Nana: Le désir

In the opening titles of this movie it says that is "loosely based" on the fin-de-siècle novel of Emile Zola. I haven't read the novel, but I am a little suspicious about the lesbian scenes and the bizarre "human cockfighting" scene. I am also quite sure that Zola never claimed that his contemporary, George Melies, a real-life silent French filmmaker (who was also a character in Scorcese's "Hugo")made porn loops to show in Parisian brothels. I suspect the notorious 80's low-rent Israeli producers Golan and Globus took at least some liberties with both fiction and reality.

This is a movie about a young actress and prostitute, who shows up at a brothel and becomes an object of obsession for numerous men--a Jewish banker, a count, and the impressionable son of the count--and proceeds to blithely destroy all their lives.

The lead, 18-year-old Katya Berger, is not an especially beautiful girl, but she has a very nice body, which is useful since she spends a great deal of the movie nude. Berger is one of a several young German actresses of the 70's (including Lara Wendel, Katja Bienert, and most famously Nastassia Kinski)who actually appeared in a lot of nude and erotic roles BEFORE they were "legal" by modern-day US/UK standards. Berger's 1978 debut, "Labias Piccolas", for instance, is available in the US today, but reputedly shorn of about 11 minutes of underage nude scenes. But that is not a problem in THIS movie made five years later. Of course, she does have a lesbian scene with an actress played by her real-life sister, Debra Berger (both are daughters of spaghetti Western actor William Berger)and an inter-racial oral sex scene. And there are a couple other notorious figures in the cast including Annie Belle, a French "lolita" actress from the earlier 70's, and 60's British party girl Mandy Rice-Davies, who was caught up with Christine Keeler in the "Profumo Affair", which brought down a British government and was later chronicled in the movie "Scandal". Clearly the Go-Glo boys were trying to court a little controversy here.

Given all that though, this movie is surprisingly boring. One problem is that the only really strong actor here is Jean-Pierre Aumont, but a lot of it is that director Dan Wolman is not very adept at drawing out any believable drama. Still, it is not a terrible movie and isn't worse than any other Golan-Globus film--whether or not you consider THAt a recommendation. . .

There was an interesting aspect of this film: Golan, Globus and Dan Wolman made two versions of this film. One was a PG version that they hoped to sell to T.V. and the R-Rated one that was filled with nudity. 18 year-old Katya Berger bares a lot of skin in this costume drama about a young Parisian lady who finds work at a burlesque club and then takes advantage of the perverts who come here. The film takes place in the 1880's yet one of the stars of the club has created movies. Not very exciting and very tame for today's standards. A turn-off in this film is the women who didn't shave under the arms. Ewww. Mandy Rice-Davies, who helped bring down the British Government years ago, appears in this film. Costume drama for completists or those who want to see a poor man's Brooke Shields.

I'm into finding more obscure/less mainstream films to watch but this one didn't do it for me and the young age of the lead actress was already a red flag. But the fact that there's real-life incest of sorts that's glossed over shocks me even more so. Never watching this again.

It states 'comic, drama'. I couldn't find anything comical in there.

The setting is perfect, what one would expect from Zola. Acting by Katya Berger ... already difficult to judge. In itself it is naught; as Nana it does fit.

A captivating narration by Zola about the 'fickle women' (Shakespeare). In this sense this movie deserves full marks. It shows a rather emotionless ascent of a woman, rather an adolescent, to what her attraction can get her. In this sense, close to full marks.

On the other hand, if one perceives movie making as having a meaning beyond mere photographing, as analytic process, also displaying inner sentiments, doubts, motivators; this movie is a clear fail. Katya Berger as Nana just swirls around from scene to scene, until - sooner or later - her seemingly never reflected drive for more and more reaches its logic end.

All in all, definitely deserving better than the current 4,4.

This is my first time watching a film like this and I'm not sure what I was expecting--both more and less? The film seemed to be at most a sexual farce done in as a series of pretty tame soft porn vignettes loosely held together by a rather clichéd plot line--the greedy Jezebel taking down every man who crosses her path. If this is some kind of take regarding female sexual power I definitely have mixed feelings about the way it is portrayed: On the one hand it plays every man as leering pervs only out for the own sexual satisfaction--yet helpless idiots in the face of her (apparently very young)faux innocence. In that regard they pretty much deserve what they get--but on the other hand she has no care for the consequences of her own greed or the men she uses (as they use her). It is hard to feel much of anything for any of the characters and that is likely the film's biggest failure.

There is a strong undertone of pure hostility for both sexes in this film that is hard to miss and rather odd for a film outwardly celebrating sexual freedom. The strongest clue we get as to what is really going on is actually expressed by the main "wife" of the story when she disapprovingly says something along the line that our heroine is "one of those girls who actually enjoys...." you know. Apparently we are being lead to believe that every man falls at Nana's feet because they are totally sex-starved at home. So, ultimately everything that happens is the fault of wives who don't give their husbands what they need?

As far as the film itself: I have to say that it can be very hard to judge anyone's acting when viewing a dubbed film; flat voice dubbing can bring down even an excellent character portrayal. As a result I can't fairly rate the acting; the music was very distracting-sometimes seeming to celebrate the unconscionable. I have no idea if that was original or not to the film, so again cannot fairly judge. Dubbed films rarely do justice to the original. I had a problem with the main actress's supposed sexual allure given I didn't feel she was that attractive--those eyebrows! But perhaps they chose that look in order to make her look younger and more innocent--which would fit with the entire theme. Certainly other reviewers disagree with my personal assessment--and in fact some of histories most notorious femme fatales (Cleopatra, Violet Wodehouse of painter Sargent fame, etc) weren't physically beautiful; there was apparently some other intangible allure. Beauty certainly is in the eye of the beholder! I had to laugh at some reviewers criticisms of the "au natural" look. I suspect at least SOME of those were "merkins", nothing natural about those at all--and at least unshaved 'pits were accurate for the time and place (and still are in some cultures!).

As far as historical accuracy, France was notorious for it's sexual freedom even at that time and yes, primitive moving pictures did exist. Lots of full frontal female nudity; sorry ladies, no male genitalia-though we do see suggestive silhouettes and otherwise nicely masculine (unshaved) nude males. The sex isn't graphic, despite the nudity and is mostly done to draw in the audience as voyeur, in much the same way as the rest of the cast when they're around. The whole film is voyeuristic. As a story though, pretty tame. It would have helped a great deal if there had been at least ONE character we could have identified with and cared about.