Nada

Claude Chabrol had his golden period in the late sixties and early seventies with films like This Man Must Die, The Breach and Wedding in Blood. These films were great because Chabrol delivered thrills and complex characters in equal measures; but Nada is something of a change of pace and unfortunately this film is not vintage Chabrol. The film features basically a criminal plot and this is mixed in with political elements. From a personal point of view, politics doesn't interest me that much anyway; but that is especially true here as Chabrol isn't able to spin an interesting story out of it. The plot focuses on a group of kidnappers that call themselves 'NADA'. They hatch a plot to kidnap the American ambassador, take him back to their hideaway and wait for the Government to give into their ransom demands. The plot goes smoothly; but the gang encounter trouble when internal rivalries begin to spring up; and they find out that the police chief they're up against is less forgiving than they are.

From Claude Chabrol I have come to expect intriguing and meaningful films that work on a multitude of levels. Part of the reason why I don't consider Nada to be anything like Chabrol's best work is simply because I don't care about the subject matter (as opposed to the best of Chabrol, which have the ability to appeal to everyone). However, the fact still remains that this is not a particularly good film. The point of the film is muddled at best and Chabrol's message is always hazy. The plotting is not particularly exciting and since the plot line is not interesting; Nada does at times become difficult to follow. To its credit, the film is rather well made and as always Chabrol does a good job of staging and setting scenes. The acting is decent too and Chabrol has brought together a varied and interesting cast, headed by Italian actor Fabio Testi, who plays their respective roles well. Overall I would not recommend this to my fellow Chabrol fans; the great director has a vast filmography filled with classics and I would recommend seeing those instead.

THE NADA GANG (Claude Chabrol - France/Italy 1974).

With this excellent political thriller Claude Chabrol charted into more familiar genre territory. This time he made this cynical account about a small Franch group of post '68 terrorists kidnapping the American ambassador from a luxury Parisian brothel, secreting him away in an isolated farmhouse while they wait for an answer to their demands. But the police chief they're dealing with is even more violent than they are and doesn't care about getting back the hostage alive.

In hindsight this film has become a typical exponent of the - mostly left wing - underground activities in the '70s and 80's. In these modern times, when terrorism is almost exclusively associated with Islamic religiously motivated terrorists, this kind of political activism comes across as refreshingly modern.

While some might consider Nada as somewhat of a disappointment after Chabrol's brilliant series of films, like La femme infidèle (1969) Qua la bête meure (1969), Le Boucher (1970), La Rupture (1970) and Juste avant la nuit (1971), this remains cool, stylish and exciting film-making of the kind very few directors can match. And what about Fabio Testi in his black leather overcoat? Is he the coolest looking criminal you've ever seen, or what?

Camera Obscura --- 8/10

An anarchist group called Nada kidnap the American ambassador in a high class Paris brothel. The state then counter this by giving the chief of police license to deal with the situation. The state proves to be more brutal than the terrorists.

This is a pretty atypical film from Claude Chabrol. While it deals with moral ambiguity, which many of his films do, it also is very directly political which is unusual. Other than the idea that the state can be more amoral than terrorists, I'm not too sure what else the film has to say. The subject matter of Marxist revolutionaries taking radical action is one that would have been much more in vogue in the 70's than now though. Overall, the film lacks the personal feel of Chabrol's more intimate thrillers. The political angle doesn't seem to be material best suited to his style. And as a result Nada is a slightly underwhelming movie.

How tedious it is to watch the vast majority of political films pitting the left (name your party here) versus the right (name your party here in the country of (name your country here).

As you can see, the parties and countries are pretty much interchangeable, and really doesn't matter which side you are on, or what country you are in. Sometimes the left is excessive, and sometimes the right is excessive. And at times, they are both excessive. This film happens to occur in France, where the left tries to take extreme measures to combat the repression (or what they consider to be the repression) of the more liberal elements of French society.

In reality, the vast people are not concerned about these issues; they are more concerned about paying the bills, raising their children and trying to retire in relative comfort. This principle holds true for every country. The film has a few good moments, but is rather tedious; don't bother.

If you are fond on French crime novels world, you know that this film was adapted from à Jean-Patrick Manchette's novel. One of the best French novelist from the seventies and eighties. The novel which this feature is adapted from was a very nihilistic tale against the institutions, governments and state rules. And this movie made by Claude Chabrol - whose it is not the kind of movies he usually did, you know that - this film seems very close, scene for scene, to the book. If you dare comparing, this film NADA is, to the genuine novel material, exactly the same that Jean-Pierre Melville's LE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE was to Jose Giovanni's novel. In both cases, the movies made from the books seem so close to them. But you would be damn wrong if you thought so. Concerning Melville's film, please read my comment. But about NADA, I repeat, Manchette gave us a story which enhanced the anarchists, or left winged terrorists, he tried to give them some good reasons to behave as they did. But if you read the book and then watch the movie very closely, you will notice that Chabrol doesn't have the same language. In a sort of way, he criticizes the anarchists. He wants to show to the audiences the emptiness of everything they do. In that purpose, he uses some sentences told by the anarchists characters. Even if, I repeat, the movie seemed to have been shot, "book handed". Page by page.

The message was not the same.

And, besides, I have already seen movies adapted very differently from novels but only on the "shape" - scenes - but not on the true meaning. For instance both RIFIFI films: RIFIFI CHEZ LES HOMMES and RIFIFI CHEZ LES FEMMES.

I will finish by telling you that Michel Aumont gives in this film one of his best performances ever as the terrific, nasty, disgusting commissaire - superintendent - Goémond. Nasty and sometimes funny, when he speaks or listens to someone, very unusual for a disturbing character, some kind of Gestapo torturer. He plays as if he was in a comedy or light hearted film, and not a brutal thriller, where his character is absolutely sadistic. Actually, he plays as he usually does in most of his other films, but this very movie NADA is not one of his other films. But why not? Watch very closely to his character's performance please, especially, I repeat, for the very evil character he is. You won't be deceived. He has in this film a role very close to the one Robert Hossein had in LE PROFESSIONAL, a kind of fascist like superintendant. And the relation between two supporting characters, Maurice Garrel and the anarchist hooker, is also very unusual and touching, especially during his impotency sequence. This is also a typical post 1968 era feature, which shows the political manipulation, the most realistic and unbearable one, when high scale ministers order their "henchmen", killer cops working for the government, to kill, kill, even innocents, but not in a straight way, with proper words, in the purpose to achieve their shameful goals. Very daring for this time, in the pure Yves Boisset style. The ministers order to kill and then get rid of the scapegoats whom they ordered to execute the power low works. Very very close to reality, believe me.