Le Knack... et comment l'avoir
Titre original : The Knack ...and How to Get It
- 1965
- Tous publics
- 1h 25min
NOTE IMDb
6,3/10
4 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA young school teacher tries to master the art of flirtation using his neighbor's skills.A young school teacher tries to master the art of flirtation using his neighbor's skills.A young school teacher tries to master the art of flirtation using his neighbor's skills.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nomination aux 6 BAFTA Awards
- 5 victoires et 9 nominations au total
Dandy Nichols
- Tom's Landlady
- (as Dandy Nicholls)
Bernard Barnsley
- Policeman
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
This is a manic Richard Lester comedy very similar to "A Hard Days Night," and if you liked that movie you'll like this one. It's a somewhat rambling froth-of-life tale about an awkward young man (Michael Crawford) who wants to learn how to pick up girls from his popular housemate (Ray Brooks). Brooks' attempt to instruct Crawford in the mysteries of the knack go hilariously awry when the pair encounter the flighty Rita Tushingham.
I'm a little surprised that this won a Palme d'Or, but it IS very funny in a not-too over-the-top way. It's dramatically superior to contemporary early '60's comedy, and the principals turn in wonderful performances. If you like it, be sure to check out Lester's sunny nonsense "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" and the distinctly darker "How I Won the War."
I'm a little surprised that this won a Palme d'Or, but it IS very funny in a not-too over-the-top way. It's dramatically superior to contemporary early '60's comedy, and the principals turn in wonderful performances. If you like it, be sure to check out Lester's sunny nonsense "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" and the distinctly darker "How I Won the War."
'Richard' Lester (as he was then billed) had just scored a huge hit with 'A Hard Day's Night' and before he moved on to 'Help' indulged himself with this raucous adaptation of Ann Jellicoe's play which today looks more of a museum piece than either of the films he made with the Fab Four (compounded with a light-hearted attitude to rape that certainly won't sit well with today's #MeToo generation).
Set off by a snazzy score by John Barry, in it's frantic desire to be 'with it' it gets rather tiring and it's sobering to reflect that most of the bright young things that inhabit it are now in their eighties; but if you look fast you'll spot a wetsuited eighteen year-old Charlotte Rampling who still looks just as icily handsome in her late seventies.
Set off by a snazzy score by John Barry, in it's frantic desire to be 'with it' it gets rather tiring and it's sobering to reflect that most of the bright young things that inhabit it are now in their eighties; but if you look fast you'll spot a wetsuited eighteen year-old Charlotte Rampling who still looks just as icily handsome in her late seventies.
Reviewers fell all over themselves to praise this film when it came out. I personally tend to be a sucker for good, wild British comedy. I wanted to believe the reviews.
Why did they lie to me?!? Oh, have no doubt that at the time this was wild and crazy and totally unlike just about anything out there. I can see that in the film and I can also see the whole generation gap thing playing itself out in there as well. I see all that was said to be in there, except for great performances and the wacky comedy.
I shall not try to comment on story or plot. This film doesn't even pretend that those elements matter, and they certainly don't if you should happen to see this movie. You're there for the "event" of the film itself. Other than Rita Tushingham's heavenly eyes and lips, there IS no "event" worth hanging around to see.
This is one of those films that should be viewed only in the context of its place in film history. It fails to survive the passage of time on its own merits. It is merely an interesting curiosity from the 60s.
On another, short note, the soundtrack is incredible. It makes the film worth sitting through.
Why did they lie to me?!? Oh, have no doubt that at the time this was wild and crazy and totally unlike just about anything out there. I can see that in the film and I can also see the whole generation gap thing playing itself out in there as well. I see all that was said to be in there, except for great performances and the wacky comedy.
I shall not try to comment on story or plot. This film doesn't even pretend that those elements matter, and they certainly don't if you should happen to see this movie. You're there for the "event" of the film itself. Other than Rita Tushingham's heavenly eyes and lips, there IS no "event" worth hanging around to see.
This is one of those films that should be viewed only in the context of its place in film history. It fails to survive the passage of time on its own merits. It is merely an interesting curiosity from the 60s.
On another, short note, the soundtrack is incredible. It makes the film worth sitting through.
Richard Lester was the one with the knack...the knack for providing snapshots of Swinging London, and for that we should all be grateful. With The Knack...and How To Get It, Lester builds on his triumph of A Hard Day's Night with a winning cast, dynamic cinematography and a hilarious screenplay.
Michael Crawford carries this film. He is, in short, adorable as the sexually frustrated milquetoast Colin. Another actor may have played Colin as pathetic; Crawford seems to have insight as to Colin's predicament and instead plays him as a well-meaning innocent. Ray Brooks is suitably slimy as skirt-chasing Tolen. Rita Tushingham is the very portrait of a British bird circa 1965, and a fine comedienne at that. My favorite character in the film, though, is Donal Donnelly as Tom. He really serves no ostensible purpose other than comic relief, which he amply provides. His timing is wonderful, especially playing off Ray Brooks.
Lines from the screenplay make me laugh as I think about them, and the various plays on words throughout the film are incredibly clever.
"Skirt is meat." Watch this film and see what I mean.
Michael Crawford carries this film. He is, in short, adorable as the sexually frustrated milquetoast Colin. Another actor may have played Colin as pathetic; Crawford seems to have insight as to Colin's predicament and instead plays him as a well-meaning innocent. Ray Brooks is suitably slimy as skirt-chasing Tolen. Rita Tushingham is the very portrait of a British bird circa 1965, and a fine comedienne at that. My favorite character in the film, though, is Donal Donnelly as Tom. He really serves no ostensible purpose other than comic relief, which he amply provides. His timing is wonderful, especially playing off Ray Brooks.
Lines from the screenplay make me laugh as I think about them, and the various plays on words throughout the film are incredibly clever.
"Skirt is meat." Watch this film and see what I mean.
A steady stream of very attractive and nearly identical manikins come to life and march starry-eyed around the block and up the stairs to a flat where they briefly meet the object of their desire before dutifully signing his guest book on the way out. The man they came to see is the suave Lothario who will try to mentor the socially awkward teacher living downstairs in the "knack" of seducing women. As so often happens in situations like this, they will eventually end up competing for the affections of the same intriguing ingénue.
This may sound like an overused cliché likely to result in a formulaic romantic comedy, but director Richard Lester gives us something very different as he presents the story through a combination of exaggerated caricatures, fantasy sequences and zany metaphors. The result is that we are not so much interested in the details of the story as we are in the fun we have reaching the inevitable conclusion and the social commentary we encounter along the way.
Created in 1965, Lester makes a hefty contribution to the creation of a frenetic visual style of comedy which will be imitated with great commercial success throughout the rest of the decade (think "Laugh-In"). With its mod styling, rapid-fire editing, non sequiturs and wacky antics, Lester effectively uses this style to provide some wickedly clever parody of early 1960s sexism, conformity and consumerism.
The film is unfortunately not without some serious flaws. The comic style which may have seemed fresh and exciting at the time has not aged well. The good-natured mood of the film robs the social commentary of any punch or staying power, as does the failure to integrate it into a unifying framework. Also, the four main characters may be wonderfully portrayed with excellent comic acting, but only one of them is scripted such that he ever becomes human enough for us to care what happens to him, something which is essential in a story that is entirely about the relationships between the main characters.
One may find this to be a very enjoyable and memorable film in spite of these flaws, but it clearly requires that you recognize how to accept what it attempts to offer rather than criticizing it for what it doesn't deliver. I'd also think that it's a valuable film for anyone interested in the 1960s mass media image of swinging London and in the trends influencing popular entertainment during that time period.
This may sound like an overused cliché likely to result in a formulaic romantic comedy, but director Richard Lester gives us something very different as he presents the story through a combination of exaggerated caricatures, fantasy sequences and zany metaphors. The result is that we are not so much interested in the details of the story as we are in the fun we have reaching the inevitable conclusion and the social commentary we encounter along the way.
Created in 1965, Lester makes a hefty contribution to the creation of a frenetic visual style of comedy which will be imitated with great commercial success throughout the rest of the decade (think "Laugh-In"). With its mod styling, rapid-fire editing, non sequiturs and wacky antics, Lester effectively uses this style to provide some wickedly clever parody of early 1960s sexism, conformity and consumerism.
The film is unfortunately not without some serious flaws. The comic style which may have seemed fresh and exciting at the time has not aged well. The good-natured mood of the film robs the social commentary of any punch or staying power, as does the failure to integrate it into a unifying framework. Also, the four main characters may be wonderfully portrayed with excellent comic acting, but only one of them is scripted such that he ever becomes human enough for us to care what happens to him, something which is essential in a story that is entirely about the relationships between the main characters.
One may find this to be a very enjoyable and memorable film in spite of these flaws, but it clearly requires that you recognize how to accept what it attempts to offer rather than criticizing it for what it doesn't deliver. I'd also think that it's a valuable film for anyone interested in the 1960s mass media image of swinging London and in the trends influencing popular entertainment during that time period.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe Ann Jellicoe play on which this movie is based is a much straighter affair. When Richard Lester came on board, he added his own unique touches such as straight-to-camera direct addresses, humorous subtitles and a Greek chorus of disapproving members of "the older generation".
- Citations
Nancy Jones: Rape!
Woman in House: Not today thank you.
- Crédits fousThe closing credits (cast and crew) consist of rows of identical photographs and character/actor names, arranged like a series of photographer's contact prints of a strip of negatives.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Hollywood U.K. British Cinema in the Sixties: Northern Lights (1993)
- Bandes originalesThe Knack (Main Theme)
Written by John Barry
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Knack... and How to Get It?Alimenté par Alexa
- This is supposed to be Jacqueline Bisset's and Charlotte Rampling's first movies as uncredited extras. Where are they seen?
- During the opening credit sequence one of the women is seen opening a small packet and eating something. What was it?
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- The Knack... and How to Get It
- Lieux de tournage
- 1 Melrose Terrace, Hammersmith, Londres, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(apartment: the White Pad)
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 364 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée1 heure 25 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.66 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Le Knack... et comment l'avoir (1965) officially released in India in English?
Répondre