Smoking/No Smoking

These two gems have are an experimental, laid-back affair: instead of upping the ante visually, they have chosen to embark the viewer into a labyrinth of a plot, peppered with unforgettable dialogues served by nine characters, all played by two actors. Add to this the fact that this is also meant to be an anthropological view of that most bizarre people -the rural British- and you have a pair of truly unique and endearing movies, cinematic twins if you will.

Smoking and No Smoking end up being a double-treat: one of the most mordantly funny British comedy in years and possibly the best French films of their decade. The fact that Ayckbourn's spirit still flows with manic glee, filtered by Jaoui and Bacri's masterful adaptation, is a sizable feat when you know that French and British humors are generally deemed totally incompatible.

But despite the great texts, the unique sets (intentionally "theatrical"), the perfect, low-key costumes and the impeccable direction and editing, the real showstoppers are Sabine Azema and Pierre Arditi's with their multiple performances. Each and every one of their characters is played memorably, making for far more than an extended acting stunt on their part: you actually feel for and connect with each and every one of their incarnations, forgetting completely that they are played by the same actors, you are drawn into their characters' sometime painful, sometime painfully funny dilemmas (which all get resolved since all the possibilities are shown).

This is a UFO to me: a hilarious, touching comedy with absolutely no flaws (even though some have said the running times were a little self-indulging), an experimental film that "works" and never feels forced, a triumph of acting... I suppose some will find it overbearing, but actors, directors and screenwriters alike should make this one of their necessary (albeit hard-to-come-by) viewings because if you're caught by the magic on screen, you won't be turning back. Although the films can be seen in any order, i would recommend you start with No Smoking as it offers a more supple introduction to the films' "method" and characters and also because Smoking is probably the better of the two and thus, you've got a dramatic crescendo going for yourself.

For people who don't necessarily like French cinema or who don't understand the British: watch these,they're the kind of movie miracles that belong to everyone. They are that great.

This is one of the most intelligent and elegant movies ever made. And, still, it's funny and somehow happy. Of course, if you don't like minimalism and a playful conception, you will not love it. But you have to see it. Growing old, Alain Resnais becomes younger and fresher. It's far younger than all the Tarantinos. He's more free. Free from the author's giant ego, free from the film-industry mechanics, free from the boredom of 90% of "high" french movies, free from the film-language, free from everything but its own structure. Great actors, great conception. The only limit is that it's too new and too theatrical for the normal viewer. It requires a watcher with the same kind of freedom. Sorry for my broken English. However, You have to see it, really.

Resnais' distinguished Nouvelle Vague career (e.g.: Hiroshima, mon amour - Stavisky - Life is a bed of roses) demands that we give this film our serious consideration. A faithful cinematic version, in French, of a play by the great contemporary English dramatist Alan Ayckbourn, the whole enterprise might appear to superficial critics as an impossibly eccentric undertaking: A quintessentially English comedy of manners turned into a film by an entirely French team! How can two such diverse national temperaments as the Gallic and the English possibly cohabit in any meaningful creative enterprise? Well, this is the challenge, of course, and there were once philistines who thought even Shakespeare could never be attempted en Francais. The interest of this film lies, indeed, very largely in the attempts of all concerned to acculturate themselves to an alien perspective; naturally, the results are mixed, and no-one fluent in English would want to deprive themselves of the version originale. However, a talented group of French actors succeed commendably, on the whole, in communicating the very particular English humour of the play. For this chance to increase their repertoire, the actors have to thank Resnais, whose choice of Ayckbourn was far from merely eccentric. He has obviously recognised in the Englishman a person who is as typically obsessed as himself with opening up narrative structure, and in finding more creative ways to tell a story. Though a very strange hybrid (especially for an Anglophone!) the enterprise is no monstrous abortion, but actually a very elegant and worthwhile tribute by our neighbours across La Manche. This is a most attractive film version of Ayckbourn's drama. It even succeeds in retaining a great deal of the downright hilarity of the original, which, in their plays, the fellow-countrymen of Shakespeare have learned early to intermix with the sadder side of life. In other words, we have here a suitably touching, hilarious and clever, and, moreover, a fascinatingly unexpected, version of a great original. Authentic Ayckbourn, comme Resnais authentique. Shame on us in Britain that it is not commercially available here!

Puzzling mess from Alain Resnais.

Resnais's films are always joint works with their usually renowned screenwriters. The truth is that the quality of his films depends a lot on those collaborators.

I'm not quite sure what interest he may have found in Alan Ayckbourn's supposedly witty comedy, but the five-hour-plus result starts out as slightly unfunny stupidity, and after an hour turns into one of the most mind-numbing movies ever made , whose viewing is an unnecessary torture.

The premise of the staging is artificiality: decorated with painted curtains, two actors each representing several characters, forcing the play to be a succession of duets, and the use of makeup, costumes as exaggerated and irritating as the performances.

The reason for this mess cannot be just the stupid game of showing the diversity of developments that can be triggered by minor decisions, or the simple show-off of the actors in different roles. At first we suspect that there must be something more to it, apart from the apparent and irritating stupidity without any substance. But after an hour and a half it seems like that's it, a boring game that promises to continue for another four hours. Inconceivable.

Resnais left us a handful of fine films, always harnessing his eye for brilliant framing and his revolutionary concept of editing, to stage scripts by famous collaborators. But very often, when the starting texts were not particularly valuable, his films remain pedantic exercises in style. Over time he got involved in the most unlikely projects, none more disastrous than this Smoking/no smoking whose possible original interest on stage is totally lost when it goes to the big screen.

It won 1993 Cesar award. Those are two films. Smoking and No smoking. All characters played by two comedians. Set is meant to look like pictures used to teach English to French school-children. Both films start the same except in one she decide to quit smoking while in the other she chain smokes. Then what if... and it goes off with a whole different ending for I don't know how many times. Every time you'd think this is the end and then it explores a different possibility. One advise: don't rent both films the same day. Each lasts forever.