Jours tranquilles à Clichy

I'm reviewing this from the perspective of myself as a fan of Miller .. Though this is a poorly-done piece of amateur cinema, there is at least enough curiosity in seeing the presentation of the characters and other elements of the book, though you will likely be horribly disappointed with everything. "Quiet Days" is certainly one of Miller's crudest books, in terms of him coming off like a real jerk, albeit a smart and charming one (which the actor playing Miller totally lacks). In that sense, the film captures the baseness in the fact that it's as if the novel has been interpreted by tittering frat boys who pick out the most basic "shock" elements and run with them with anti-authoritarian glee. The previous review of this film mentions plot points which make no sense. This is because the director showed his obvious carelessness and sloppiness by not attaching logic to actions which are clear in the book. A curiosity of the late 60's (including footage of Paris in 69/70; also notable for the use of text within image which I actually quite liked), but a real disappointment for Miller fans, and a pretty bad movie overall.

I first learned of Henry Miller when he appeared as a witness in Warren Beatty's "Reds", but his name really caught my attention in "Kill Your Darlings", about Allen Ginsberg's college years. In the movie, Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliffe) is interested in Miller's works, but the school bans the students from reading them.

Anyway, I've never read any of Miller's works, but Jens Jørgen Thorsen's "Stille dage i Clichy" ("Quiet Days in Clichy" in English) is a third-degree WTF. While I can't compare it to Miller's novel, I can say that this movie succeeds in being shocking, if lacking a coherent plot. Probably the only movie that I've seen that features any scenes taking place in Luxembourg. But overall, not anything that I would truly recommend, unless you want to hear unusual songs by Country Joe and the Fish.

I only heard about this when the Blue Underground DVD first came out; of course, I was aware of controversial author Henry Miller, on whose novel the film was based - whose work, incidentally, was contemporaneously being transposed to celluloid for the first time via the late Joseph Strick's TROPIC OF CANCER (1970).

Anyway, it was merely a coincidence that I ended up acquiring the two film versions of the book (the other being the 1990 adaptation by Claude Chabrol) virtually simultaneously! Since I was going through a retrospective of that director's work anyway, I decided to check this one beforehand; well, I am glad that my generally negative reaction to it did not give me second thoughts about passing on the remake (as the latter was a more rewarding, and altogether different, experience – but more on that in its own review)! Anyway, I have never been fond of Erotica per se and this is pretty much what one got here: some critics praised the kaleidoscopic style adopted here (actually borrowed from Richard Lester) but this particular approach dates the film more than anything else. Besides, it is further bogged down by the lack of a proper plot (a fault which is much better disguised in the later version), revolting detail (the graphic sexuality on display got it banned in the U.S. on original release – atypically, this is a Danish picture shot in the English language and black-and-white) and characters who seem to have crawled from under rocks (especially the two leads)!

In essence, we follow the dreary and over-sexed exploits of two penniless bohemians (the more studious-looking of whom is supposed to be an alter-ego for the author himself); they become involved with several women, of various ages and nationalities, and not even that good-looking in many cases. Eventually, they both become attached to someone in particular but, with respect to the protagonist's companion, the girl in question is a 14-year old half-wit!; in the end, the film just ends abruptly as if its makers had suddenly run out of money themselves…or film stock or, quite simply, ideas! However, the eclectic score is a big plus – some of it typically French and the rest comprised of numerous conceptual songs by Country Joe (McDonald) of the psychedelic and radical "Country Joe & The Fish" band fame.

this is just one of those pro-tend-be "art-house" junk Euro made in 70s,i do not know why blue-underground release this junk. A very boring movie, 80% of time are silly fake love-making scenes with out any meaning.

poor plot, poor acting. silly slut and bastard(the main male roles)There are really no likable people in the movie. If you like this kind of movie, you should rent a real porn, just like last poster said

give 1 vote just because no zero. I suggest no one should watch this piece of trash. the only good thing in this movie is the music. Just forget about this movie and try your best to avoid it.

Pretty funny and trashy take on Miller's vision. The sex in this movie makes The Room love scenes to look like high art. For example the almost total absence of doggystyle position, I don't know if it was a censorship issue but it seems stupid to watch this Italian Stalion softcore sex over and over. The guy playing Miller does a rather awful job anyway. He might be an interesting person himself but he is no Henry Miller that is for sure! Anyway, the movie is oversexed in a silly way like if someone saw American Psycho as only being about physical violence for example. Thus in a way it is a weird take on Miller to make it about sex. Miller had a number of other interests such as philosophy.