Avaliações de usuários

French cinema has always been, if not the most profound and analytic in the world, indeed, the one that sets the benchmark. In this beautifully shot film, Delanoy tackles a difficult subject matter (for our days) that wasn't so then. When I saw Les Amities Particulieres for the first time, I simply couldn't realise how important it was. Now, after many years, I find it much more interesting than it would have been in the sixties. Many others have already written about the story. I will delve into a different approach: today's reality, at the beginning of the 21st Century.

The strength of our mediated world has increased exponentially and it will keep on growing. The way we look at our world today is consistently chiseled by the way information is provided, dissected, manipulated and delivered. We just consume it. With it, the apocalyptic view on pedophilia that, by the way, means affinity, love, for boys has been transformed completely.

Maybe we're more than insane today than in the 40's or the 70's, but by then people were not scared at all by this kind of love, even when it was clearly seen as sin if sexuality was involved. For us, pedophile means stalker, assassin, assailant, or, as the media loves to call them: molester.

It's a good idea to watch this film with an open mind. What happens has happened for centuries and will happen ever after, until the human race disappears. May this words imply that I defend pedophiles? Yes. I can't defend a criminal, but I can defend someone who loves another human being and is loved in response. Georges loves Alexandre and Alexandre is absolutely in love with him, despite the age gap (at that age, the gap is even more pronounced). Alexandre makes Georges swear his love for ever, his "special friendship", and writes him touching letters that only lovers can write. They simply can't help not loving each other, despite of the many obstacles in their way.

In today's perspective, Georges is a pedophile, a stalker, a child molester who would never, ever molest a child... a stalker that is stalked by his prey because... he loves him. This bond grows so strong that is shared with close friends that encourage this relationship.

What would the media say about something like this TODAY???? We all know the answer.

This film can teach, too, a lot in cinematographic techniques. The use of the camera is unusual for its time. Maybe one of the most daring movements is when Georges arrives in one of the first scenes of the film. The unique way of depicting the corridors in the cloister is another "first", when the steadycam wasn't even in a dream.

And, story-wise, we have to credit this film with one of the most powerful endings in cinema: after the "Fin" frames we discover the very last testament of Georges unread letter to Alexandre, which ends with the word "amour". All in all, a must-see.

If you want to consider further what I said before (I know it will be hard for many people to swallow) I recommend watching "Wild Tigers I Have Known", a 2006 film made by Cam Archer, 26. It draws a similar scenario assuming life as it is now. I caution you that this film is very experimental (underline very), so it may be confusing and without a clear conclusion. That, is yours to make.

Francis Lacombrade stars as the young Comte Georges de Sarre, student at a French boarding school run by the priests. Didier Haudepin is the even younger Alexandre, another student at the same school. It is post WWII France, and the school is run with heavy discipline.

Georges develops a special friendship with Alexandre, hence the title of the novel and the movie made from the novel. Roger Peyreffite is quite a famous French author, and this story is his best work.

The two boys develop their friendship in spite of the rules of the fathers who are dead set against this sort of thing happening at their school. Not that there is anything sensual about the relationship, just a few chaste kisses and poems with Georges describing Alexandre as his "bijoux".

There is a touching scene in the movie with the two boys hidden in a haystack lying besides each other, sharing the joy of their company and a stolen cigarette.

Not to give away the ending, but tragedy befalls the two boys.

Interesting to note that a friend of Peyreffite, who also worked as a French civil servant, Henri de Montherlant also wrote a novel about the love between two boys. The Boys is also set in a Catholic boarding school, but around the turn of the 19th century. And a similar tragic ending.

In both stories, the Church and its rules against too much affection between schoolboys plays a major role in the story as one of the antagonists. We are left wondering just how well both stories might have turned out if the boys had been left alone to share their friendships.

This is the film adaptation of Roger Peyrefitte's novel telling the deeply moving love story of brilliant 16 year-old aristocrat Georges de Sarre and beautiful 12 year-old Alexandre Motier at St. Claude's, a French, Catholic boarding-school in the 1920s. Though chaste, their love is passionately expressed through poems, gazes and the odd kiss, and there is no mistaking the sensuality underpinning it.

Whether consummated or not, for many centuries such intense love affairs between younger and older boys were a feature of boarding-school life that brought joy and relief to some of the more feeling and less hung-up sort of adolescents, as well as grief and catastrophe to the minority whose liaisons were discovered and crushed by the Christian authorities. They were essentially pederastic, satisfying different emotional needs in the younger and older participants, though the disparity in age lent them special intensity for both.

This ancient tradition more or less died a generation or so ago; the boys who would once have partaken or at least have approved of romantic friendships nowadays either never see their appeal, brought up as they are in a society so antagonistic to them, or shun them through terror of being misunderstood and branded as gay. Indeed, the number of reviews of this film implying gayness is proof they are right to fear it is now practically impossible to escape being judged according to the new dogma insisting on a fixed sexual orientation for even early teens.

It is salutary to remember that however responsible the priests at St. Claude's were for the tragedy of Alexandre and Georges and however misguided the abhorrence of sin that drove them to act as they did, they acted as gentle lambs compared to the savagery with which their post-Christian successors today would crush an affair that any older and younger boy had the temerity to get embroiled in. Our new moral dictators would of course destroy Alexandre to save him from an unequal relationship rather than from the sin of homosexuality, but that would make no difference to either the cruel outcome or the monstrous bigotry behind it. Ironically it would actually increase the perverse injustice of such interference: Alexandre is typical of the younger boy in a special friendship in that his emotional need for it is evidently greater and so it is even more vital to his happiness than to Georges's that it should not be broken up.

Considering special friendships at boarding-school seem to have disappeared from our emotional landscape and are now so badly misunderstood, we must be forever thankful that in the short space of time when they were still fairly widely understood and it had also become possible to write candidly about such delicate matters, not only did such a talented writer as Peyrefitte preserve their character for us so evocatively, but that a film was made of it before the moral panic about teenage sexuality which arose in the 80s made such an undertaking unthinkable.

Unsurprisingly, the film is not as outstanding as the novel, though mostly faithful to it. The most significant change is that, in the novel, Georges was only fourteen, but as he seemed a little improbably sophisticated for even a French patrician of that age, this was actually an improvement. The problem with the adaptation to film is largely the common one of condensation. Because we do not get to know the protagonists quite so well, it is harder to be so deeply moved by their plight. Mostly gone too is the richly elaborated conflict in the boys' minds between the influences of puritanical Christian doctrine and the boy-admiring Graeco-Roman attitudes it drove into hiding. Nevertheless, the film is well acted, atmospheric and near the end soars towards the heights of aching pathos achieved in the novel.

Peyrefitte was much involved in the making of the adaptation to film, which makes for a fascinating footnote: he was rewarded by meeting on the set the love of his life, 12-year-old Alain-Philippe Malagnac, who had a minor role in the film as a choirboy and introduced himself to the author as a fan of the novel, a story Peyrefitte recounted in Notre amour (1967).

Edmund Marlowe, author of Alexander's Choice, an Eton love story, www.amazon.com/dp/1481222112

I had read the novel (in English translation, one of two which have been published?) several years before seeing the film. It is, I think, characteristically French: carefully descriptive, observant, objective, restrained, but also subtly hypnotic. I read and read, and almost put the book down halfway through because it didn't seem to be going anywhere or making any impact on me. Then, all of a sudden, I was in tears-- but I still couldn't say exactly what had hit me other than everything. It was as though the pieces of a puzzle suddenly fell into place.

The film is faithful to the spirit as well as the letter of the book. Both were remarkably bold gestures for their time, describing an earlier generation and environment which were even more strait-laced. Like me, you may fall gently under its spell, then-- wham! Sheer magic.

I have long wished to see this film and finally a DVD of it has been made available, so I watched it with enormous curiosity. I must say I am very much touched by LES AMITIÉS PARTICULIÈRES, for everything rings absolutely true in this film. The screenplay by Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost is perfection itself, rending Peyrefitte's autobiographical novel totally cinematic, visually striking and emotionally devastating. The acting by the two leading men is beyond anything I could have expected from such young performers. Didier Haudepin gives the best performance by a child actor I have ever seen in fifty-some years of film-going, standing alongside the likes of Patty Duke in THE MIRACLE WORKER, Brigitte Fossey in LES JEUX INTERDITS and Enzo Staiola in LADRI DI BICICLETTE. The supporting cast is equally to be praised, particularly the great Michel Bouquet. Frankly, Jean Delannoy deserves ample credit for having brought to the screen a film of such beauty and flawless artistry. I believe François Truffaut has never done anything that even approaches such a high level of film-making.

Another Delannoy 's film which needs restoring to favor in its native France where the director's reputation,because of the stupidity of the fusty Cahiers du Cinema,has definitely sunk.Delannoy,almost a centenarian,worked till 1995 ,but "Les Amitiés Particulières" is his last good movie.I'm happy to notice that there's not one single negative comment on it.Proof positive that non-French are better at judging French Films.Maybe the rating is currently a bit too high (8,9),but if it can help Delannoy get out of oblivion where he has fallen,so much the better.

Delannoy ,transferring a novel which was very popular in the sixties,depicts a world which no longer exists.Lines warn us before the cast and credits:times have changed,iron discipline is now a thing of the past,but there are things which never change: the first emotions of the adolescence.

Some people wrote there was a "gay interest" in the movie.I do not think it is so.If Georges falls for Alexandre ,it is because he lives in a man's man's man's world.Except for the scene of the prize giving day,there are no women,a fortiori girls in the film.And this is a world where religion reigns everywhere,a world where young aristocrats or wealthy bourgeois study under the priests' extremely watchful eye.

Best performance comes from Didier Haudepin,a wunderkind (like Brigitte Fossey in "Jeux Interdits" ) who grew up to become a director ("Paco l'Infallible " starring the late Patrick Dewaere) and an actor ("Les Assassins de l'Ordre" one of Marcel Carné's last efforts) but without any real success.When he appears ,holding the lamb,it is a transparent metaphor of purity.Alexandre's and Georges's love will remain pure and platonic .Their relationship reminds me of that between Le Petit Prince and the aviator in Saint-Exupery's famous novel.Their meetings in the greenhouse are extremely well filmed .That was not such an easy subject for the sixties and the pejorative word "academic" with which the highbrows often label Delannoy does not make any sense here.

Prior to different emancipations starting off in the 1960ies, many topics "normal" today were covered up or suppressed, or were handled and depicted in an off-putting manner. So were relations between boys in strict catholic schools, where tender souls and bodies had to grow up without the presence of females and much older men whose interpretation of purity and love did not conform to the secular grasps either...

In the film in question, we obtain a good overview with this, with bearing in mind that the events take place in France, in a "Southern- European" country where many expressions of affection and endearment are much more intense and common as e.g. in Northern or Eastern Europe. The plot has its twists, but the story-line let me, before long, guess how the ending/solution would be, and the plot was full of hints and references to medieval comprehension of love and romance. The performances were just good, not more - apart from Didier Haudepin as Alexandre Motier, who as a child, boldly presented a difficult and controversial character.

Usually, with the exception of e.g. Chaplin or Lloyd, I am not into black-and-white films, but here, as most of the events took place in the monastery environment, it did not perturb.

Les amitiés particulières is undoubtedly a distinct film, but as following decades have brought along lots of revelation and new angles as for monastery schools and gay issues, then, as it seems to me, the main approaches and dramatics of the film do not bespeak current generations any more.

People who have loved the novel by Roger Peyrefitte should equally love the film by Delannoy. This story of a thwarted love between two young boys in a french Catholic college in the 50's, faithfully transcribes the nearly oppressive atmosphere which prevailed in religious boarding schools in those days. The climate of repressed, contained passion at times culminates in sublimated eroticism as when Georges kisses the medal worn by Alexandre against his breast. The film perfectly renders the perversity of some priests who secretly encourage the forbidden love, sharing it by proxy, while openly condemning it. A remake of this film could not possibly be made nowadays. It tells a story of a time when,as the great Burke wrote, though at a far anterior period, "vice itself lost half its evil by losing all its grossness". The cast is excellent and the Black & White pictures superb.

Out of curiosity, how come French writer Roger Peyrefitte's first novel LES AMITIÉS PARTICULIÈRES (published in 1943), which daringly depicts two boys' forbidden love in a boarding school could get a film adaptation in as early as 1964? Considering its thematic story conspicuously nudges such social taboos like pedophile and the dark corner in the priesthood.

Shot in Black and White by the late French director Jean Delannoy, the film is largely faithful to the source novel, Georges de Sarre (Lacombrade), a newly-arrived senior student in a Catholic boarding school for upper-class boys, soon emerges as the pick of his peers and will be admitted to the school academy any day, when he first lays his eyes on a much younger schoolmate Alexandre Motier (Haudepin), a cherubic boy with the face of an angel, the two mutually attract to each other, through love letters and secret rendezvous, their "special friendship" cannot continue without the punishment by the school, after several bouts of wrestling with several fathers (Bouquet as Father Trennes, Seigner as Father Lauzon and Nat as Father Superior), eventually they are unmatchable to the rigorous church, their future becomes ominous.

Under the envelope of strong religious incense, with organ music reverberating around, the film constructs a puppy love in the purest way, even it is between two boys, Lacombrade and Haudepin are new faces in the acting line, from their interactions and responses, one can detect that all is rigidly rehearsed beforehand, albeit acting as natural as they can, it doesn't ring true and frankly the entire scenario is too challenging for any child actor to pull off the desire with genuine affection. Georges is a very complex character, from his struggle with his belief in the routine confession to his sabotage to separate his best friend Lucien (Leccia) from his lover, it is pretty unsatisfied to see Lacombrade's stiff performance play out without any substantial underlining.

So, the acting borders on amateur, save Michel Bouquet's ambivalent accuracy as a father conflicts with his own unspeakable impulse. But as a whole, the film emits its visual intensity and forbidden fruit moderately in the luster which reminds us French masterpiece like THE 400 BLOWS (1959, 9/10), DIABOLIQUE (1955, 9/10) and other austere religious drama, with the exception of their dining spectacle does prefigure Harry Potter's Hogwarts school.

Anyhow, it is a bold film, which ironically is very difficult to be remade at present time even half a century has passed, we become more and more intolerant and squeamish. Nevertheless the novel itself is a tough one to be transposed to a different media form, so better leave it in its primary savor and even this film only scratches the surface, it is already quite an achievement for its own sensational existence at the first place.

This Special Friendship was created in 1964 combining all the elements of a masterpiece. Born in the mind of Roger Peyrefitte, superbly adapted to the screen by Jean Delannoy, and exquisitely acted out by Francis LaCombrade and Didier Haudepin, this movie has become a timeless work of art. Set in France, in a religious Jesuit school, two boys, one sixteen, one twelve, intrigued by each other's company embark on a special friendship. This particular friendship which possesses all the unique qualities of genuine love and empathy is viewed as unholy by their priests who set about to destroy such a concept. The film is fashioned in black and white as were the rules of friendship in 1964. A classic, if ever there was one. Be prepared for some heart wrenching pathos. *****

This film was really sweet, as well as very sad. Some scenes were painfully cute, and I think it's interesting to note that the author of the book actually started a relationship with one of the 12 year old extras.

"On the set of the film, Peyrefitte met the 12-year-old aristocrat Alain-Philippe Malagnac d'Argens de Villèle who had been cast as a choir boy and was a big fan of the book. Not only did Peyrefitte sign Alain-Philippe's copy of the book but the two also fell in love, pursuing a stormy relationship that Peyrefitte chronicled in some of his later novels such as Notre Amour (1967) and L'Enfant de coeur (1978).

I think that film was ill-treated at Venice in 1964, when it was presented, the reason is obviously due to the fact there was a particular section devoted to films dedicated at young people enhancement. No matter. This film never has been promoted and distributed in Italy, simply it was forgotten. The only projection was made in Milan in time of carnival (it was a joke?), no one can say it.

The story is one of those, that any sensible male youth, can mirror himself over the tragedy that it brings with. and I hope in its rescue.

As love stories go, this has to be one of the more touching I've seen on film. Set amidst the controlling but not oppressive environment of a Jesuit run school, we meet the young "Comte Georges" (Francis Lacombrade) who develops a friendship with the younger "Alexandre (Didier Haudepin). Now it's not in any way a sexual or predatory relationship, but the two instantly click with the younger lad clearly infatuated with his older friend who sees in "Alexandre" an opportunity to nurture a genuine love and affection. Naturally, the fathers take a fairly dim view of any friendship that suggests even the most platonic degree of intimacies between the boys, and so "Fr. Superior" (Lucien Nat) attempts to put a stop to things by threatening to send "George" away from the school. What now ensues are a series of decisions to be faced by people too young and immature to fully comprehend, let alone, rationalise - and a tragic denouement starts to look increasingly likely as young "Alexandre" really does come across more and more as a "lost sheep". What struck me about this is it's positivity. It's not about abusive priests with canes and excessive doctrine - the Father Superior comes across as a decent man genuinely concerned with the souls of his charges, whilst the two - especially the thoroughly charming Haudepin - just engage as two people whom you could image being friends forever. It has moments of poignancy, of disappointment and of fun - and although maybe it could have taken a bit longer to build the characters more, it is still a potent look at two boys in love - forbidden yet thriving.

Believe it or not..I read Michael Jackson or his aide checkehd this movie out while staying at his hideaway condo in Century City of Los Angeles...this was 1993 when he had "adopted "Jordan Chandler family (first accuser).. before the allegations... there's a book 📚 by Victor Guiterrez called I Was Michael Jackson Lover which came out in 1997.. with ALL the sordid details..The book is very controversial..and even the author was sued by Jackson which won a multi million dollar lawsuit.. but wasn't PAID...the movie I found to be disgusting and see it was made in 1964...Priests All over the world have been doing these atrocities for years and it lead to the decay of society..and trauma of countless young boys 🤔👦🏻..the movie was rented from Video West in West Hollywood by Jackson it's reported in '93.

At first I did not think that the movie will be interesting. But I soon changed my opinion. The fact that the movie is in black and white makes it even more appealing than if it was in colour. The action takes place in a boarding school located in France. Actually the scenes from the dinning room reminded me of the movies for Harry Potter.

The main characters are Georges de Sarre – 16 years old student and the young Alexandre (age 12) who is a student at the same school. Their friendship is really beautiful – and heart touching. It sure brought some old memories too. There is a lot of poetry in this movie – it seems that I am getting hocked to poetry- again! Few years ago there was a girl who was sending me sonnets of Shakespeare. I even tried to write some poems myself. I still haven't finished watching the movie – it turned out to be on two CDs and I only got one of them, but will get the second one soon- then I will complete this review.

I have finished watching the movie and its ending made me sad – sad and disgust. Disgust that there are such people who refuse to accept that a true, special friendship can exist and interfere – to hurt everyone, but their pity selves. And do I know of such people – because they are not only shown in the movies you know – they lurk amongst us – trying to make the rest believe and thing what they do – such people really disgust me….

Les amitiés particulières is based on 1943 novel by French writer Roger Peyrefitte.

Many reviews of this film state that George is 16 or 17 (and he appears so in the film) which leads to all the comments that he is a pedophile. But in the book by the author, his age is given as 14 (page 1) when he enters the school. To me, this changes the dynamics completely about the story. It becomes one of puppy love--although deeply and profoundly felt. There is no doubt that early in the book, he feels attraction for a Lucien, a classmate, and that he is possibly gay. I challenge anyone to cite in the book where it says that George is 16 or 17.

The movie is so beautifully made that the love between the two is totally believable. But I wish that it had been made as the author wrote it.

There is a Ievel of intimacy in films on paedophelia/homosexuality that I am not at ease watching, let alone discussing them.

Jean Delannoy directs with assurance, aplomb and analytical depth a film that treads very fine lines as it follows the relationship in a Catholic education estalishment between a young man of aristocratic background and approaching the end of adolescence, Georges de Sarre, and Alexandre Motier, a boy entering his teens.

The Catholic priests, notably Father de Trennes - superb performance by a mouse-faced Michel Bouquet - keep a keen eye on any relations in and out of the sleeping quarters, and expulsion is the inevitable fate of those who deviate from the straight and narrow. Father de Trennes is himself packed off to other pastures after the Father Superior finds him talking with a young man in a room in the middle of the night, in contravention of institutional rules.

It is a morally delicate film that makes you feel you are a voyeur watching something that the two young men want to explore in a genuinely innocent manner that ultimately proves to be their undoing, because innocence does not last where the flesh starts ruling over the spirit.

Competent B&W cinematography by Matras, strong and honest script from the famous writing Aurenche-Bost team, off the original novel by Roger Peyrefitte. 7/10.

There are very few films made today that can remotely equal the stunning power of this production. From the outset we are drawn into that magical world of schoolboy love where raw purity and awakening sexuality march side by side on the path to maturity.

Georges is 17 and struggling to qualify for higher learning. At his Catholic Choir school he meets 12 year old Alexander, a boy of rare spirit and beauty. They are drawn to each other with relentless force. Nonetheless their love is not homosexual although it might be interpreted as such. Indeed it is that misinterpretation of this most common infatuation that forms the basis of this profound drama. Every adult attempts to crush their friendship despite the innocence and harmlessness of it. And in the end we are left wondering whether society effects greater child abuse through its condemnation of such relationships than any of the participants could possibly do to each other. This film should be shown in every school.

Jean Delannoy was a fine French director who helmed a number of important films over the course of his career, and in LES AMITIÉS PARTICULIÈRES he displayed his trademark sensitive approach and strong dialogue crafted by the great duo of Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost, off the novel by Roger Peyrefitte.

Delannoy also extracted superior performances from Francis Lacombrade in the role of Georges de Sarre, nearing the end of his teens and of aristocratic family background; Didier Haudepin as Alexandre Motier, entering his teens; Lucien Nat as father superior; and, above all, Michel Bouquet's superb delivery as the mouse-faced Father de Trennes who watches the comings and goings of students and their relations, ready to report any untoward situations such as possible sex, love, and other intimacies among students.

I found it interesting that neither the characters nor the film pass any judgment on emerging moral issues, rather leaving it to the viewer to judge for himself/herself, almost like a peeping tom. I felt uncomfortable at times, almost like a voyeur.

Competent B&W cinematography from Christian Matras

Definitely unusual film, warrants watching, though I find the current 7.7 rating much too high.

I just watched this movie for the first time. And that leads me to think that I urgently need to start digging for works like this. It is worth saying that a comparison with the Belgian film Close is inevitable. Although Close is a good film, this one is a masterpiece. The plot, the growing tension, the fear of discovery, and the way the friendship evolves takes us to another level. And most intriguing of all is the time in which this film was made. A great film is one that is not just well made, but a film that intrigues us, that leads us to reflect on society and the world. A film ahead of its time. Rating 10.

Diirector Jean Delannoy is on top form here with this stupendous film based on the largely autobiographical novel of Roger Peyrefitte, superbly adapted by the prolific Aurenche and Bost. I never miss the opportunity of singing the praises of editor Louisette Hautecoeur and her work here is exemplary whilst the cinematography of Christian Matras is immaculate. The performances are uniformly excellent but mention must be made of Francis Lacombrade who as Georges is, in effect, the author's alter ego, Michel Bouquet as Father Trennes who prides himself on 'deciphering the secrets of others' whilst concealing his own and stalwart Louis Seigner as Father Lauzon who genuinely believes that he is battling with Satan for the soul of young Alexandre played by Didier Haudepin. The film really belongs however to Haudepin whose performance is wondrous. Excellent use of J.S.Bach and Aquinas while the use of Allouette in the tragic train sequence is devastating. I have no hesitation in nominating this beautifully constructed, poignant, haunting and heartfelt film as one of Delannoy's best and rate it accordingly.

Or mgic. or refreshing. or mysterious. or provocative. the film is the long shadow of the novel. and the novel is the right challenge for discover and explore an universe , in strange way, more familiar than you expect. a film about a sort of friendship. not comfortable, many, for a part of public. but useful. not exactly for the message. but a perspective about love, life and young ages , escaping from the ordinary definitions.

This movie makes an superb contrast to the Dutch movie "For a Lost Soldier" (1992).

This Dutch movie is from a book by a choreographer. The novel, which is openly autobiographical, is much more inflammatory than the movie.

Among other things, the movie shows that a superb director and cast can retain good taste as they depict things that some might find offensive.

Other than to say that the theme of the novel and movie is that there is no life without Eros, Passion, I say nothing for or against either.

The opening of the movie shows how the Dutch middle class saved their children from starvation during the final days of World War II.