Stavisky...

I didn't realize, until I went to Saulnier's page, just how much my experience of French film of the 1960's and 70's was shaped by this man's vision. He was production designer or art designer for Les Cousins and A double tour (Chabrol); Les Amants and Le Voleur (Malle); Marienbad, Muriel, La Guerre est finie, Providence as well as Stavisky... (Resnais); Le Chat and La veuve Couderc (Granier-Deferre). As well as his tremendous work on these art-house films, he worked on box-office successes like French Connection II, What's New, Pussycat and Le Clan des Siciliens.

I am discussing the art direction and the lovely costumes by Jacqueline Moreau (Anny Duperey looks ravishing in those gowns--and that jewelry!) because I find little else to talk about in this glacial exercise in political cinema. Characters mutter about bringing down the left-wing Daladier government and effecting a fascist takeover of power; it's as though Stavisky's fiscal film-flammery is just a side show, when in fact it's the central story. Why do we see Trotsky in two scenes, and why does he never speak? The idea of Trotsky remaining silent as his future is being discussed--that's startling. A simple check of the history of the time will tell you that the Front populaire triumphed in the June 1936 election, so there was no fascist takeover.

Happily, there is fine acting from Charles Boyer (it's one of his finest roles) and Francois Perier as Stavisky's adviser--one of the toughest jobs anybody could have, as it involves giving sage advice to a wild-eyed dreamer. Silvia Badescu has an impressive scene as a young Communist actress who rehearses a scene with Belmondo.

Belmondo plays a swindler in early thirties France... His greatest creation is a new identity for himself. Completely amoral/immoral, he plays all ends against the middle.... in fact he is a Jew in France in order to swindle... and his existence is contrasted with (the Jewish) Trotsky who comes to France for political asylum... and a young Jewish actress in France to escape the Nazis.

In the end, everyone is betrayed, but the complicated story makes it extremely difficult to follow.

While it was going on, however, it was beautiful to watch and listen to.

Irresistible charm and talent helps Serge Alexandre alias Stavisky, small-time swindler, to make friends with even most influential members of French industrial and political elite during the early 30s.

The film began as a commission by Jean-Paul Belmondo to the screenwriter Jorge Semprún to develop a scenario about Stavisky. Resnais, who had previously worked with Semprún on "La Guerre est finie", expressed his interest in the project (after a gap of six years since his previous film); he recalled seeing as a child the waxwork figure of Stavisky in the Musée Grevin, and immediately saw the potential of Belmondo to portray him as a mysterious, charming and elegant fraudster.

It seems like most historical French films either take place during World War II (focusing on the occupation) or are in some way related to Algeria. This one really has neither, because it is set between the two world wars, with some interesting supporting characters (Leon Trotsky!). I had never heard of Stavisky, but now I'd be curious to know more (despite having no real passion for French history).

For the first hour or more you keep stumbling - the movie s surface looks like a period romp, helped by Sondheim s elegantly quizzical score, but the narrative is fragmented and frustratingly hard to follow. But as it takes shape (with Resnais pulling a Vertigo by tipping us off on Stavisky s fall about two thirds of the way in) you realize the subtlety of his design - his earlier formal and temporal experiments are incorporated almost seamlessly here into a lush cinematic package. Resnais spends little time on the usual raw material of the genre: the fragility of Stavisky s position becomes apparent almost immediately, and Resnais shows how the myth of the gentleman thief always had to be a sham - emotionally, sociologically and politically. Power is always contingent on the cooperation of others, and thus always endangered. As endangered, indeed, as our confidence in our sense of time and space - in the closing stretch Resnais moves superbly between events before and after Stavisky s death: the man (a spectre; a figure of several manufactured identities) recedes as the overall design takes precedence. The final image though is purely elegiac and nostalgic; perhaps for the art as well as for the man.

While this is far from my favorite French film, I did enjoy it--particularly as it did a good job of both including the historical aspects of 1933 with an in-depth portrait of a charming sociopath who had a touch of madness. The main character, Stavisky, was ably portrayed by Jean Paul Belmondo and it was very interesting to see the supporting work done by Charles Boyer (in one of his last films). However, I think the best work was done by the writers as they did an accurate job of showing a certain type of sociopath--the anti-social personality with some evidence of a thought disorder. The main character, though completely amoral and conniving, truly seemed to believe he was special and "moral" and that his illegal schemes would somehow magically work out fine. He stole and lied and cheated but somehow felt that society's laws were not intended for someone like him. In some ways, it makes you wonder if some of our most famous and successful moguls and politicians have a touch of Stavisky inside of them!