The Madwoman of Chaillot

The first hour of this film amazed me, it's a visual treat, especially the cafe scenes with Brynner, Pleasance et al talking weird, and Chamberlain and the whacky bomb-plot; towards the end it does tend to get a little bogged down in meaningfulness, the trial scene loses some impact from being overindulgent, but overall the Madwoman is a fascinating look at sixties idealism with eye opening performances from some top stars and enough zany weirdness in the script to keep a David Lynch fan happy. Well worth a look, in my book.

Lots of good comment already made except for some confusion over interpreting and understanding allegory. This is one of the best examples. Much has been said about the waste of talent by big name actors in this film. This play gives point to the old adage that there are no secondary parts in a play. This play demanded and used TALENT, hence the outstanding cast of true professionals. I was disappointed that there was no credit or reference made of the musical score. It is excellent. I'd buy a copy if I could find it. This music is haunting and will live with you for a long time. This is one of those movies that makes one wonder why it is not more prominently marketed. Maybe too cerebral?

There is a segment within a scene almost ending the first act of "The Madwoman of Chaillot", that suggest the direction the story is going to take. While the fanciful old countess Aurelia (Katharine Hepburn) explains young Roderick (Richard Chamberlain) the joys of being alive, the visuals turn to a slightly hazy retrospection of her love life, in which Roderick is seen as her mustachioed lover Alphonse, and the waitress Irma (Nanette Newman), with whom Roderick will fall in love, is seen as Aurelia when she was younger. All this theatricality is followed by a brief scene that ends the act, in which Irma delivers a soliloquy about her growing love for Roderick. Then after a fascinating first hour in which the plot is so startlingly current, as act two starts, we enter the world of filmed theater and the movie hardly recovers. If "The Madwoman of Chaillot" is remembered with affection after it ends, it is because of its first part, in which a rich and ruthless self-made man who leads a group that includes a general, a Catholic priest, a broker and a communist commissar, joins a similarly cruel prospector whose plan is the creation of an enterprise to dig up oil in the middle of historical Paris. The prospector has sent his nephew Roderick to put a bomb in the Palais de Chaillot to kill a public officer who denies him permission to begin his oil operation. But when Roderick fails and the police believe he is going to commit suicide, he meets countess Aurelia, who hears about the plan and decides to solve it by herself. Then action slows down, everything is done in interiors and the situation is resolved in strange ways -- first with a metaphorical trial which is pure stage material, and then with a certainly weird "execution" of the villains. By 1969 director Bryan Forbes was riding the crest of his own international film wave and had a great cast, in which even John Gavin delivered a fine funny performance of an evil priest. Masina is a delight, Evans is wonderful, and Homolka, Leighton, Henreid, Boyer and Dauphin are as good as all the supporting players, while Hepburn tries hard with her teary eyes... I could not help thinking what this would have been with a French actress in the lead.

A fable of human and societal archetypes spanning the generations. But what wonderful surprises from Danny Kaye as the Ragpicker. His soliloquies during the trial demolish all the stereotypes of what he was capable of as an actor. Those moments, alone, are worth the fare. Kathryn Hepburn puts in a typically professional performance in a role she enjoyed. Donald Pleasance is marvelously malevolent as the Prospector. Yul Brynner is terrific in an atypical role - probably his best since "Invitation to a Gunfighter". If the story suffers from anything, it is overreach - too many characters of outlooks that are too similar wasted on name actors. John Gavin puts in a strange performance that could have been better filled by dozens of other actors.

It all depends how you approach this film. DO NOT expect a linear plot line, either by story or history. Do not expect it to explain itself for, like 2001, it leaves more questions open than it answers. This is a truly odd duck of a film and once you open up to what it SAYS about life and liberty, you can appreciate it. I disliked it at first view a long time ago and for the obvious reasons - the plot is a pencil sketch of the first order. King Arthur whacking limbs off the Black Knight makes more sense. But scrap that and listen to what the actors are SAYING about life and liberty and THEN it makes sense, for this is an allegory of a film. The closest I can find elsewhere is OH WHAT A LOVELY WAR which uses allegory just as well. Danny Kaye is always a treat, but Hepburn is in glorious 1913 costumes and owns the show, and remember this is 1969. The same year as THE LION IN WINTER for an entirely different performance. So you have to junk many standard film rules aside and THEN you will find this a very good treat of film. Have it with good French Bordeaux and cheese too. Then go outside and see if you can smell a cafe in Paris serving their unique nuclear coffee. Who knows? You may wind up there too.