Les liaisons dangereuses

Among all Vadim's duds,"les liaisons dangereuses " seems to have stood the test of time better than the other "works" of the director.The reason is to be found in the cast.Gérard Philipe -though largely overshadowed by John Malkovich in Frears's version -and mainly Jeanne Moreau are earnest thespians and you cannot be wrong with them.And Roger Vailland and Claude Brulé had a good idea for the conclusion:fire instead of smallpox allows us to hear Laclos's immortal line "She's wearing her soul on her face!"

Objections to this early version -to be followed by half a dozen of them- remain:that the story should have been transferred to the sixties is eminently questionable:La Merteuil was a definitely modern original character in Choderlos de Laclos's times ;in 1960,such a woman's behavior had become banal.Vadim would do worse when he would transfer Zola's "la curée" to his era.

Proof positive that all that glittered in the nouvelle vague was not gold.

...for many reasons. few - the mark of Roger Vadim on a story almost classic, the presence of Boris Vian in a role reflecting his work, the cold chemistry between Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Philipe and for the most inspired soundtrack. because it is a jazz film. with improvisation and tension, seduction and precise picture of near reality. more than an adaptation, it is a confesion. Valmont by Philipe, one of his last roles, is more than an example of good job but a testimony about the force and nuances and beauty of the great game of nuances for a special actor. because it is not an ordinary film. it reflects its time more than the source of inspiration novel and the contemporary lost of emotion, form of profound insensitivity/cruelty/egocentric circles in brilliant way. and this is the motif to see it. maybe twice. for admire an authentic masterpiece. and an useful warning.

The magnificent eighteenth century novel of Choderlos de Laclos has proved irresistible to film-makers and has also inspired an opera and a ballet. I would be surprised were Roger Vadim to feature on anyones list of 'great directors' but he has surpassed himself in this first adaptation which has been updated to the 1950's. Vadim has the services of two of the finest French actors in Gerard Philippe and Jeanne Moreau and has also accommodated his partner at the time, Annette Stroyberg, as the seduced and abandoned Marianne. The main difference in this version is that the two unashamed libertines Marquise de Merteuil and Vicomte de Valmont are not former lovers but plain old Mr. and Mrs. Valmont which serves to give their intrigues and evil machinations even greater piquancy and no doubt accounted for the films problems with the censors. The casting of Gerard Philippe as Valmont is inspired as he is able to utilise his natural charm to devastating effect whilst Jeanne Moreau's mesmerising performance has only been matched by that of Glenn Close in Stephen Frear's film. Annette Stroyberg was inevitably labelled Bardot#2 which is a little unfair. Although her Marianne does not come across as being particularly virtuous she certainly engages our sympathy and we cannot but feel for her fate. To say that Vadim caresses her with the camera would be an understatement! This was still early days of course for Jean-Louis Trintignant as Danceney but he has enjoyed a spectacular career and is still with us at ninety. Mention must also be made of Simone Renant as the cynical, worldly-wise Mme Volanges. Although pointless to speculate one wonders how Philippe's film career would have panned out had he not been so cruelly taken at the age of thirty-six. He was already under threat, as were many of his colleagues, from the New Ripple brigade and would most likely have concentrated more on theatre work. As it turned out his final role in Bunuel's 'Fever mounts in El Pao' proved unworthy of his talents but his Valmont definitely ranks as one of his best. Vadim's direction is taut and the production values excellent, not forgetting the contribution of his preferred editor Victoria Mercanton. A critical failure but a commercial success this fascinating piece bears revisiting despite its stark reminder that all is less than fair in love and war.

This hyper-cool French updating of the Laclos classic is a blast from start to (amazing) finish; its immorality can be a drag in the middle section, but there's too much fun to be had in it to abandon it for that reason. Jeanne Moreau does the full range of bad girl, and her performance alone would merit a viewing, but you can also enjoy the film for its sleek, French attitudes, its Thelonius Monk score, a handsome young Jean-Louis Tritignant, his suits, her wardrobe, and so on, forever. It's a nasty little film is some ways, but I enjoyed it immensely just the same.

Can you think of a time when you went out "on the pull"? Where is that emotional fine line - between the little graces of life that make it so much fun – and getting deep in over your head? For Juliette and Valmont, seduction is salesmanship. Each new amour carefully planned. They have the emotional detachment of swingers. Throwing themselves into every passionate encounter with finesse. Only to return to the deeper affection they have for each other. "Love", as the English poet once said, "should be a strictly physiological matter, with just that amount of natural emotion that goes with it." Think of a jazz musician - and Director Roger Vadim obviously does – this film is scored by Thelonius Monk. There are fixed parameters in jazz, but opportunities for wide variation in between. Juliette and Valmont enjoy those variations. Then report back to the other affectionately. Or even help each other plan the improvisations.

A book that has been filmed many times, this early Vadim version is not only one of his best movies. He manages to reduce the bitching to a grand dramatic flourish, not a raison d'etre. Unsurprisingly. He was known off-screen for his sensual and avant-garde lifestyle. On-screen he can portray sensuality with realism and accuracy. (Even if the nudity is tame by today's standards.) Unlike most leads, Valmont doesn't just make girls swoon by appearing in frame. He tells them what they want to hear. If it weren't for the moralistic ending deemed necessary by popular culture, the movie could be a handbook of seduction. For the script has a feeling of authenticity.

Vadim has been described as the "classiest exploitation filmmaker who ever lived." Bardot, one of his five wives, called him, 'seduction itself.' (Of the men she married after him, she said dismissively, "They were only husbands.") The skill with which Valmont and Juliette entrance even gorgeous young ingénues is masterful. If all lovers possessed such consummate ability, might the world be a happier and less frustrating place? But, inevitably, our pair not only misuse their technique, failing to put the good of their conquests uppermost, but fall into the one trap they thought they could always avoid . . .

Cinematography in Dangerous Liaisons is straightforward cinema at its finest. The vicarious pleasure of boldly careering down the Alps almost made me want to take up skiing too. Simple use of black and white photography is mirrored in the appealing, clear-cut personas that Valmont projects. He lies in the snow, confidently dressed in black, with the virtuous Marianne all in white nest to him. Simple shots. Valmont on a train station - silhouetted against the steam. Figures on an empty beach – plus a few horses. Such composition is breathtaking. Especially with the high-keyed psychological tension that runs through. And when someone gets a sock to the jaw, it sounds real, not like it usually does 'in the movies'.

Temptation to go beyond the bounds of their seducers' art has a number of dramatic purposes. It provides a great theatrical crescendo. It gives a nod to the original book. And it 'keeps the peace' with the morality of monogamy. As Valmont's hedonism leaves its own well-defined limits, he shouts over the jazz, like a soloist insisting on ill-timed attention.

The didactic attitudes to pleasure of the day are one of the reasons that Vadim's original Dangerous Liaisons works better than in more modern interpretations. Today's woman (and man) likes to make independent choices, as well as be wooed intelligently. The careful plotting of Vadim's philanderers is more evil in a time when 'goodness' is equated with sexual ignorance Juliette and Valmont are 'clear-headed' rather than 'jealous' of each other's affairs. They have been together eleven years. Does no-one observe that this is a longer innings (by their own admission) than any of their more conservative friends? Instead of the Machiavellian rendering of the protagonists in other versions, Juliette and Valmont are ultra-chic. And, until they come off the rails, ultra-desirable.

Dangerous Liaisons is the movie that brought Jeanne Moreau (Juliette) to an international audience. Her full-on pout projects an aura of sexuality (compare her here with her performance in films such as Lumiere and L'Adolescent to see what a consummate act it is). She conquers us by identifying her 'amoral' lifestyle with a moral high ground (and one which indeed persists longer and more convincingly than that of her husband). When she refuses to sleep with him early on in the movie, she explains that she is never 'unfaithful' to her lovers. She shares the details of her current suitor with him intellectually rather than physically. And she is the first to be appalled at the human wreckage that Valmont's unconscious search for emotional truth is leaving in its wake.

We maybe tend to think of French New Wave films as being terribly provocative. Yet they could only be provocative within the bounds of the strong French censorship of the time. Films about Indochina and Algeria were halted. Dangerous Liaisons was briefly suppressed for painting an unflattering portrait of French diplomats. The Centre National de la Cinématographie strengthened its power over controversial scripts after its release. But the New Wave 'rebelliousness' – associated with the influential Cahiers du Cinema group of directors like Godard and Truffaut – was initially that of that of the 'youth class'. It was in relation to Vadim's work that the term was first coined.

Even sophistication has its limits. And this film dashes the intellectualism of high art on its head before bringing us to its gratuitously high moral conclusion.