Después de la vida

The problem of drug addiction is even worse today than 15 years ago when Lucas Belvaux's film was released, and unfortunately he adds little to nothing here.

An attempt at a different approach fails miserably, as the first half of the 2-hour feature is deadly dull - a combination of police procedural and domestic drama. Gilbert is a corrupt cop and he plays the role blankly: all we know about the poker-faced, handsome guy (should have been cast as a gangster instead) is he babies his teacher wife Dominique Blanc in her addiction to morphine (which he acquires illegally through his job) and he is attracted to her friend Ornella Muti (duh!, who wouldn't be?).

Blanc's underplaying for nearly an hour is wearying, until in the second half the script turns from kitchen sink dreariness to overheated melodramatic outbursts, thoroughly unconvincing. Tying up the case he's working on with his wife's predicament is a ridiculous "neat" script ploy, and Belvaux himself intrudes in the nothing role of the arch villain of the piece, played flatly by him.

What this proves is that even a serious approach by a serious filmmaker can end up as routine and pointless as any exploitation film about oft- exploited subject matter. I much prefer the extremes of the genre, namely "Christiane F." on the docu-style well-meaning end of the spectrum, or a good, old-fashioned sexploitation approach at the other.

Après la vie is a part of a very interesting cinematographic experiment. The other parts are two other films made by Lucas Belvaux: Un couple épatant and Cavale. The three films are set in the same city (Grenoble in the French Alps) during the same period of time and share the same roles. The point is, in each of the three movies the focus is on different people. The leading actors in one movie are the supporting actors in another one, and vice versa. Some scenes in the movies are exactly the same, some are the same but filmed from a different viewpoint, and most scenes are unique to one of the three movies. Belvaux has chosen three different genres: a comedy (Un couple épatant), a drama (Après la vie) and a thriller (Cavale).

So far, so good. The experiment works: after seeing all three of the films, a fourth imaginary film emerges in which all the different pieces of the puzzle come together. There is only one little problem: not all three films are good. The comedy is not very funny, the thriller is not very thrilling, and only the drama is in a way dramatic. I found Après la vie (about a cop who has to become corrupt because he needs dope for his drug-addicted wife) by far the best one out of the three. But perhaps this is because I saw this movie after the other two and knew the story already more or less. Cavale was the first one I saw and, to be honest, I had trouble understanding everything that happened (although a friend I saw the movie with had no trouble at all). But perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of the experiment. So if you want to enjoy an unusual experiment, go see all three movies. If you think that takes too much time and costs too much money, go see Après la vie - a decent drama - and forget about the other two. Unless you want to admire the breathtaking beauty of Ornella Muti: then Un couple épatant is your best choice because she has a leading role in this movie.

This film (which can be seen as a standalone film) is part of a trilogy. Three films, not consecutive, but parallel. Three stories, simultaneous, with same actors, same characters. Main actors in one film are secondary actors in the two others. There are common scenes between each movie, but always shown in a different way, a different point of vue.

"Un couple epatant" is a comedy, with (Ornella Muti/Francois Morel),"Cavale" is a thriller, with (Lucas Belvaux/Catherine Frot), and "Apres la vie" is a drama, with (Gilbert Melki/Dominique Blanc).

You can see only one or two of these movies, but it is really better to see all of them, as each one enlights some dark moments of the two others. The supposed order is the one i used, but you can see these films in any order.

Individually speaking, the films are average (except "Apres la vie", the best one), but globally the experience is very good and very exciting.

Pascal Manise is a police inspector whose wife, a schoolteacher, is under the influence of morphine. Pascal, who loves too much his wife, buys the drug for her with Jacquillat, a local godfather who formerly has given money to left-winger terrorist organization. Pascal, on other hand, search Bruno le Roux, a terrorist of that organization who escaped recently from prison and who search the man who has denounced him to police. That man is Jacquillat and Jacquillat wants that Pascal gives information about Bruno le Roux and for that, refuses drug for Pascal's wife until Pascal accept this deal. Pascal's refusal has for consequences serious withdrawal symptoms for his wife, Agnes. This movie use the same characters that the two former parts of the trilogy and also some sequences, but the lightning of the movie is centred essentially on the problem of drug dependence and its consequences on the loving husband's comportment. The movie is very well acted especially by Dominique Blanc (Agnes, Pascal's wife) and by Gilbert Melki (Pascal).

I loved these three films - trilogy - as I discovered it back thirteen years ago. I loved the scheme, this symmetry existing between those three features, the scheme where a main character in one movie becomes a supporting one in the following one. This scheme reminds me Nicolas Winding Refn's PUSHER trilogy. The stories are not the same as in this trilogy, but the way of frame, structure of those tales is exactly the same. And so unusual too. I am surprised that no one has pointed it out yet. As far as I know, I have not watched such way of telling in any other trilogies. New ways of screen writing are very hard to make, I guess. They prefer the PULP FICTION one or those many movies where several fates collide between the characters. Lucas Belvaux is not a pretty good actor, his way of acting is not convincing at all, but as a director, he's different. He always gives us very interesting films.