Truffaut's study of a middle-aged man losing his way in life in the age-old fashion is caught in a mesmerizing series of quick-succession shots and sympathetically-captured quotidian details. An unthinking, self-assured man; his wounded, passionate wife; his sweet, vulnerable lover; an inevitable tragedy. This underrated film has no real surprises, but its sure-footedness is impressive and the simple story ultimately very moving.
Add a Review
-
jdeferrari17 December 2003
-
Imagine how director François Truffaut felt at the Cannes premiere of this film as more than half the audience walked out. In terms of audience approval, "La peau douce" was Truffaut's big disaster. Why did audiences hate it so much? For the exact reasons that it is a landmark film.
1. The main character is not very likeable; he's almost completely expressionless even though this is a love story. 2. Certain events happen in a way that isn't exactly realistic: an elevator takes nearly 2 minutes to travel up 5 floors but only 15 seconds on the way down. 3. Certain events happen without any dialogue or explanation, just a succession of close ups showing objects and activity. But these 3 points are very deliberate, and they are what make "La peau douce" such a tremendous work of art.
1. Why is the main character not likeable? As Truffaut said, this film is "an autopsy of adultery". The story is about a respectable man with a meticulously perfect life who engages in a very imperfect affair. Truffaut wanted to present everything as objectively as possible so that we can analyze all the elements without the prejudice of sentimentality. So he made the lead actor Jean Desailly play the role of "Lachenay" with neutrality; we sense deep emotion, but there are no melodramatic scenes of outward expression as we've come to expect in love stories. If you think about it, isn't that how most people's love lives are? We don't usually get dramatic closeups with soft lighting and complimentary filters. An objective observer woudn't necessarily sympathize with what we're feeling but rather would scrutinize our actions & choices. And as far as that goes. Lachenay makes some pretty bad ones.
2. How realistic is the storytelling? At times, not very. But this style is one of the greatest examples of "hyper realism" which is something Truffaut learned from his mentor and idol Alfred Hitchcock. For example in the elevator scene, time is stretched on the way up, intensifying the first meeting between Lachenay and Nicole (excellently played by Françoise Dorléac, the carefree, outgoing sister of Catherine Deneuve). Only a handful of words are said, but in true Hitchcockian form it's a very suspenseful and portentous scene that deserves its full 2 minutes. The same elevator ride down, with Lachenay alone, is designed to give us contrast and return us to the realistic world as the 5-floor descent is shown in real time, only 15 seconds.
3. Dude where's the dialogue? It's there, but sometimes it's conspicuously absent like in the entire seduction scene which consists of a wordless walk down a hotel hallway, a fumbling for some keys, a lingering stare, hands touching as a door is opened, one hand turning on the light while another hand turns it off, and finally a magnificent dark silhouette of 2 people facing each other. Fade to black. Did we really need any dialogue to understand exactly what was going on in their heads? No, we didn't even need any facial expressions. Again drawing an idea from his hero Hitchcock, even taking the idea into new territory, Truffaut fully embraced the idea of image based storytelling. (In his letter of introduction to Hitch, Truffaut closed by saying that if all movies were suddenly silent again, then Hitchcock would prove himself the greatest storyteller of all time.)
A quick note about the ending (NO SPOILERS) because half a dozen other reviewers seem to have a problem with it: Um you guys realize that the ending was taken from an event that actually happened in real life, right? Look it up (AFTER the film)!
There are so many other gems in this film worth mentioning, but my review would drag on for hours, and that time is better spent with you experiencing this flick firsthand. Audiences of 1964 hated it, but now looking back some 70 years, we realize that "La peau douce" is a masterpiece. -
claudio_carvalho23 July 2006While traveling to Lisbon for a lecture, the famous middle-aged writer, publisher and lecturer Pierre Lachenay (Jean Desailly) has one night stand with the young Panair do Brasil stewardess Nicole (Françoise Dorleac). Pierre becomes obsessed with flight attendant and schedules to travel with her to Reims for a lecture. Pierre hides his affair from his unbalanced wife Franca Lachenay (Nelly Benedetti), trying to spare their little daughter Sabine Lachenay (Sabine Haudepin) from a separation.
Pierre becomes obsessed with Nicole, misunderstanding her feelings and expectations, and decides to leave Franca to live with her. Meanwhile the unbalanced Franca finds a receipt of photos in Pierre's jacket and gets the evidence that Pierre is unfaithful to her, in the beginning of the tragic end of their relationship.
Many of François Truffault's movies are autobiographic or deals with problems in the communications of love. "La Peu Deuce" is a wonderful and tragic romance, with magnificent interpretations and stunning cinematography.
In the hands of another director, this movie could be a corny melodramatic story; in the hands of Truffault, this little gem becomes a credible, melancholic and intense love story of a weak man, probably in a middle-age crisis, and certainly having problems with his about fifteen years of marriage, that does not see the real intentions of his lover, and destroys his family and himself with his attitude. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Um Só Pecado" ("Just One Sin")
Note: On 17 October 2011, I saw this film again. -
gtzam17 September 2003Truffaut filmed La Peau Douce immediately after the international success of "Jules et Jim". Released at the heyday of the nouvelle vague, critics and audiences panned the film as a futile resort to bourgeois classicism after the unconventional antics of his previous masterwork.
They could not have been more mistaken. Time has treated La Peau Douce better than most of his later efforts. It is definitely a triumph of direction with each scene being carefully planned and meticulously structured, not unlike a Hitchcock movie. In practice, Truffaut transposes Hitchcock's mechanisms of suspense into a seemingly trivial story concerning the illicit love affair of a distinguished editor/author with a younger stewardess and its withering consequences. The characters and the milieu of the story are effortless evoked, but the main joy is derived from the visual inventiveness that Truffaut shows in scene after scene. It's a triumph of a purely cinematic mode of expression, which Truffaut was one of the few who had really mastered it. -
andrabem1 July 2008Pierre Lachenay (Jean Desailly) is a successful writer. He is leaving Paris for Lisbon to give a conference on "Balzac et l'argent". On the flight to Lisbon he feels instant attraction for a beautiful flight stewardess. In Lisbon he'll discover that he's staying at the same hotel as her. Pierre wastes no time and gets to know her. Her name is Nicole (Françoise Dorléac). She is spontaneous and easy-going, but it's easy to detect the romantic streak in her. They start an affair right there in Lisbon. She gives him her Paris telephone number. He calls her. They meet. In Paris their relationship grows in intensity.
Pierre is a married man. His wife is also a good-looking woman and he has a 10-year-old daughter that loves him (as does his wife). Pierre is an intellectual with an organized life, maybe having had some flings here and there, but nothing that really threatened the comfortable foundations of his life. But now he has met Nicole. And Nicole represents everything that Pierre had never really experienced before: she has a real "joie de vivre" but underneath it, there is pain, and above all, strength - the strength to overcome sadness and start all over again, that is, to live right here and now.
Pierre, on the other hand, as an intellectual, lives a life of compromises. His wife, Franca (Nelly Benedetti), loves him and has a strong personality. She knows exactly what she wants and is determined to fight for it. Pierre is between two strong women. He loves Nicole - she has opened a new life, a new world for him. Will he follow his heart? And where will his heart lead him? I think that "La Peau Douce" is one of the more personal films made by Truffaut. It has a psychological subtlety not displayed in his later works (be it his later Antoine Doinel films, his literary adaptations, or his homages - to Hitchcock, Jean Renoir etc..). Never again would Truffaut reach the depth of "La Peau Douce".
"La Peau Douce" reveals understanding (and tenderness) for all the characters, but alongside these traits there's also a bitter irony and even some touches of dark comedy. The characters are shown in all their weaknesses and beauty. In later Truffaut films the tenderness would be the prevailing feature - the irony would come along in a watered-down form. -
Xstal19 January 2023On a business trip to Lisbon you're distracted, by a stewardess you find rather attractive, so you take a chance and call, as she's staying down the hall, it's a tangent that will mean, your life's refracted. You're consumed with all the flushes of desire, she's igniting all the flames your wife cant fire, but opportunities to meet, while remaining quite discreet, when back in Paris, leaves you shackled in the mire. A business trip to Reims provides a chance, to take Nicole, and to enjoy some more romance, get some privacy at last, break your circumstantial fast, though best laid plans may leave you looking more askance.
A well-known publisher has an affair that delivers considerably more than he bargained for. Great performances and original for its time. -
AlsExGal28 January 2023French drama from writer-director Francois Truffaut. A respected author and lecturer (Jean Desailly) has an affair with a young stewardess (Francoise Dorleac).
I believe this film is deeply personal for Truffaut. He has several films about male protagonists who cheat on their wives or girlfriends (Bed and Board and The Man Who Loved Women, for example). What I like best about The Soft Skin is precisely that the affair happens because the stewardess is impressed to get involved with a minor celebrity, and he sleeps with her mainly because he can. They don't "fall in love" with each other; it's an adultery story, not a love story. Because the emotional involvement of the characters isn't very great, neither is the involvement of most of the audience. I will infer that Truffaut had more than one fling like this, but had no insight into why he did this. The subject is personal, but nothing about the presentation helped to alleviate that paucity of engagement.
Two other points: 1) Truffaut's films tend to be very one-paced. They don't usually quicken, slow down, speed up, etc. They proceed pretty much at the same pace from beginning to end. This is a real limitation. 2) I have come to believe that as much as Truffaut loved Hitchcock's films, as a director he learned absolutely nothing from him. Hitchcock is a master of pacing. The best moments in Truffaut's films usually come from a realist aesthetic that is the opposite of Hitchcock's master manipulation of genre and audience. -
fflambeau30 January 2012Too bad this superb and suspenseful movie has such an inaccurate synopsis written for it. The wife is not "unbalanced" in the picture; she is driven to madness by a series of seemingly random events, just as her husband's life unravels for the same reasons. This movie has a strong noir element to it with the femme fatal being the seductive air line hostess who attracts the attention of a successful writer/artist by the name of Pierre Lachenay, brilliantly acted by Jean Desailly. Fate is important in the outcome as it is in all noirs. The beautiful music has a driving, fatalistic theme to it that is repeated from beginning to end. Moreover, a series of random events, especially concerning near misses and misses in time, dictates the outcome. Lachenay almost misses his plane to Lisbon, he almost misses the air hostess in her hotel (at first she spurns him), he almost misses her again when they are back in Paris, he goes to the airport again and seemingly misses her only to meet her because her own plans have changed. Tellingly, he later misses calling his wife by seconds because another woman (how revealing is that?) occupies the sole phone booth at the restaurant he's at. He cannot reach her and misses by a few seconds; note the time the director uses on this scene where the wife's maid is called to the phone, asked to check the stairway to see if the wife is still about, and asked to see if the maid can catch her in the car lot. Again fate, destiny. He misses his wife just as she has left on her fatal journey that results in his end too. So too, it is by chance that his wife finds the receipt for some developed film that she then picks up and when she sees the pictures of her husband with the air line stewardess, she goes mad so once again a seemingly random event (the finding of the film) directly results in the husband's death. I concur with other people here who have commented on the director's focus on mechanical items. I think the director focuses on them (the air line cockpit and the gas station dispenser, for instance) as a way of showing the nature of the unfolding of fate: things work a certain way and will determine a certain outcome. Press a button and there is a certain outcome; one that after something is done is not "chosen." Fate or destiny or whatever it might be called, in this movie is very strong, and the driving force here, even stronger than romantic attachments which seem fleeting and ephemeral and even stronger than family attachments, between husband and wife and parents and child. This, I believe, is the central theme of this superb movie, well acted and directed. Some professional film critics wrongly have made comparisons to Hitchcock but I do not see them. For this movie is far more introspective, far more psychological much bleaker than most Hitchcocks where, for instance, a deranged lunatic kills madly (in "Psycho") or again in "Rope" or the even weaker, "Frenzy". So too, there is no focus on discovering or catching the murderer, almost always key in Hitchcock. No, the emphasis in this movie is on why something happens, why a life changes in a major way caused by seemingly small, inevitable changes. Here, unlike in "Psycho" no one is deranged until fate dissolves relationships. The director of this movie, Truffaut, was a big fan of Orson Welles and I believe that Welles--NOT Hitchcock--was a prime source of inspiration to him. For instance, the fate theme is very strong in Welles superb "Lady from Shanghai" where the Welles character, seemingly randomly meets the femme fatale, ends up working for her and her husband, falls in love with her, and finally goes on trial for murder. Another Welles film noir, the even better "Touch of Evil" also goes into similar themes studying the utter disintegration of the corrupt law official, Hank Quinlan, brilliantly played by Welles. To understand "The Soft Skin", I believe, one must understand classic film noir and Welles. Both movies by Welles were made just a few years before this one. Contrast Truffaut's approach here (black and white film; lots of shadows; femme fatale; bleak outcome with death to the lead character) with a contemporary Hitchcock like "North by Northwest" which is playful not bleak, romantic (boy gets girl story) and optimistic throughout and especially in the ending, and is filmed in color. This movie, by contrast, has many of the elements of film noir even though it is made much later than most such films: it is shot in black and white, often with shadows and with night scenes (especially the eerie scenes in Rheims which are pivotal to the story), with a deadly (and eventually, uncaring) femme fatale, with fate decreeing the outcome of husband, wife and family. The male lead, a seemingly powerful force at the opening of the movie, has no real control over his final destiny. Another strong influence appears to be the writing of the brilliant Belgian/French author, Georges Simenon. In his books (not so much the Maigret ones but the far better stand alone novels), Simenon often looks at a turning point in people's lives and how something dissolves relationships which is exactly what happens here. Simenon and Welles, not Hitchcock, are the spring sources of Francois Truffaut's inspiration in this movie. Great acting, great directing, great music, great movie! This movie is a little appreciated gem especially by the professional critics who dwelt on the adultery aspects of the movie to the exclusion of all else.
-
preppy-319 July 2013A middle-aged married man (Jean Desailly) starts an affair with young beautiful Nicole (Francoise Dorleac). It leads to predictable complications and a real howler of an ending.
Supposedly this is considered one of Francois Truffant's worst films. When it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival back in 1964 it was a fiasco. People were bored silly, there was LOTS of shiftings in seats, a few walk-outs and people hissing at the ending! While I agree it's not a good movie it's not THAT bad! It is well-directed with some sharp observations on love and relationships. There's some beautiful black and white cinematography and excellent acting from Dorleac and Nelly Bendetti (as the man's wife). However Desailly was a terrible actor (he didn't like Truffant and it comes across loud and clear), the film is slow-moving and the ending was so over the top I thought they were kidding! It's worth seeing a little for the acting, cinematography and ending but don't expect any great masterpiece. -
jcappy22 January 2008The soft skin, or the cupidous male mind? Which comes first? This is a critical question here for the refusal to grasp it can have dire repercussions. For Pierre's eroticizing of Nicole may be natural, private, and individual but it is hardly static. For what begins in Pierre's mind, as an arrow, ends up in his own body--as a bullet.
Truffaut seems neither to blame Nicole, Franca, or Pierre for this outcome, but he undoubtedly puts the onus on Pierre. Even though to sexualize someone may seem to be a small act, it nevertheless is a form of ownership--which sets in motion an increasing demand for control, a resistance to that control, and a whirl of ensuing outcomes--which include Pierre's betrayal of both Franca and Nicole.
How does this happen? It happens because a passionless desire, or a certain mental configuration of flesh, can become a way of seeing and experiencing another as less than a subject. When Pierre questions Nicole's wearing jeans, you know he's on the downside of a fast track. When he is embarrassed by her too loud comments in a restaurant, you know he's hit the bottom. Even his age, prestige and subject status--central to his Cupid power-- have abandoned him. The truth is he has eroticized one woman out of existence, and abandoned his loyal, warm wife in the bargain.
Pierre Lachanay, as a kind of bourgeois version of Everyman, is totally believable and not the type of man who rouses ire in anyone. He's precise, articulate, shy, unlucky, and not outstanding in any way. That he ends up loveless, utterly alone, and shot would seem to crown him most sympathetic character, but in line with Truffaut's disciplined control of the action, it does not. For Franca owns the final scene and her husband's infidelity is written deep in her passional and physical being. -
gavin694227 March 2015Pierre Lachenay (Jean Desailly) is a well-known publisher and lecturer, married to Franca (Nelly Benedetti) and the father of 10-year old Sabine (Sabine Haudepin). He meets stewardess Nicole (Françoise Dorléac) and they start a hidden affair, but Pierre cannot stand staying away from her.
Glenn Heath Jr. called the film "a mesmerizing morality play detailing the machinations of adultery and their deadly consequences." That sums it up. But indeed, the French have become synonymous with love and romance (though it is not clear why, since they are also seen as smelly and hairy). Here we have a story that shows the difficult part of love: aging.
Although not appreciated in its time, the film looks beautiful and is easily on par with "Jules and Jim". -
jotix10025 July 2009Pierre Lachenay, a literary man, has lived an easy existence. He is often sought to deliver lectures by his friends in the art world. Little prepared him for the awakening he would experience when he is invited to Lisbon for a presentation. The beautiful stewardess working the first class section of the flight he almost missed, flirts openly with him. To make matters worse, she and the crew are staying in the same hotel. This presents an opportunity for an adventure that, unknown to him, will be fatal.
Pierre leads a bourgeois life in Paris. He has been married for a while to a brunette beauty, Franca, and have a young daughter, Sabine. When Pierre meets the young flight attendant, he probably thought it was going to be a quick encounter, but the allure of having the younger woman proves a fatal mistake on his part. His marriage, begins to unravel because of the lies he tells Franca. The relationship with Nicole does not go according to plan because when he decides to abandon his wife, Nicole feeling she will never be at his level, dumps him without much regret.
Franca, the spurned woman, agrees to the separation, but upon finding proof that Pierre has lied to her, blatantly, prepares a plan of action of her own. Pierre, after being rejected by Nicole, tries unsuccessfully to patch things up with Franca, but alas, it comes too late.
"The Soft Skin" was one of Francois Truffaut films that deviated from the canons of the New Wave movement. It had the feeling of being one of the typical French cinema offering where love triangles like the one at the center of the story were commonplace. This black and white picture is a nostalgic trip to that period in France, where the Paris of that era is the background for most of the action. The director gives a nod to other directors, like Jean Renoir, and others, with some small references to his peers' work. The screenplay is by Jean Louis Richard. Raoul Cotard, the cinematographer, captures the essence of the places where the story takes place in great detail. That look of the 1960s in European cinema is magical world.
The most interesting aspect of the film is Jean Desailly, an actor with boyish looks, who did fine work in his country's movie industry, as well as on the stage. He makes an impression because one can see in his face all the emotions Pierre is experiencing. Just looking at Mr. Desailly while Nicole is dancing, reveals a man whose lust for her, and her "soft skin" is tangible. Francoise Dorleac, a beautiful woman whose life was ended tragically at 25, was perfect as the stewardesses that gets involved with an older man without weighing the consequences she will cause. Nelly Benedetti, an attractive actress, plays Franca, the deceived wife. Ms. Benedetti was convincing as the wife that will not stop until she finds the right punishment for the cheating husband. -
blott2319-16 March 2021The Soft Skin could have easily been titled "The Tangled Web" or something along those lines, considering the old adage about the dangers of lying. It's an extremely straightforward story about a husband who strays with another woman, and the complexity of this new relationship. I always struggle with films about infidelity, and this was no different. I found myself constantly annoyed and frustrated with the main character. But when he encountered obstacles in his efforts to build up this affair, I was chuckling at his misfortune because I was so opposed to the entire thing from the beginning. In other words, while I was kind of annoyed that he seemed allergic to telling the truth (even when it would obviously improve his situation,) it didn't bother me so much to watch his bad choices blow up in his face.
I suppose one of the positives I could draw from The Soft Skin is the fact that it serves as a morality tale of sorts for people who might find themselves in a similar position. By addressing some of the downfalls that can come from cheating on your spouse, it can potentially teach others that it's not a road they want to go down. That's not exactly a lesson I need to learn, but I can appreciate a movie that makes it so abundantly clear for others. I can also commend the acting performances. It wasn't exactly an enjoyable experience, but part of that is because it felt real. The trio of lead actors did an admirable job of embodying their roles and making the characters authentic. I can't say I liked The Soft Skin all that much, and I probably won't recommend it, but it was effective at telling a story so others might find it considerably more impactful if they care more about this kind of plot. -
François Truffaut's fourth feature and his first true masterpiece is essentially a classic love triangle, filmed like a quiet juggernaut that eventually overwhelms all those involved. On a quick trip to Lisbon for a lecture, literary essayist Jean Desailly's eye catches the lovely Françoise Dorléac, the air hostess on his flight. Soon he's asking her out for a drink and a love affair develops in between her flights, as his married life with seductive but demanding wife Nelly Benedetti slowly unravels. Much to Truffaut's credit, there is no judgment passed on any of the characters: whether Desailly is undergoing a dreaded mid-life crisis and wishes to be young again or is merely indulging an intellectual whim, whether he really wants to prove himself he is still a man capable of passion or just looking for a way out of his stifling marriage, is entirely up to the viewer to decide. But the director doesn't avert his eye from the seedy unpleasantness of the central situation, as the masterfully extended Reims interlude and the shock ending prove. Basically, it's a film about the mess people make when they think they're in love, all the more disturbing because Truffaut bases it all on chance meetings and missed opportunities - had Desailly not arrived late for his plane to Lisbon, had Dorléac not called him back at the hotel, maybe none of this would have happened. Marvelously shot in black and white by Nouvelle Vague lenser Raoul Coutard, this was the very first film where Truffaut showed the world all he was capable of; it's a stunningly modern film on the most classic of all melodramatic stories.
-
For starters, this movie wasn't really all that successful when it first came out. Things have changed since but I think that much of the people who see it today probably wouldn't if it wasn't for the prestige the director's name enjoys today. If you wanna know what I think, it's superior to the okay but mildly disappointing 'Jules et Jim'.
This is a movie that I'd recommend to all men who can't be loyal to their girlfriends/wives. I can recommend it for two reasons, depending on each case: to men who are aware of their lack of loyalty but can't stop and yet want to learn something from that ; or to men who simply don't want to get married and have kids or don't care about taking affairs with women seriously.
This movie is well directed, fun, romantic and at the same a harsh and almost sick movie about love. The ending is so harsh and shocking, proving how love can turn to hate and just how sick love can get.
Jean Desailly and Françoise Dorléac are superb in their respective roles and despite their age difference of 20+ years they have a perfect chemistry.
This should definitely be on Top 250. -
brogmiller9 May 2020Over half a century on it seems mystifying that this fourth film of Truffaut's fared so badly on its release. Time has treated it well however and it has slowly gained in reputation and come to be regarded as one of his best. Truffaut drew upon many diverse sources for his films and this one's ending was based upon a news item he had read. Very cleverly he has taken the eternal triangle and turned it on its head. Pierre Lacheney, a professor of French literature, is far from being a serial womaniser. His lover Dominique is neither an opportunist nor a marriage breaker but eventually ends the affair because she realises there is no future in it. Lacheney's sultry and sensual wife Franca is not a woman to whom most husbands would even consider being unfaithful. Jean Desailly took the traditional route to cinema via the theatre and on paper would not be Truffaut's ideal type of actor. He is excellent as Pierre. As Franca this is undoubtedly Nelly Benedetti's finest hour. Dominique is played by the splendid Francoise Dorleac who seemed to have the world at her feet but perished in a car accident at only twenty-five. From the age of eight when he saw Abel Gance's 'Paradise Lost', film had provided the young Truffaut with escape from an unhappy childhood and he came to live and breathe cinema. Very few directors have put as much of themselves into their films as has Truffaut. His marriage at the time he made this was troubled and the Lacheney's apartment was in fact his own. Technically his films show a debt to his two acknowledged masters: Renoir and Hitchcock. This is a truly marvellous film and calls to mind Beethoven's words: 'From the heart to the heart'.
-
planktonrules15 August 2005The ending of this movie really helped to improve this movie. Most of it involved an affair between a pretty young stewardess and a famous author who looked like a very chubby version of Peter Sellars (with his glasses). I found myself not caring for him or his mistress and I thought this movie was going to glamorize adultery--I just felt sorry for the poor wife. However, its effect on this wife becomes more the focus of the last third of the movie and that's when the movie really picked up for me. After all, I am not the sort of person who LIKES movies that make adultery seem "cool"--all too often, the emotional or physical impact is irresponsibly ignored. Kudos for giving a more thorough view of its impact on all.
-
inioi30 December 2015I'm hooked about this wonderful movie.
I find it captivating, charming and yet intriguing and uncertain. And most of all: very intimate.
There are many non-spoken scenes in which, subtlety, through camera position, Truffaut makes us identify with Lachenay's role. By this means, unveils the feelings of the two main characters.
In some situations, i believe it is fair to say that words sometimes obscure and distort, so images can express by itself clearly in order to get an effective impact on the viewer.
I would have liked to know which was Truffaut's intention about Lachenay's character. I found him undecided, erratic, inconclusive and ultimately weak, behind a successful and intellectual masquerade, which in turn it could be probably a widespread attitude in such situations. As a consequence, it takes place some brilliant and suspenseful scenes in which two lovers are involved, but but only one is displayed on the screen, due to Lachenay's unwillingness to be together.
The rising tension is due to the director creates a situation in which, in the end, turns out to be unattainable.
With a clear Hitchcock's influence, it is (since my point of view), the best film of Franciose Truffaut.
9/10 -
edgeofreality2 March 2020Aside from the ending - which I'm still not sure about, I thought this film worked remarkably well. The protagonist at first got on my nerves because it was clear he was making a mistake by falling for the stewardess -though we're also led to feel it is a kind of fate drawing him further towards his doom. As their relationship developed, Truffaut uses some Hitchcockian bits of suspense to frustrate us and the hero/heroine as they struggle to find a place to be alone. By then I began to sympathise with the hero, only to learn, eventually, that he was better off being frustrated. I think the ending would have worked a bit better - be more convincing - had I come to know the wife's character better. The ending still kind of worked for me, and in retrospect I like the clockwork quality of the script: this mistake leads to that one, leads to another and another and - BOOM! Not sure why so many people disliked this film - the acting and directing are spot on as far as I can see.
-
morrison-dylan-fan26 February 2018Whilst the previous films I've seen by auteur François Truffaut have been very easy to pick up,The Soft Skin has somehow been difficult to get,with each attempt to order it ending in the DVD being sold out,or getting lost in the post. After visiting a friend I took a look round a DVD shop,and was thrilled to find 2 copies of the movie,which gave me a chance to find out how soft the skin is.
The plot:
Saying goodbye to his wife Franca and daughter Sabine, writer and literary magazine editor Pierre Lachenay gets on a flight to attend a conference. On the plane,Lachenay is unable to take his eyes off beautiful air hostess Nicole. Thinking of her when he later checks into a hotel and sets off for the conference, Lachenay is surprised to spot Nicole in the hotel lobby. Getting hold of her hotel room and phone number (!) Lachenay and Nicole begin to have an affair,that Lachenay hopes will remain confidentially yours.
View on the film:
Planned as a quick 4 week production as the rights to Fahrenheit 451 were sorted,but ending up as a flop at the box office,and causing its maker to distance himself from the French New Wave (FNW) style,co-writer/(with Jean Louis-Richard) directing auteur François Truffaut presents a swansong to this era in his credits,which gathers all the themes built up across the works. Shooting scenes in his own apartment,Truffaut & cinematographer Raoul Coutard build upon their tracking shots in Shoot the Piano player with delicate extended tracking shots round the Lachenay household, circling in on the declining state of their marriage.
Done after he had written his book on Hitchcock, Truffaut prominently uses Georges Delerue simmering score to give Nicole and Pierre's affair an atmosphere of unavoidable doom,with Truffaut continuing to use silhouettes for the most romantic scenes,and "on the streets" walk & talks revealing a disconnection between Pierre and Nicole understanding what they each desire in the relationship.Inspired by newspaper stories,tales from pals and events in their own lives,the screenplay by Truffaut and Richards trims the loved-up state of Jules and Jim for a fractured melancholy romance. Smartly making Pierre's daughter Sabine and his wife Franca (played by a wonderful Nelly Benedetti,who plants Franca's seeds of doubt in a no-nonsense way) be vocal over what Pierre is leaving behind,the writers give Pierre's love for Nicole a brittleness,where Pierre's dream of running off on the road with a young lover is hit by the reality of family life and their jobs.
Firing up a photo finish,the writers subtly shift the point of view from the Nicole and Pierre's loving state to Franca delivering her verdict from the sight she sees in the breakdown of her marriage.Coming from the "Classic" era of French cinema, Jean Desailly gives an excellent performance as Pierre, whose meek, middle-management manners are blended by Desailly with a burning wish to capture the sparks in a new relationship. Possibly being the most beautiful air hostess there has ever been, Françoise Dorléac gives an exquisite performance as Nicole,who shares Pierre's wishful state of the romance,but is given a feisty edge by Dorléac,which flowers at the touch of the soft skin. -
bandw19 January 2017There is not much original in this story of a Parisian extramarital affair. Pierre (Jean Desailly) and Franca (Nelly Benedetti) are the married couple and Nicole (Françoise Dorléac) is Pierre's love interest. Pierre is a well known editor, author, and critic. Pierre is quite famous to the extent that his appearance to give an introduction to the movie "With André Gide" draws a sellout crowd. As part of this event Pierre is expected to entertain a group of local intelligentsia at a dinner. That scene had the ring of truth and Truffaut must have written it based on the many times he had been in similar situations. I wish there had been more supporting evidence for Pierre's fame, since I was being asked to buy into it; believing it was essential, since that is the main thing that I could see that Pierre had that could attract such a woman as Nicole. Pierre comes off as a mild family man, devoted to his daily habitual pleasures. Outside of one or two scenes there was no on-screen chemistry between Desailly and Dorléac. I also found the discord between Pierre and his wife more scripted than believable. The final scene was poorly motivated.
On the positive side the Criterion Collection print is high quality, showing off the skilled use of camera angles and film contrast. Those who appreciate black and white photography should enjoy this example. There is use of quick cuts in an attempt to add some excitement to the affair, but not enough to keep this from being but a minor variation on a time-worn theme.
Coming after "The 400 Blows," "Shoot the Piano Player," and "Jules and Jim," I was hoping for more from this. -
RosanaBotafogo1 August 2021Hilarious the bad weather between the protagonist and his lover, an anti-hero of dubious character, I hoped it would end alone, because of his dislike, but I didn't expect this fantastic outcome, the couple's subtle relationship with the energy savings and switches , realistic situations in a non-consensual love triangle, Panair do Brasil, aviation pioneer, active in the film, bankrupt and impeached for political reasons... Ecclesiastes 9:18 "...one sinner destroys many goods". Wonderful movie.
-
erica-1411 August 1999This is not one of the best Truffaut but it is nevertheless a precise portrait of a "little" man, passive, without courage and unable to really choose: he will pay for that. Best sides of the movie: the rapid sketch of a small town's wealthy people, trying to be acculturate, and Francoise Dorleac really charming as the protagonist's young lover