Le plaisir

Max Ophuls is rightly regarded as a major filmmaker and this is a major work. If you'd heard of his fluid camera-work but hadn't seen a film bearing his signature this film would illustrate perfectly what people mean by his fluid camera-work. In 1952 the portmanteau film was hardly new; in England we had seen both Quartet and Trio (a joke in the early fifties had two hippies walking down Broadway and passing in turn cinemas where these titles were playing: One says 'Man, we better dig this crazy combo, it's fading fast') followed by Encore, all featuring short stories by Somerset Maugham but it's fair to say that all three lacked the visual style and sheer sumptuousness that Ophuls brings to DeMaupassant. Framed by The Mask and The Model the piece de resistance is The House of Madame Tellier, a four-reel examination of the role of the bordel in the provincial town - when they close for a day the whole sub-social life of the town is disturbed. If the lion's share of the plaudits go to the middle segment the others have more than their own individual moments and staples of French cinema like Jean Gabin, Danielle Darrieux and Simone Simon get to strut their stuff and pay their dues. A visual delight.

One of Max Ophuls' finest achievements,one of the best Guy de Maupassant adaptations for the screen.

This is a movie made up of three sketches;it is rather a long story (la maison Tellier) framed by one prologue (le masque) an an epilogue (le modèle).Guy de Maupassant is ,by far,the best writer France as ever known,as far short stories are concerned-He wrote about 200 of them,and even influenced Dudley Nichols for the screen play of "stagecoach"(actually ,Claire Trevor was Boule de Suif)

Le plaisir (the pleasure) is something fleeting,but the hero of the prologue(le masque) can't stand life is passing him by.His wife is a victim,women are often sacrified in Maupassant's work.At best they are ways for men to social advancement(Bel Ami,see "the private affairs of Bel-Ami", filmed by Albert Lewin ,1947,watchable,but which has given a totally false rendering of the conclusion),at worst ,once their lover or husband has used them ,they are often deserted (see "une vie" , directed by Alexandre Astruc,1958,which has a fine Claude Renoir cinematography.

"La maison Tellier" is the main body of the work:the subject is scandalous:madam and her whores close the brothel and head for the country.There,they are to attend madam's niece's communion.Max Ophuls has not always been faithfull to Maupassant:if you read the short story,you will realize how much these women are ugly,vulgar and fat;here ,we've got gorgeous Danielle Darrieux,plus Ginette Leclerc and Madeleine Renaud.Ophuls is an esthete and he could not subscribe to Maupassant's depictions.The two men come together when it comes to describe the reactions of the inhabitants of the village:the prostitutes pass for grandes dames,well educated,chic,and when they enter the church,it seems as if they enhance the religious fervor !!Maupassant,who was anticlerical to a fault,lets his irony flow;but there's compassion in Max Ophuls'pictures and I'm not sure the tears his heroines shed are that much laughable:regaining a child's soul -particularly on this communion day- is many a human being's secret longing.But cynism get the upper hand quickly and madam's brother,a bawdy Jean Gabin (the father of the little girl making her communion),is much more interested in his sister's "residents" than spiritual elevation.This second part climaxes the movie,with its steam-powered train,its banquet,its brothel of which the shutter are closed -we're only allowed to have a glimpse behind them-

The movie opens and closes the same way:woman is born to be deserted when she's not a whore,like in the second sketch.Josephine (Simone Simon) will find her lover back but the price she will have to pay is terrifying.

Why "le plaisir" ?Pleasure is few and far between in this world.Pleasure walks hand in hand with suffering.Guy de Maupassant himself knew fleeting pleasures he describes in part 2,but if you read his biography,you 'll meet a tormented soul,an extremely pessimistic mind,and a faux bon vivant who lived a dissipated life which ended in madness.

This is one of the most absorbing,ambitious,complex and artistically successful masterwork of the French fifties.

In the early 80's, as a young movie lover, my favorite was "le Plaisir" directed by Max Ophüls. And at that time, it was quite hard to have vidéo cassettes of such masterpieces, I found the cassette and watched "Le Plaisir" so many times showing it to everybody around me, the movie in fact I showed the most. We just loved "La Maison Tellier" with Gabin (so funny as a peasant searching for a love affair with Danièle Darrieux, unforgettable), every scene was perfect. And shot by master Christian Matras. The two other sketches are also great, especially the one with Simone Simon. Thank you Mr Ophüls for that true masterpiece.

A trilogy of Guy de Maupassant stories, two short simple ones framing a long and impossibly rich one, and I don't know why everyone complains about the framing ones - everything is given exactly the weight that their narrative will support. An old man dressing up like a young dandy to relive the gavotting excesses of his youth, only to end in physical collapse, starts things off; and to close we have a beautiful young couple who go from romantic bliss to petty vindictiveness to resigned acceptance via an attempted suicide. This gives us a rather complex understanding of the meaning of 'pleasure', and the worst you can say is that one and three don't utterly embody pleasure the way number two does (although the swirling camera work in the dance scene comes damn close). The story of a troop of sex workers romping off to a country wedding is simplicity itself, but also incredibly rich - full of memorable human beings and interactions. Everyone sees happiness in the place that they're not, but this episode celebrates life wherever it finds it, and it's a joy to watch.

Max Ophuls converts three stories by Guy de Maupassant to the screen, and links them via a narration by Peter Ustinov.

Ophuls is one of those directors whose works I admire rather than enjoy. Sometimes I think that's his intention. His taste for formalism, whether it be a Schnitzler play he wishes to film, or his insistence on loading on every camera trick he can think of, as here, seems designed to call for comment by the attentive and cinematic viewer.... one might almost say 'voyeur.'

Perhaps that's Ophuls' intention: to make the audience think they're not watching a story, but spying on reality. Me, when I think it's a great story and great actors, as here, I would use the minimum artistry to tell the story; why paint the beautiful lily or gild refined gold? When the first story begins with a traveling take that lasts minutes, I wonder how much longer it's going to go on, rather than enjoying the event. When he shifts repeatedly to Dutch angles, I wonder what is so odd about the perspective, and when he shoots people in a house through windows, again, I wonder what's the point.

Perhaps it is a longing for the baroque. Or perhaps it's an inferiority complex, to show people who go on about the theater that cinema is an art, too, and anything you can do, we can do better!

Me, my taste is a lot more visceral than Ophuls. He's great, mind you. It's just that I appreciate him with my head and not my heart.