Opinión de ElMaruecan82

"Maigret Voit Rouge" is the last of the Gabin-Maigret trilogy, and unfortunately the least given how strong and memorable the first installements were. Gabin is still the same,:serene, confident, efficient, taking the shortcomings of his job like a pro and sometimes like the old wise man he became with age. I did enjoy the film to the degree that I became familiar with Maigret's routine, police procedurals and capability to handle new investigation techniques according to the situation. I liked the way the film confronted Maigret to American gangsters insisting that they belonged to a new breed of criminals to which French police shouldn't try to get mixed with... unfortunately, the villains don't live up to that reputation, and the film doesn't hold as well as the other despite a good third act.

Here's the problem with the film, unlike the first opuses, it doesn't follow the whodunit structure... though "Sets a Trap" didn't leave much suspense on the criminal's identity near the second act, there was some remaining shadows and clouds of uncertainty to clear and we were literally hooked to Maigret, driven by a stressful but enthralling interest. The second film was even more powerful as it featured a plot à la Agatha Chrisite and culminating with the gathering of all suspects before the big reveal, the soul of a mystery film is to keep the secret long enough to captivate, the audience, leaving enough latitude so we can process our own thoughts and wait for the big reveal that must come as a shocker no matter how prepared we are. It's a game played between the storyteller and the viewer and in the first two films, the third one doesn't have a shocker.

In fact, it couldn't afford one, as it's not a mystery film a simple gangster film, and an average one at that. It starts with a bunch of Americans first shooting a man and for some reason taking him to the car, with a witness consisting of a second-rate police officer named Lognon (Guy Decomble) the first immersion. I had a problem with that scene, I didn't think it was shot well. Did the gangsters intend to kill or kidnap? It's not very clear and given the number of bullets the target they got, either ways, they were incompetent. The second problem (and a big one) is the casting of Michel Constantin. He's a good actor and has a great screen presence, intimidating and effective for the villain, but dammit, was the budget so tight that they couldn't get an American actor? Having Constantin dubbed by an American with that typical nasal voices you hear in old newsreel or Looney Tunes parodues were awkward and never struck as natural.

The problem is that these gangster flicks aim for a minimum of realism and no matter how hard I try to overlook that problem, whenever he opened his mouth, I cringed... I don't think it was also fair to the actor who occasionally let a few French words slip through his mouth as if he was tired to move his lips without uttering a word. So the film is a decent thriller but there are many shortcomings in the execution, maybe because the villains weren't that interesting to begin with: one of them is the nicest guy and has an infatuation with a girl named Lili (Françoise Fabian) who hosted them after the kidnapping, and the other is a boxer who keeps opening his mouth to say nothing special. I didn't care for these Americans, too superficial or uninteresting, I guess they were intended as caricatures of masculinity made in Hollywood, but it's a rather superficial vision that doesn't male for a believable social comment.

But the film has a few characters who save the day, apart from maigret, Lognon makes for a great punching ball inspiring Maigret the kind of lines you never know if they're mockeries or compliments, he was touching in his ineptitude, there's the Sicilian bartended Pozzo (Vittorio Sanipoli) whose interactions with Maigret contained a great deal of lines that you never knew if they were threats or advice, and finally, the laconic and cynical doctor (Robert Armontel) who doesn't say much in the film, only to implode his Diogenian views at end, you never knew if he was serious or really pulling Maigret's leg. And honorable mention to the American Diplomat who allowed Gabin to speak English... and is it me or Gabin has a good English?

The film gets better at the end when things are explained and we can figure what happened and why but someway, the heart wasn't exactly the same, the film was made four years after the second, Gabin's age was starting to show and although he was good in this film, I could feel the fatigue behind his trademark detachment. How ironic that the film ends with him refusing to handle a case, leaving it to Lognon, so he would take a nap. Maybe there's some self-referential truth in that final line.