My first Ophuls, and 5 minutes in I thought this was a 5 star film - the movement of camera and bodies in conjunction in the opening scenes took my breath away. Unfortunately, much of the film takes place in locations (like, say, a train) that don't necessarily acquit to Ophuls' strengths here, although there are some other stunning scenes (the church, ascending the stairs to an open window). I'd be churlish to complain about this too much, as I can think of few films of this era that are as exciting from a camera motion perspective. More problematic, though, is the structure: the three stories are differently weighted, and the middle story really didn't add up to much of anything. (The first is barely a story, really, more of a character sketch.) The third does pack some late-breaking emotional punch. So, a mixed bag: where to with Ophuls from here?

A light charmer, but damn charming it is, even it's a little long in its midsection whilst giving the short shrift to especially the latter section. Impossible to resist, at least for me.

Life through windows...until we crash out of one.

Film elu pakutavatest naudingutest ning kuidas need võivad paradoksaalselt olla teatavas vastuolus õnnetundega.

This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.

Ophüls directing as no other, but my problem here is that the history of prostitutes goint to the country has pulled me out of the movie. I think that the story lacks the narrative brilliance of the rest, and it becomes tiresome. But see the German moveing the camera well worth it.

"An intriguing film retelling three stories by Guy de Maupassant, on the theme of pleasure, although it seemed that there was more pain than pleasure in the stories told. The sound of the film is beguiling, and I can't really describe quite what it was that intrigued me so much. A nice surprise was to see Jean Gabin in the second story."

The non-committal narrative meander of Guy de Maupassant gets up to the Ophuls washover without so much as a spike of the needle - I could've taken or left pretty much any of it, but found myself enjoying its atmosphere in spite of the film: The terrific nineteenth century locations in the city and the country, the bordellos, the perfectly aged art studios, the voyeuristic photography, the unending camera movement, the lovely Joe Hajos score and on and on and on. Stanley Kubrick's favorite film (as of 1957, the imdb so helpfully points out) is deliriously empty.

My first Ophuls, and 5 minutes in I thought this was a 5 star film - the movement of camera and bodies in conjunction in the opening scenes took my breath away. Unfortunately, much of the film takes place in locations (like, say, a train) that don't necessarily acquit to Ophuls' strengths here, although there are some other stunning scenes (the church, ascending the stairs to an open window). I'd be churlish to complain about this too much, as I can think of few films of this era that are as exciting from a camera motion perspective. More problematic, though, is the structure: the three stories are differently weighted, and the middle story really didn't add up to much of anything. (The first is barely a story, really, more of a character sketch.) The third does pack some late-breaking emotional punch. So, a mixed bag: where to with Ophuls from here?