This film is the story of a bored wife and mother (Jeanne Moreau). She lives in a lovely manor home filled with servants in the country. However, she is unhappy and her marriage is without passion. She and her husband sleep in separate bedrooms and she is bored with life. For a while, she deals with it by taking frequent trips to Paris--where she takes a lover. Yet, deep down, she's still bored. Then, out of the blue, she meets another man quite by accident--and they spend a night making love in her home--while her husband, lover and best friend sleep.
Back in the late 1950s when it was released, this film created quite a furor in the US. Because of its amoral plot involving a married woman having multiple affairs and showing nudity, it was considered obscene by many and eventually made it to the Supreme Court several years later to decide on its decency. In a landmark case, it was not considered indecent and it led the way to more explicit films being shown in the US in subsequent years. When you see it today, however, you'd never suspect any of this, as the film has almost no nudity at all--and if you are seeing it hoping for some sort of cheap thrill, you are bound to be disappointed. I saw one review that said today it would get an R-rating--heck, I could even imagine it receiving a PG-13. Yes, times have really changed.
As far as what I thought of the film, it's really a mixed bag for me. While some can look past the moral problems with the film, I couldn't. It wasn't that the sex scene bothered me--but that the main character seemed like a spoiled child. You see her put nothing into her marriage and instead of dealing with life responsibly, she screws around. It's not that she's immoral--it's more like she's amoral--with no compass to guide her or sense of responsibility or regret. And, the way the film is constructed, it appears to condone and possibly encourage these behaviors. It's sad, as the film ends on a happy note--like life will be great with her running off with a man she hardly knows. I predict in real life, in 97% of cases like these, the woman STILL will find herself bored and might eventually realize that much of the problem is within.
Now aside from my moralistic views on the film, I cannot simply dismiss the film because I didn't like the characters (and now that I think about it, I didn't like a single one of them). Artistically speaking, the film was quite brilliant. Louis Malle managed to take a threadbare story and stretch it out to 90 minutes without it becoming dull. Great cinematography, music and acting really carried the film. And, I must add that although there is almost no nudity, the sex scene is highly erotic and exceptionally well made. It managed to make adultery SEEM quite beautiful. And, because of this and its importance to US law, it makes for a must-see experience for cinephiles.
By the way, on the Criterion disc is an interesting special feature on the US release. While it's just various clips and a bit of text, seeing the posters and lobby cards for the American release was funny--and a bit sad. You'd swear that the film was MEGA-hot and full of hot, steamy sex based on these print ads--which it certainly is NOT. I am sure many seeing the film went home very disappointed.
Back in the late 1950s when it was released, this film created quite a furor in the US. Because of its amoral plot involving a married woman having multiple affairs and showing nudity, it was considered obscene by many and eventually made it to the Supreme Court several years later to decide on its decency. In a landmark case, it was not considered indecent and it led the way to more explicit films being shown in the US in subsequent years. When you see it today, however, you'd never suspect any of this, as the film has almost no nudity at all--and if you are seeing it hoping for some sort of cheap thrill, you are bound to be disappointed. I saw one review that said today it would get an R-rating--heck, I could even imagine it receiving a PG-13. Yes, times have really changed.
As far as what I thought of the film, it's really a mixed bag for me. While some can look past the moral problems with the film, I couldn't. It wasn't that the sex scene bothered me--but that the main character seemed like a spoiled child. You see her put nothing into her marriage and instead of dealing with life responsibly, she screws around. It's not that she's immoral--it's more like she's amoral--with no compass to guide her or sense of responsibility or regret. And, the way the film is constructed, it appears to condone and possibly encourage these behaviors. It's sad, as the film ends on a happy note--like life will be great with her running off with a man she hardly knows. I predict in real life, in 97% of cases like these, the woman STILL will find herself bored and might eventually realize that much of the problem is within.
Now aside from my moralistic views on the film, I cannot simply dismiss the film because I didn't like the characters (and now that I think about it, I didn't like a single one of them). Artistically speaking, the film was quite brilliant. Louis Malle managed to take a threadbare story and stretch it out to 90 minutes without it becoming dull. Great cinematography, music and acting really carried the film. And, I must add that although there is almost no nudity, the sex scene is highly erotic and exceptionally well made. It managed to make adultery SEEM quite beautiful. And, because of this and its importance to US law, it makes for a must-see experience for cinephiles.
By the way, on the Criterion disc is an interesting special feature on the US release. While it's just various clips and a bit of text, seeing the posters and lobby cards for the American release was funny--and a bit sad. You'd swear that the film was MEGA-hot and full of hot, steamy sex based on these print ads--which it certainly is NOT. I am sure many seeing the film went home very disappointed.