342-348 Six Moral Tales

Message

solent · #51 Post by **solent** » Sat May 20, 2006 8:53 pm

MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S was delayed in filming due to the unavailability of Trintignant (who he wanted for the main role). Hence, the earlier Moral Tale numbering in comparison to its later filming/release date.

paa400 · #52 Post by **paa400** » Sat May 20, 2006 9:38 pm

I can't wait for this-i just recently watched My Night At Maud's again and loved it even more. I love the cover of the Dvd too, thats one of my favorite moments from the film.

kieslowski_67 · #53 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:24 am

I watched "comedies and proverbs" again this past holiday weekend. Jesus Christ, I forgot how good these movies are! I thoroughly enjoyed them (with the exception of "a good marriage" which I stays lukewarm to it).

Rohmer is not for everyone. For me, at 15, I did not care about Rohmer. At 25, I started watching Rohmer. At 35, I cannot live without Rohmer.

Watching Rohmer is like chatting with your best friends. That's really the highest compliment I can give to a film maker.

kieslowski_67 · #54 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:43 pm

These images are from the Criterion website. If the transfers are as good as these images show, I will be ecstatic. =D>

HerrSchreck · #55 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:41 am

Whats up w her upper arm in the b&W shot? Surgery? The pox?

Anonymous · #56 Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:08 pm

Hopefully they will add color to the Claire's Knee cover, as it makes absolutely no sense for it to be in B&W.

Also, why not Beatrice Romand, the real star of the film. Criterion is as misguided as Brialy's character.

peerpee · #57 Post by **peerpee** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:35 pm

Those look like production stills (rather than DVD grabs), and have been used for posters and DVD covers in the past.

backstreetsbackalright · #58 Post by **backstreetsbackalright** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:22 pm

BroomNow wrote:Hopefully they will add color to the Claire's Knee cover, as it makes absolutely no sense for it to be in B&W.

Also, why not Beatrice Romand, the real star of the film. Criterion is as misguided as Brialy's character.

I think the B&W is lovely, even if the film is in color. As for the choice of actress, I had a similar initial reaction, but in the end I decided that the idealized fantasy of Claire is the best choice for the cover. Yes, it is as misguided as Jerome, and I think that's exactly the point.

Anonymous · #59 Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:09 pm

I don't mind the B&W itself (it is lovely, I agree), but why make two of the covers color and the other 4 B&W? Maybe I'm being too schematic.

An incredibly small, meaningless point - I just don't understand how Criterion, when designing the cover, came to that decision, in the context of the other covers.

fliggil · #60 Post by **fliggil** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:32 pm

Looking forward to picking this up, I'm taking a course in fall, of which half of the semester will be entirely devoted to studying Rohmer. This set looks great, but can anyone recommend any additional readings or any particularly good releases of other films that might include documentaries or booklets about Rohmer? Trying to take in as much as I can and be as prepared as possible for the course.

justeleblanc · #61 Post by **justeleblanc** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:40 pm

solent wrote:MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S was delayed in filming due to the unavailability of Trintignant (who he wanted for the main role). Hence, the earlier Moral Tale numbering in comparison to its later filming/release date.

So Maud was filmed after Collection, but written before Collection. I'm then curious why the b/w for Maud.

Simple questions I'll admit. I'm just now watching the Moral Tales for the first time and I can't get enough of him.

justeleblanc · #62 Post by **justeleblanc** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:29 am

And not to continue to dork out here, but I'm curious as to the specific order.

If we simplify the films we have

I: First date with a girl
II: Dating maturity
III: Sexual awakening
IV: Sexual maturity
V: Pre-marriage
VI: Marriage

Which thematically play as one continuous story of the same guy. Was this the intention or is there another reason why these films appear in this order.

Again, sorry to dork-out with semi-silly questions, but I just watched these films and I love them to death.

solent · #63 Post by **solent** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:10 pm

To my mind the B & W of MAUD could be an extension of the protagonist's personality - his religion, his past life and his demeanour. (Is he a grey intellectual who wants the choses de vie to be black and white?) It also enhances the setting of the story: a bleak winter in France. In other words: I feel the choice to film this way was deliberate and not a budget constraint.

justeleblanc · #64 Post by **justeleblanc** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:53 pm

solent wrote:To my mind the B & W of MAUD could be an extension of the protagonist's personality - his religion, his past life and his demeanour. (Is he a grey intellectual who wants the choses de vie to be black and white?) It also enhances the setting of the story: a bleak winter in France. In other words: I feel the choice to film this way was deliberate and not a budget constraint.

It really is a truly gorgeous film, no doubt. Though I'll try not to go with your metaphor, not because its not plausable, but because it reminds me too much of Pleasantville.

I was thinking, maybe not budget wise, but could it possibly be because it should go before The Collector, that he made it in black in white so that visually it looks like it predates it? That could be a stretch as well. Of course, maybe the booklet will explain it all.

Maybe Criterion has already begun planning out their Comedies and Proverbs set, which I hear is better than the Moral Tales. Of course, Netflix is missing the 6th film in that series.

kieslowski_67 · #65 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:15 pm

justeleblanc wrote:Maybe Criterion has already begun planning out their Comedies and Proverbs set, which I hear is better than the Moral Tales. Of course, Netflix is missing the 6th film in that series.

Cannot believe that Netflix does not carry "boyfriends and girlfriends".

Highly doubt that Criterion is doing "Comedies and Proverbs" since they don't hold rights for "Pauline at the beach" (held by MGM).

justeleblanc · #66 Post by **justeleblanc** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:32 pm

2 things.... netflix just added boyfriends and girlfriends, possibly upon my request.

also... mgm, is this now a sony or a fox title?

kieslowski_67 · #67 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:13 am

The English pal 2 Rohmer box set has all 6 films in the "comedies and proverbs" series and the transfers are quite decent. I am not sure whether a Criterion box set of the same titles is necessary (I will get it if it comes out for sure). The other thing to consider is that Rohmer is not a great visual artist and the smart, witty dialogue is the major selling point for his features.

Arn777 · #68 Post by **Arn777** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:24 am

Rohmer is not a great visual artist

hmm, in his own way he is, but not in a 'flashy' way. This is particularly true in the Comedies et Proverbes, where decor, clothes, colour schemes are very important to him and he has carefully made particular choices. Listen to some of the interviews that are on the UK discs (e.g. on Nuits de la pleine lune) and watch the Cineaste de notre temps doc and you will see that he is far more interested in the visual aspect than one would think, and the visual aspect reinforces the text (but in a very subtle way).

justeleblanc · #69 Post by **justeleblanc** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:50 am

Well my point is I'd hate to buy the R2 set or even pick up each disc individually for like 3 bucks each used if Criterion eventually will release them. And since MGM is letting Fox distribute their catalogue, Fox could conceivably let Criterion release Pauline. I wish there was a way we could know. But I'm fine if I have to wait forever. It makes me like them more.

As for Rohmer's visuals, they aren't flashy, but they are just as memorable as Godard's or Antonioni's.

kieslowski_67 · #70 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:10 pm

Even as a fanatic Rohmer fan, I totally disagree on that, especially on your comment on Antonioni.

justeleblanc · #71 Post by **justeleblanc** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:57 pm

Maybe a lot of the Rohmer myths are in fact myths, but there was that whole business with him planting the flowers years before Claire's Knee because he wanted a specific type of flower for the shot. There was the snow at Maud's, the shot of the nudist nanny running out of the bathroom naked in Love in the Afternoon, or all those shots in The Collector on the porch with an emphasis on the natural lighting.

These may not serve the same purpose as Antonioni's images -- where as his films are told primarily through the composition -- but I would argue that Rohmer cares just as much about the visual side to his films as any other new wave director, and while most filmmakers don't credit his visuals as entirely influencial, they are still incredibly memorable without being pretentious.

But I'm willing to accept the fact that Rohmer may not even agree with me.

Anonymous · #72 Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:10 pm

i just discovered rohmer 2 weeks ago (late to the party, i know...). i rented a cruddy old transfer of my night at mauds and was completely floored! what a fantastic movie. i was seriously jumping around the room when it was over.

i really want to see the other moral tales, but i'm biding my time waiting for the criterion versions so as not to spoil the experience. like a kid waiting for xmas...

justeleblanc · #73 Post by **justeleblanc** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:29 pm

You're in good company. I've only been watching Rohmer for maybe a few months now.

I've watched all 6 Moral Tales on the Fox Lorber's (the fillet of the dvd market) and aside from Suzanne's Career having a really dark picture at times, they were equivalent to great VHS copies.

Though truthfully, there's something great about watching a bad print of a great movie. Maybe someone will back me up on this one, but with Rohmer especially, I felt like I was reading from an old 14th century manuscript.

Ishmael · #74 Post by **Ishmael** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:03 pm

justeleblanc wrote:I've watched all 6 Moral Tales on the Fox Lorber's (the fillet of the dvd market) and aside from Suzanne's Career having a really dark picture at times, they were equivalent to great VHS copies.

I'm usually very forgiving with DVD transfers, but Fox Lorber's disc of Claire's Knee is absolutely one of the worst DVDs I have ever seen. (And that includes stuff from Facets.) It was quite obviously mastered from an old video source with lots of flagging problems, color errors (check out the weird pink sky in some of the shots), and softness. Seriously, it's so bad that it looks like Rohmer shot the thing on a 1983 VHS camcorder.

Though truthfully, there's something great about watching a bad print of a great movie. Maybe someone will back me up on this one, but with Rohmer especially, I felt like I was reading from an old 14th century manuscript.

If it's "great" to watch bad prints, why are you so eagerly anticipating the Criterion releases of these titles? I agree that watching a bad print doesn't ruin my appreciation of the movie on an emotional or intellectual level, but neither does it increase my enjoyment. I'm not sure where you're coming from on the 14th century manuscript thing... Rohmer's characters are very modern. Doesn't that ruin the illusion of age created by an insanely crappy DVD transfer?

Doctor Sunshine · #75 Post by **Doctor Sunshine** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:11 am

Ishmael wrote:If it's "great" to watch bad prints, why are you so eagerly anticipating the Criterion releases of these titles?

The appeal of a bad transfer is the same as that of an old 30s or 40s song with that gramophone hiss and crackle. It's maybe an acquired taste, an aesthetic touch that adds a flavour that mixes well with certain things. It's the same principle, for example, as any number of Criterion covers that're made to look beat up such as The Royal Tennebaum's.

That's not to say that anyone who enjoys an antiqued look would turn down a crisp transfer--that's always the most desirable way to see a film--but there's plenty of beauty to be had oldness, is what I think justeleblanc is getting at.