Agente Triplo

Eric Rohmer makes a spy film – though as one critic puts it, that doesn't make him likely to be a front runner to direct the next James Bond movie. Set on 1936, under the shadow of the Popular Front victory in France's elections, and based on the real life case of Russian spy Nikolai Skoblin, the movie is mostly about people in closed rooms chatting about politics. But most of the talk seems intelligent and engaging (by the way, the movie follows the real case closely, if you believe the Wikipedia article about Skoblin). The actors are fine, as usual in Rohmer films – Renko is slippery as the titular spy, and Langlet seems lovely as its naive communist neighbor. Now the Popular Front victory of the time probably means next to nothing to most people today – but it was probably a life moving experience for Rohmer – who was 16 at that time. In a way, this film is about Rohmer again settling scores against the French left, though thankfully, his conservative politics aren't as overbearing as in "The Lady and the Duke".

acting seems very natural--story not engaging One thing I have to say about "Triple Agent" is that the acting seemed very natural and convincing. The actors and director (Eric Rohmer in one of his last films) did a very nice job. On the other hand, the film is extremely talky--very, very little actually happens and when things occur, you mostly just hear about them. This makes for a slow film--one that needed some energy infused into it.

The film is about a couple--Arsinoé (who is Greek) and her White Russian husband, Fiodor. When I say 'White Russian' I mean that he is a an anti-communist Russian living in Paris after the Russian Revolution. He heads an organization of fellow expatriates and is clearly anti-Soviet. However, as the movie SLOWLY progresses, Arsinoé hears a lot from her husband that confuses her. He seems awfully friendly with the Nazis AND the Communists. And, his business trips to Belgium actually take him to Berlin. What gives?

As I said already, not much happens in the film--or at least you don't get to see anything. It's all told through conversations at Arsinoé's home. This style of storytelling is really weak...and the film lost my interest despite the fine acting. A weak script dooms what COULD have been a much more interesting film.

As is explained in the prologue to the film, it is based on a true story, although some names, situations and facts have been changed or added. The addition of any facts I feel were probably few, as the film wanted to give a sense of the unknown. The use of historical french newsreel footage throughout gives an partial documentary feel to the film, yet the fine direction by Eric Rohmer, editing and quality of acting draws you straight back into the story every time.

I came away from seeing this film at the Hong Kong Film Festival 2004 with many thoughts. The film has been very well written as a pre-World War II drama/thriller. With many twists and turns in the plot, most of them between the lead characters, Fiodor a 'white russian' (a russian against Joseph Stalins communist ideals) and his greek wife Arsinoe, who live together in Paris, the russian man being 'in exile'.

This is the kind of film that I could watch a hundred times and always come out at the end with different opinion of Fiodor, such is the complexity of the story. The acting benefits well for using actors with applicable nationality/heritage, ie Fiodor, russian, played by Serge Renko and Arsinoe, greek, played by Katerina Didaskalu. Giving the accent the right 'edge', especially in the case of Serge Renko, as the characters speak mainly french in the film. Serge also gives a proud russian 'stiffness' to his character making his behaviour very creditable.

The locations selected for the filming were well chosen and the set's well thought out. Some people may find this film a little faltering, but to me it felt as if the screenplay writer wanted to interfere as little as possible with the original true-life source material. Leaving the viewer to make up their own mind.

An entertaining film that I would watch again, if only to try and make up my mind about Fiodor. Watch it, think about it and then watch it again is my advice.

Rating 8.5-9/10

Eric Rohmer masterfully uses Paris as a canvas to brush the complex profiles of his characters, a quartet of retired White Russian Generals, a Greek painter married to a member of the quartet and their friends exiled in 1937 Paris.

Rohmer's mastery: His use of authentic buildings of the period with subtle deco stylization and other White Russian meeting points (the canteen of the Rachmaninov conservatory and a wooden Orthodox church near Butte-Chaumont), along with brilliant dialogues subtly lit with conversation on Picasso, Abstraction and realism in Art. Both the Communist couple and the White Russian couple in the movie will be steam-rolled by the events. Rohmer's use of newsreels is also extremely symbolic. The Paris World Fair of 1937 is shown with its stone colossus in the competing Soviet and Fascits pavilions seeming ready to crush the movie's characters as the end appears.Blum is seen making a speech among a forest of risen fists.

The relativity of life and that of free-will is the real subject. Is Fiodor pulling the strings or is he just just one of the puppets lost in the dubious cauldron of the Germano-Soviet pact of 1939 brewing in the shadows? Extraordinary work of a mature genius that makes one think that freedom is just appearance. Great actors with the beauty of french spoken rolling the Rs (Fiodor) or whispering them (his wife). Tragic unexpected ending. Rohmer revisits Hitchkok for a final "Coup de Theatre"!

Slow paced, and using a lot of dialogue, this film demands an attentive viewing. Decidedly, not recommended for people in a haste, wishing for a short respite between work and home. This film is Art, and History. Selected Pathé News reels from the period preceding World War 2 give us the context in which evolves a "White Russian" officer and his "Greek refugee" wife, living in Paris before, and during Nazi occupation. Is he a right-wing Russian, playing for the Nazis against a Communist France? Is he an underground agent of the Soviets, not opening his game even to affiliated communist friends? Is he a Nazi duping everyone else, as his wife once suspects? Is she as innocent as she tells, or is she a knowing part of her husband's triple spying schemes, or at least part of it? Spying is a question of technology, and that is shown in the end of the film, though the degree of technology used before our times of satellites seem ludicrous, but were terrific then. Spying is mostly a question of Humint (acronym for human intelligence), yesterday as today. French director Rohmer gives a master lesson in politics, History, human behaviour, love, and intelligence for all cinema lovers, based on true facts not fully explained even to this day. Highly recommended to spies of all colours, too - and they are legion...