Smoking/No Smoking
- 1993
- Tous publics
- 4h 58m
IMDb RATING
7.4/10
2K
YOUR RATING
An examination of the possible consequences of a certain event.An examination of the possible consequences of a certain event.An examination of the possible consequences of a certain event.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 11 wins & 8 nominations total
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree this is one of the best films made in France in the 90's decade : it is one you can view again and again without having completely mapped all the plot.
It is like a maze where one likes to get lost once in a while.
The two french actors are among my favorites. They have such a wide range of possibilities that they make this kind of miracle possible as a two-actor double-film possible ! Of course, this is obviously an "exercise of style", and it has a sort of theater atmosphere. But the theater is a very rich place for passion.
It also makes me think of 18th century french theater like Marivaux which showed so much characters under pressure.
It is like a maze where one likes to get lost once in a while.
The two french actors are among my favorites. They have such a wide range of possibilities that they make this kind of miracle possible as a two-actor double-film possible ! Of course, this is obviously an "exercise of style", and it has a sort of theater atmosphere. But the theater is a very rich place for passion.
It also makes me think of 18th century french theater like Marivaux which showed so much characters under pressure.
Though I don't like Alain Resnais' films (boooooring!), this(these) one(s) is(are) quite (an) exception(s)...The reasons are: the ever witty actors (Popular Sabine Azema and Pierre Arditi), the talented writers (Jean-Pierre Bacri and wife Agnes Jaoui)-very good actors too in other films-, the realistic sets (all shot in studio but with done-on-purpose "studio-like", strange and beautiful), the atmosphere and dialogs (sooo British and likable to my opinion). Though the plot is not that much important (stories and destinies of different characters in a small English village), the interesting points are: 2 separate movies with the same beginning until Sabine Azema (Mrs Tinsdale)decides to smoke a cig' (1st movie) or not (2nd movie), actually just a bait that will change the destinies of the characters though. In both movies you have a wonderful tour de force from start to end, as the 2 actors (only 2 all the time!) play ALL the characters in different disguises (more than 10)going in and out of the screen alternatively without any flaw. I never got bored, the acting is always good and keeping.
I wonder how English-speaking audiences appreciated this unusual French actor's challenge "a la britannic" (hope the 2 movies were just subtitled and not dubbed or you miss everything) and am curious to read further comments from them here in the future.
I wonder how English-speaking audiences appreciated this unusual French actor's challenge "a la britannic" (hope the 2 movies were just subtitled and not dubbed or you miss everything) and am curious to read further comments from them here in the future.
Did you know
- TriviaReleased in two separate parts : 'Smoking' (admissions in France: 411,449) and 'No Smoking' (admissions in France: 355,942).
- ConnectionsFeatured in Empreintes: Pierre Arditi, un acteur au présent (2012)
- How long is Smoking/No Smoking?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- No Smoking
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $57,033
- Runtime4 hours 58 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content