovely figure). The scenery is great, as one could expect from Naples; the music is mellow. But the best asset of this film is in the various adventures of this quintessential Wasp Wendell Ambruster (Jack Lemmon) with the hotel manager Carlucci (Clive Revill), his staff, the populace of Ischia, and the Italian way of life in general.

The mischievous Wilder manages to turn upside down the viewer's preconceptions about American efficiency vs Italian purported lack of such. In the film, the intrigue moves on with clockwork precision from catastrophe to catastrophe, but Carlucci's ingenuity always manages to wiggle through.

There is a bevy of succulent details, too numerous to parse, e.g.: the Italian peasant who refuses a check in dollars - that was just after President Nixon's 1971 decision to unpeg the dollar from gold -; and the remark of Pamela about Wendell's socks - a true Wasp can't think of wearing them of any other color!

But the main argument of the film is the progressive conversion of Wendell & Pamela to the Italian "douceur de vivre": a treat. __ .

Other comments I have read in this "User's column" are harsh on the character of Jean-Louis Trintignant as President. It is true that Trintignant overplays a bit, but not by much!

He does not make his impersonation of the President repulsive - at least by my French standards -, although he could have omitted the temper tantrums which (concerning Mitterrand) are implausible.

The depiction of a powerful President living in the trappings of the Republic is milk and honey to a Frenchman who has lived the Mitterrand years. François Mitterrand was a complex and secretive man, very smart and cultivated, devoted to serving his country, faithful in his friendships, but utterly ruthless when political matters were at stake and enjoying every morsel of his power. Although not entirely faithful, I find his depiction by Trintignant quite plausible on the whole.

And Serrault - giving a wonderful portrait as Interior Minister and lifelong friend of the President - could have many models: Michel Poniatowski (Interior Minister under Giscard) comes to mind.

___ .

Now (in 2022), this film is exactly fifty years old; It is almost a museum piece, a testimony of a bygone era! Of course, the comments of the other viewers are pertinent: the songs are good, most of the actors are good (& Bernard Blier is excellent), there are hilarious moments and the general atmosphere of the film exsudes the irreverent and carefree seventies. In one scene ("Cene"?) of the movie, some may have missed that it is literally a 'cut and paste' of Leonardo Da Vinci's very famous painting "The last supper"...

But there is a serious aspect to all this. Jean Yanne (in spite of his uncouthness, which may be repulsive to some) and Gérard Sire (his dialogue-writing partner for this film, who in 'real life' was an outstanding radio host) were two authentic artists, and as such were able to capture the deep-running mood of the general French public of their days. This mood (which they contributed to uncover long before it became widespread) was "derision".

Derision is not solely cynicism. In its French variety, it is a complex turn of mind in which nothing is important, no authority is respectable, no act has consequences; and at the same time I (the derisive individual) know all the answers, can pass all judgments, and can dismiss any and all opposing views without need for refutation.

There has been in France - between the '70s and the '90s, and even up to the '00s decade - a spirit of derision which has pervaded society and contributed to a gradual decrease in the usefulness and credibility of the political debate. The media which has embodied this "spirit of derision" for thirty years and more has been the TV channel "Canal plus", launched in 1984.

"Tout le monde il est beau, tout le monde il est gentil" is thus a kind of signpost for times that have not changed for the better. ___ .

Those who assert that this film is anti-Catholic seem not to try to understand what was at stake!

In the fifties, an unwanted pregnancy was in most cases an absolute catastrophe. There was abortion, a traumatic and - if performed in clandestinity - potentially life-threatening experience. For those who gave birth but - for one reason or another - had no means of support, a convent was a refuge; and for the convent it was a sacred mission to provide an alternative to abortion. Quite separately from its religious nature, the mission of the convent was quite the same as that of an adoption agency.

According to the prevailing views of the times, adoption was a viable and humane solution: for the children who would be raised in a well-to-do family with prospects of a better life; for the mothers who would pursue their life unburdened by a child out of wedlock; for the convent who would be able to finance hosting the girls and their children (for up to several years) with the proceeds of adoption fees. But such an explicit justification of the role of the convent is totally absent of Stephen Frears' film.

The role of an adoption agency is fraught with moral dilemmas. The wishes of the stakeholders: the child (and the family he may later start), the biological mother (and her family), the adoptive parents (and their families) may be conflicting and may vary over the elapsing decades.

Now (in 2022) the conventional wisdom may be that adopted persons have a 'right' to know their origin; but this is by no means morally and juridicially obvious. In France, for example, there is a procedure of ''childbirth under X'' (i.e. Under Jane Doe identity) which is irrevocable after a two months retraction period: the mother cannot access future information about her child and the child - in the future - won't have access to information about his or her biological mother. This is certainly quite painful for adoptees, but it may well be the lesser evil.

Of course, perceptions of what is morally right do vary over time, and laws are also subject to variations. But these variations create a conundrum for adoption agencies: what if the laws and practices presently enacted are in conflict with the solemn pledges made by the various stakeholding parties at the time of adoption?

The nuns of the convent at Roscrea have decided on a radical solution to this conundrum: they have burned their archives! This is a debatable but defensible decision, in line with the respect of their past commitments.

Sephen Frears is respectful of the various attitudes which can occur on this sensitive subject. I do not think his movie condemns the convent; but the Martin Sixsmith character definitely does!

___ .

The last words of Lance Corporal Dawson in the Tribunal : "We were supposed to fight for people who could not fight for themselves" take an eerie resonance when this excellent film is viewed four days after the invasion of Ukraine. __ .

Roger Ebert, writing in 1985 shortly after its first appearance, gave this film his highest mark; Almost forty years later, one can safely call it a masterpiece. Who cares about the slow pace, when it contributes to make the story so gripping and the lush scenery and wildlife so fascinating. A testimony of a bygone era, recounted with sensitivity and restraint. __ .

This is my third viewing, and I am discovering that the more one sees this film, the more one is driven to like it. This - plus being a dedicated fan of Arcand - explains my 10/10 grade. On this third viewing I concentrated on the plot which is brilliant. Contrary to some of the other reviewers, I find this plot quite plausible, particularly for the police work which is impeccable. The only flaw I find with the plot is not during the film but 'after' the film: I can't see how the protagonists could go on living in Canada with their money abroad - the police would continue to watch them and soon find a way to nail them. But after all, they could either move to Switzerland an enjoy their money or remain in Canada and live happily on shoestrings: "Vivre d'amour et d'eau fraîche", as the saying goes! Anyway, the plot is not the only asset of the film; the actors are brilliant too. __ .

This movie originates from a comic strip "Tanguy et Laverdure" where the former is the 'all-American' (sorry, 'all-French') character and the latter is the happy-go-lucky clodhopper with a heart of gold!

No wonder the plot is at times implausible, occasionally verging on the slapstick (e.g. The Go-Go girl episode, or the Stearman tracting a giant condom...); Less jingoistic than "Top Gun" (the French characters do not always appear to be the best & brightest...) and with as many sex-interest scenes but treated more lightly.

The gist of this movie is in the airplane sequences (all in RR - real reality) which will delight AvGeeks and even those who simply like to watch sleek airplanes in flight. Of course, just as in "Top Gun", the fighters move implausibly close in dogfights for reasons of camera shooting angles.

Overall a surprisingly entertaining flick! ___ .

Three of the actors playing the four main characters have played in "Tendre Poulet" a sweet, eminently watchable movie. But in this sequel ("On a volé la cuisse de Jupiter") the mayonnaise is stale!

The recipe,though, is genuine de Broca: a slapstick comedy in gorgeous settings with lots of action; but the ingredients are not of the required quality. The script is unbelievable, the action scenes are sluggish, and the characters are so much billhook-cut that the actors don't even try to save the film!

Too bad! There are many de Broca films which are fun to watch, this one is not one of them.

___ .

It takes (at least) two viewings to understand this movie; but it is gripping from the first minute of the first viewing because all the actors are so good! Definitely a great performance from Clooney & Swinton.

"Enfants du siècle" does'nt really mean "Children of the Century", as for the contemporaries it was obvious that it meant "Heirs of the Napoleonic Saga".

This generation, Hugo, Dumas,, Musset, Nerval, Lamartine and Vigny was obsessed by the sad perception that they could not lead the heroïc, larger than life existence experienced by their fathers during the Revolution and Empire - a period (or shortly thereafter) during which they were born. They - and Aurore Dupin de Francueil (aka George Sand) with them - sought vicariously to find fame and glory in literature, particularly in theatre which was the « 7th art » of those days, and in forms of "original living" which would not surprise those reading now on the antics of 'world famous' people. In those days, that was called « Romantism ».

All of them succeeded in literature; but - even though in those days novels, essays, tales, and poems were keenly read - theatre was the big thing: a kind of Hollywood on Seine! And the successful theatre writers and performers had a fame akin to that of our Hollywood stars of today.

So this film should be seen as the biopic of two larger than life "Hollywood stars".

No surprise that passions, drugs, unfaithfulnesses and manifestations of an enormous ego are sprinkled liberally in this film. One may think of the Burton and Taylor duet, but with a wittier and more intellectual bent.

Musset, fabulously talented, has left immortal poems and several theatre pieces which have been rediscovered in the XXth century and which will last; but he has sadly wasted his talent in alcohol (absinthe mainly), drugs and philandering, prostitutes included; he died at 47.

Sand has been the more resilient of the two. She died at 71, a busy grandmother fond of country life, a true precursor of the cause of women's freedom in terms of choosing her (sometimes Saphic) lovers, espousing political causes, and communing with nature.

Sand's "original" life is her real masterpiece; it has a very modern tone. Her writings are numerous and charming, but for me, the literary genius of the two is Musset: most of his writings are masterpieces, even though his life has been a shambles.

It is no surprise then that Diane Kurys takes Sand as her lead character, against a despondent and weak Musset. And I quite understand why - to some reviewers - they both appear boorish, selfish and inspiring few sympathy. But - keeping in mind that Musset and Sand ooze talent and are their generation's Hollywood superstars - you may enjoy this well crafted biopic.

___ .

As a non-German and a non-lawyer, I've had reservations about writing about this film.

But I am born in 1944, and one of the first books I've had in hands, borrowed at around age five from my grandmother's library, was a book of photographs taken in the German death camps during the war, including photos of lampshades made of human skin.

I could not forgive the Germans for these camps, and this was also personal: my godfather, seized as he was attempting a crossover to Spain for joining the Free French, had died in one of them. At age 18, in the Paris metro, I saw a young man who was so obviously German that - on a sudden impulse - I asked him; and I was astonished to see his face suddenly beaming : up to then, it had not come to my mind that one could be proud to be German.

So this matter of the war guilt of the Germans is for me a deep question to which I have not been able to give an answer during these last 70 years ; and this movie « The Reader » which is superbly played, has helped me on the matter, but only for discovering new viewpoints on the question.

Now for the part including SPOILERS.

This is my fourth viewing, since - as in all very good films - I discover new aspects at each session. For the first three, my attention was concentrated on the character of Hanna Schmitz, & I had noted how a well-meaning event (her promotion to a desk job within Siemens) had drastically changed her life. But still, the mystery remains - as has been noted by countless writers including Primo Levi - : how could ordinary Germans, living in the camps alongside the "Untermensch" detainees, be so callous as having utter disregard for the life of these human beings ?

Now, during the fourth viewing, my attention has been concentrated on the character of Michael Berg. The pivotal moment is when, during the trial, he asks for a visit to Hanna Schmitz but turns heels in the courtyard while she is waiting for him.

This turn is a double betrayal for Michael : a first betrayal of the woman he has loved just a few years ago and whose imprisoned life he could shorten ; and a second betrayal of the law profession, his calling, since his University professor has clearly stated to him that his duty was to inform the tribunal of any yet-unknown fact which could influence the proceedings.

It would be interesting to read an article or watch a video in which the screenwriters (David Hare & Bernhard Schlink) would explain the various strands of the inner conflict in Michael Berg's mind. My own interpretation is simple, but possibly misguided : Horrified by the discovery of Hannah's past, Michael could not brig himself to do anything that might partly exonerate Hanna and induce the tribunal to give her a lighter sentence.

The movie events unfold as if Michael has substituted himself to the tribunal and engineered the life sentence that - brilliant student lawyer as he is - he knows will be inflicted upon the leader of the SS female guards unit.

In my view, Michael has perfectly understood that the post-war German judicial system exonerates those who have followed orders, however atrocious these orders have been, and concentrates on the "scapegoats", i.e. Those who can be demonstrated having given orders.

Thus the conundrum of Michael : if there is no scapegoat, all the guards will have a light sentence ; if he does not speak, at least the trial will have for one of the perpetrators a punishment somewhat more commensurate with the crimes committed - but it is Hanna who will be the scapegoat.

In this interpretation, the wish of Hanna not to have her illiteracy revealed is a red herring used by Michael to give himself a good conscience. But it does not work, and Michael Berg's conscience is remorseful for the next twenty years (and more) of his life, for having exerted justice on his own.

__ .

This is a film which is worth viewing several times, for - like in a good novel - interesting details appear at each new viewing. By the way, the eponymous novel by Roger Vercel is excellent! This is my fourth viewing and this time I have been fascinated by the story of Jean Erlane (played by Pierre Val), the son of a good family with a Naval officer father and an Aviation pilot brother who both died fighting for France. Jean, who himself volunteered to join the Army, proved in action to be an irrepressible coward - to the point of being condemned to death by a Court Martial for desertion and transmittal of secrets to the enemy. The delicate matter of cowardice as a medical condition is approached, but obliquely. The reconstitution of the fateful night when Jean Erlane went to the Bulgarian lines, made on-site by the three men implicated in his trial - Samuel Le Bihan (as Lt Norbert, his prosecutor), Claude Brosset (as Father Dubreuil, his defensor), and Philippe Torreton (as Capt. Conan, the combat expert and witness of the night's events) -, is a magnificent moment of cinema. The whole movie is an excellent depiction of Army life during a war, with its glorious moments, its awful massacres, its long periods of tedium in far away places, its comical episodes and its instances where troops become unruly, at times up to the point of utter banditry. The main actors are all very good in their roles as officers, belonging to a generation where all male Frenchmen were familiar with things military, having undergone compulsory service (and for some of them the war in Algeria); but maybe Claude Rich (as Gen. Pitard de Lauzier), somewhat overplays his part of an inept and exasperating General! The filming of Bertrand Tavernier is very realistic and one gets gripped by the story, so that the two hours pass like a breeze. ___ .

There is here a mixed bag of reviews - many from submariners and former submariners - either praising to the skies "Le chant du loup" for the inventiveness and geopolitical plausibility of its scenario, or on the contrary outlining the inaccuracies and implausibilities of specific scenes in this same scenario. I think both types of reviewers are right, but that 'malgré tout' the film is a gripping work of art!

I have a submarine Naval architect training (now obsolete after fifty years) and have briefly served on a sub in the French Navy; so I can understand the objections of implausibility; the three main ones are: the "RPG" episode (at the beginning), the "sneaking in the bunker" episode (near the middle) and the "DPV" episode (near the end). Ludicrous indeed is the idea that the Captain of a sub would - at a critical juncture - leave the command of his vessel on a DPV for the sake of banging on the hull of another sub!... But the general architecture of the scenario is plausible and chilling: what if dissuasion does not work and one has to actually launch the missiles?

A Hollywood movie would have all the details down pat, thanks to a bevy of former submariners serving as consultants. The French Admiralty could easily have insisted on imposing technical consultants on Antonin Baudry; they chose not to do so and let Baudry and his actors pick by themselves what they could by sharing a submariner's life with a real crew. The result is a movie with a fresh, natural and lively atmosphere that helps getting across the serious messages. In my view a great success! Could have been a masterpiece if Baudry had been a submariner himself; but then he would not be a movie-maker. ___ .

I am at an age (75) where the concerns of this film are achingly relevant. I stumbled on it on TV during a sleepless night and could not stop watching. Other reviewers have written about the stunning performance of Daniel Auteuil and Catherine Deneuve, one of their best for both of them. But I'd like to stress the magnificent acting of Marthe Villalonga (who received a Cesar for her performance). She is dignified, poignant and true. A pity she was for a long time handed slightly debasing comical roles! She would have deserved better in her career, and Téchiné has handed her that gift ! I was also moved by the song at the beginning and the end of the movie : "Malaika" is the most beautiful love song ever written. ___ .

The "blanche-2" review starts with the old joke saying that "Paris has never been defended"; maybe a good joke but a historical untruth! Since the end of the Roman Empire, Paris has been besieged by Attila (461), by Childeric Ist (465), and by Clovis (494). During the Viking invasions, Paris has been attacked in 845, 856, 857, 866 & 876, then besieged during two years (885-887) when the Franks under Eudes, count of Paris, did defend successfully the city; but in the end the Emperor (Charles le Gros) chose to pay off the Vikings. The 978 siege, by Emperor Otton II was thwarted by Hugues Capet. During the Hunded years war, Paris was besieged eight times (by the Burgundians, the English and the French); eventually reclaimed for King Charles VII by Marshal Ambroise de Loré. Let us forget the sieges of Paris during the internecine wars (Guerre du Bien public, 1465; Guerres de Religion, 1567, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591; and Guerre de la Fronde, 1649).

In 1814, after the defeat of Napoleon during the campaign of France, Paris was energetically defended (6'000 dead) but Marshal Marmont soon capitulated; after which the Russian Emperor Alexander Ist opted for the return of the Bourbon Kings. In 1815, at the end of the Hundred days, Paris was only briefly defended. Napoleon's Marshals signed an Armistice three weeks after Waterloo: the Emperor had been persuaded to abdicate, and the restoration of Louis XVIII had been masterfully engineered by Fouché and Talleyrand. During the 1870-1871 war, Paris was besieged unsuccessfully for six months by the Prussians. When the French government signed the peace (march 1871), the much bombarded but still untaken Paris revolted under the leadership of the Paris Commune. The siege became that of the Government army against the 'Communards' (at least 7'000 dead), with the Prussians watching by. The 1914-1918 war, demonstrated that the fortified redoubts around Paris would have been useless, had the German army been able to come close to them. Accordingly, a law was voted (1919) to dismantle the fortifications: the city became utterly indefensible - save for a "house to house guerilla" retarding action.

The city in 1940 was never meant to be defended; it was evacuated by the French government early June and declared "Open city"(June 11, '40) - in the same way as have been Brussels ('40), Oslo ('40), Belgrade ('41), Rome ('43) and Athens ('44). In 1944, the Allied armies did not intend to penetrate Paris, not wishing to be glued in "house to house fighting". The decision to send in two divisions (French 2d Armored Div., Gen. Leclerc de Hautecloque; American 4th Infantry Div., Gen. Raymond O. Barton) occurred several days after the revolt of Paris (Interior 'Resistants', Police forces, and the ill-armed populace) and was only taken by Gen. Eisenhower after a strong political request by de Gaulle - who feared a massacre in Paris, similar to the one which was occurring in Warsaw this same month of August '44.

Thus Paris was for a few days on the brink of catastrophe, and this is the subject of the play turned into this excellent film by Volker Schlöndorff. There is a striking similarity between « Diplomatie » and another play turned into a film: « Le Souper » (1992, with Claude Brasseur as Fouché and Claude Rich as Talleyrand). A lively dialogue within closed doors and windows; the subject is the 1815 invasion of Paris by the Allies: what next? Fouché and Talleyrand discuss alternatives. But the focus of "Le Souper" is power, that of "Diplomacy" is moral decency.

Even for a Parisian interested in history, there are things to be learnt from « Diplomacy » - in particular what would have been the consequences of a blowup! But this history is to be "learnt with a grain of salt": Obviously some artistic latitude has been used to strengthen the intrigue (of the play and of the parallel film script) - save for some actual WWII footage. This does not distort the general picture of the immense good resulting from the negotiation carried out between Von Choltitz and his counterparts, Raoul Nordling and the Mayor of Paris, Pierre-Charles Taittinger. Still, the unanswered question for this viewer is: how much romanced is the history in this gripping and masterfully played film? ___.

This film is at least 60 years overdue, and this is due in part to a whole French generation living in the "shame of defeat" - a shame that has only slowly been overcome through historical research showing that the « Strange Defeat » (Marc Bloch) was in fact a « Strange Victory » (Ernest May), the result of a brilliant educated guess by the German General staff that the "decision loop" of the French command would be too slow to counteract a risky Ardennes breakthrough.

For the last 60 years, we French have been inundated with films glorifying the Anglo-American war, with only episodic reenactments of the European resistance movements ("The Guns of Navarone", "The Train", "The Heavy Water War", and a few others). At last, this is a thoroughly researched film which gives a true historical perspective of the French Resistance seen from within.

The film is by no means as gripping as Melville's "Army of Shadows", but one still gets the "look and feel" of what it was to be a Free French and an Interior Resistant in those days, along with nurturing the hopes for a better postwar society which were shared by all of the Resistance movements - a common credo which had to coexist with day-to-day political infighting for who would steer the future of France.

Not a masterpiece, but a honest and valuable film. I'm not at all sure that it will be an export triumph ! But as it stands, it will be invaluable for teaching the future generations what it meant for the French patriots to live and fight - however subterraneously - through this period ! _.

This movie has an excellent script excellently played. The theme is somewhat along that of the calypso song "Shame and scandal in the family"; but in several instances, events in the intrigue are only suggested. One episode which non-French viewers unfamiliar with WW II history may find difficult to fully understand is when Stanislas (the father) explains to his daughter Sonia (the only one yet with children) why the little red wooden horse he hands her (to transmit to her son) is an important and significant gift. Stanislas reminisces about this Christmas night of 1942 when, fleeing with his parents the Nazi persecution of the Jews, he was hosted by a French family in a village of the Alps, near the Swiss border. In spite of the dramatic circumstances, the Catholic villagers gave the poor refugees a Christmas dinner and in the morning their children found very simple gifts (such as the red wooden horse) under the tree. It was to be for Stanislas the most wonderful Christmas of his life. The next evening, the refugees were led (by the father of the host family) across the Swiss border, to safety and freedom. This is the underlying message of the film : all these four adult children whose life the film depicts would not have been born if, one Christmas night, good men and women had not done their part against evil. _.