La mia notte con Maud

I was quite bored for the first 25-30 minutes of this film, which is tedious in establishing its main character, shot in a neorealist style that overly elongates everyday activities (e.g. church services), and has dry philosophical discussions on the various opinions of Blaise Pascal. However, when a serious young Catholic named Jean-Louis (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is invited to join an old friend Vidal (Antoine Vitez) and his girlfriend Maud (Françoise Fabian) and the conversation turns to relationships, things improve, and it grew on me. It wrestles with the theme of balancing religious and moral convictions with the temptations of the flesh, as well as the decisions we make in life while selecting a partner.

There is a refreshing lightness and maturity to the way in which these characters (and perhaps the French in general) treat love affairs. They are spoken of as anything else in life, there is understanding when someone wants to move on, and when a woman says 'no', it's respected, without further pursuit. Vidal leaves Jean-Louis alone with Maud for the night, knowing there is an attraction between the two, and it's interesting to listen to them talk about their views while she lightly flirts with him. In his view, she has two strikes against her - one physical (she's not a blonde, his preference), and one spiritual (she's not a Catholic). On the other hand, it's because there seems to be no chance of a relationship that they seem so happy and natural together. Their scene later in the snow is fantastic. Unfortunately, he's already become attached to another woman he's seen in church (Marie-Christine Barrault), who, while blonde and Catholic, seems less interesting and less sensuous, setting up an interesting choice for him.

It's telling to me that despite his earnestness and apparent honesty, he tells each of them early on that he feels he's known her for ages. There is something devastatingly honest about hearing that, as we no doubt repeat ourselves in different relationships, and it can be read as being disingenuous, or as commentary that we can connect with many different people in life, and tend to do so, so that our final partner is somewhat arbitrary, even if influenced by certain principles.

While parts of the film were slow and I wish the philosophical discussions hadn't been so specific to Pascal and Jansenism, I liked the intelligent, meaningful conversations these characters have. I also liked the street footage in the wintertime, during the Christmas holidays, which is clearly real and adds to the film's aesthetic. Françoise Fabian lights up the screen in her scenes, and plays the most interesting character, one I empathized with (divorced, single mom) and related to (more down to earth, and what I would call a spiritual atheist). The ending scene makes us both wistful and accepting at the same time. It's not a perfect film, or even one I would recommend without at least some reservations, but at the end I found I had liked it.

This is the third entry in Eric Rohmer's "Six Moral Tales" film series, following the charming romantic short "The Bakery Girl of Monceau" and the somewhat bland, but still well made and written, 55 minute film "Suzanne's Career". Out of the three "Moral Tales" that I've seen, "My Night at Maud's" is easily the best, and most mature. The first two, while fine films, seem more like warm ups to this film.

"My Night at Maud's" is a spectacular work of art, which mainly consists of the intelligent discussion that goes on in the apartment of a woman named Maud over the coarse of one night. Of course, plenty of other things happen as well, but most of the film takes place during this one long discussion. Joining Maud is the main character, Jean-Louis, a Catholic man who seems to be in love with a woman (named Françoise, who becomes more of a major character later in the film), but hides it from Maude and his Marxist friend Vidal.

The film is an hour and 50 minutes of watching these wonderful characters talk and talk about various things, mainly things dealing with religion, love, etc. While a film almost entirely consisted of various characters chattering away may sound boring, it really isn't, mainly because the talking is so much fun (and really interesting) to listen to!

The film is also beautiful to look at, with gorgeous, black and white cinematography that really enhances the pretty cold tone of the film.

A really great piece of filmmaking!

"The heart has it reasons which reason knows nothing of." --Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

This is the Eric Romer film they warned you about. There is a lot of talk, talk, and more talk. But the talk is very interesting. One of the main topics of discussion is Pascal's famous wager. Pascal believed that if there is even the slightest chance of the Christian heaven being true, then as a matter of probability, one ought to be a believer. Even a minuscule chance of everlasting paradise is worth the bet because infinity (eternity) times even a very small number is infinity. And, of course, if not believing puts one in however small the danger of eternal damnation, then again one should be a believer. But, as Vidal (Antoine Vitez) sagely remarks in the movie, infinity times zero is still zero.

Jean-Louis Trintignant stars as a 34-year-old Catholic mathematician who has a way with women. He runs into his old school chum, Vidal, who introduces him to Maud (Francoise Fabian), who has a way with men. Funny but they don't quite hit it off even though she manipulates him into spending the night with her. Their conversation is witty, subliminal and revealing. Maud believes in the supremacy of love, Jean-Louis in being morally flexible. Although a believing and practicing Catholic, he tells Maud that one is not going against God's will by chasing girls anymore than one is going against God's will by doing mathematics.

The girl that Jean-Louis is currently chasing is 22-year-old Francoise (Maire-Christine Barrault) a blonde, Catholic girl that he has spied at church. At first it seems that although he is certain that she is perfect for him, she is reluctant. They too fence with words as they try to mislead and reveal at the same time, and the audience is intrigued, so much so that at times you might forget you are watching a movie. In this sense a Romer film is like a stage play. Whereas contemporary directors try to get by with as little dialogue as possible, to let the action itself reveal character, Romer is not shy about using dialogue to reveal character, plot, theme--the whole works.

The film begins with a long close shot of Francoise's profile as she listens in church, turning twice briefly to face the camera. She is pretty and intriguing. Although we won't realize it until the movie is mostly over, she is the focal point of the balance between the world views of Jean-Louis and Maud. After the night at Maud's during which Maud uses her intuition and sly intelligence to figure out Jean-Louis's character, he spends the night with Francoise. She uses her instincts to figure out not his character so much as his aptness for her. And then it is revealed how Francoise figures twice in the life of Maud. I won't anticipate the revelation, but be sure and watch for it. Suffice it to say that there are two reasons that Francoise is far from Maud's favorite person! The film ends, as French films often do, with the ironic affirmation of bourgeois values.

For today's DVD hound this movie will play slowly or not at all. The use of dialogue as something over and above the plot and action of the film will seem demanding and perhaps old fashioned. The deliberately drawn out scenes at church may cause you to yawn. But I recommend you stay with it. The movie has a quality that lingers long after the action is gone. The underlying philosophy about the nature of human love and how it conflicts or is compatible with reason and/or religion really does reflect to some extent the quotation above from Pascal, whose spirit is akin, although he denies it, to that of Jean-Louis, the careful protagonist of this very interesting film.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Can love be reduced to an intellectual calculation? Can faith? What role do the emotions play into this calculation? Blaise Pascal, a French scientist and philosopher, put down his thoughts regarding the Christian Religion which were published after his death and came to be known as "Pensees" or "thoughts". Here Pascal puts forth the case for belief: "Since the duration of our lives is but a moment and the state of death eternal . . . those who are guided by their own inclinations and pleasures without reflection and concern" for the reality of death eternal, are idiots and should be "condemned". He asks, "What would you wager? . . . God is, or He is not. Reason can decide nothing." And not to wager is not an option. Pascal reduces belief to a win/loss calculation with the following: "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing." MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S is a film devoid of conventional film devices to sway you one way or the other such as music, special effects, close-ups and general sentimentality. This is a film full of dialog and intellectual meanderings, but it is the emotions of the characters, those subtle distortions of the face, and the voice behind the eyes captured by a lingering camera that speak the truth. On the surface, this picture appears one dimensional and the end merely a continuation of the beginning, but under the surface, the characters have been transformed. One's actions may be controlled by intellectual pragmatism, but the emotions govern the inner world with a volotility that cannot be controlled. Single minded conformity to a religious proposition may bring security and comfort, but can love be divorced from the emotions? Can emotions be governed by the intellect? As to Pascals Wager, if one clings to this rigid proposition, despite the changing landscape of the emotions, perhaps shunning love itself, can the conclusion that "nothing is lost" still be held?

The third of Rohmer's Moral Tales, and quite unlike the previous two. The first two clocked in at approximately 23 minutes and 54 minutes, respectively. "My Night at Maud's", almost two hours. While the first two Moral Tales were basically first-person narration accompanied by visuals, which were secondary but stimulating nonetheless, "My Night at Maud's" is a dialogue-driven piece in which character's exchange personal philosophies and trade the ideas of their favorite philosophers like baseball cards. Although I'm not sure of which films are in Richard Linklater's (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset) DVD collection, it would probably be safe to assume that this is one of them.

Because it is a dialogue-driven piece, much more happens in the 54-minute-long "Suzanne's Career", Rohmer's second moral tale, than in "My Night at Maud's", which is about an hour longer. It can seem meandering at times, especially the first-half of the film, but put your trust in Rohmer. We're being bored to death for a reason. Listening to two Frenchmen discuss Pascal's Wager isn't very entertaining, but the payoff comes when, later on in the film, the characters are put into situations in which they have to make their own Pascal's wager, metaphorically speaking. The reward comes when we see these philosophies which they discussed tested in real-life situations, and we see how true, or untrue, to their ideals these characters are.

During the first fifty minutes, you may be bored out of your skull, but the way the film unfolds, you'll probably want to go back and watch the first fifty minutes again after it's over.