Un'orchidea rosso sangue

Although this film is in colour, I found myself wondering the day after the first viewing whether it was in black and white or in colour - this was probably due to the darkness which dominates most of the film. Another reviewer has written "improves with a second viewing" and he was right. Unfortunately the copy I saw had English sub-titles which could not be turned off, especially irritating because they were sometimes not just different to the French original but also incorrect. Nevertheless I would regard this as one of the best films of its genre and if you can get hold of an uncut version (amazing and irritating how people love to mess around with old films) it's definitely worth watching (twice!)

Claire (Charlotte Rampling) escapes from an asylum where she has been imprisoned at the behest of her aunt and is aided by Louis (Bruno Cremer). They find themselves pursued by the Berekian brothers and the aunt who knows that Claire is the heir to a great fortune.

Based as it is on the sequel to NO ORCHIDS FOR MISS BLANDISH it's no surprise that this film should inhabit a similar world of grotesque characters, bizarre incidents and savage death. With much of the violent mayhem set against a background of muddy rural yards and incessant driving rain, the resonant impression is of a battlefield in which most of the combatants will complete their private hell of isolation and desperation.

A dark thriller which improves with a second viewing, it is compelling in no small part due to its star. Charlotte Rampling is so right as the enigmatic Claire trying to make sense of her own identity and it is difficult to think of any other actress who would be more perfect for this role; Bruno Cremer is quietly effective as her doomed lover.

A subplot toward the end concerning the aunt, another grotesque, merely serves to dissipate the earlier tension.

This is the first film directed by Patrice Chéreau. It's a movie of genre and atmosphere. A dark and creepy atmosphere, worthy of the darkest Noir movie. Rain and fog bathe the whole film, filled with strange and insane characters. Huge sinister houses add some claustrophobic tension. Some of the characters are not very credible and the scenario gets weaker toward the end of the picture. But the sepulchral atmosphere and the magnificent acting performances by Charlotte Rampling and Simone Signoret are worth the detour. The face-to face between the two women gives rise to very touching scenes. The photography is magnificient as well.

Decadent Frenchmen doing terrible things to each other in rain-soaked decaying towns--sounds interesting to you? It did to me when TFO showed this Chereau film recently. Charlotte Rampling as young Claire and Edwige Feuillere as her aunt promised much entertainment, but the reality is that this movie is a disjointed mess that even good performances (the star-studded cast boasts Alida Valli and Simone Signoret too) cannot save.

Claire has a habit of blinding men who paw her with a knife: she does this three times. The two brothers--circus performers turned professional killers (God knows why)--are completely unbelievable. Madame Bastier-Wegener is always surrounded by about ten people, carrying out her orders, they're like a flock of seagulls swooping around. The plot gets more opaque as the film goes along, leaving the viewer desperately trying to fill in the blanks.

Chereau's films hold very little interest for me. He is a theatrical director (his opera productions are really gripping) who strays into cinema from time to time.

I read again the James Hadley Chase's novel two weeks ago, and I then wanted to compare with the Patrice Chéreau's film. Chéreau who was genuinely a stage theater director, certainly not cinema.... This film is very strange, very very strange but the adaptation is rather faithful to the genuine paper material. It could have been far worse. However many things remain unexplained. For instance, why the two knife thrower brothers wanted to kill Bruno Cremer's character? Why? In the book, I know the reason is explained, but not in the film. Then in the last scene, in the hospital room, we must read the book first to understand what happens in the last minute; even if it my be easily guessed. During most of the film, Chéreau shows us useless and meaningless sequences, shots, and in the last minute, an important sequence is not shown.... Yes, a very very strange film, but still an interesting one.