46 / BD 28 Le Silence de la mer

Discuss releases by Eureka and Masters of Cinema and the films on them.
Message
Author
BrightEyes23
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:46 am

#26 Post by BrightEyes23 » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:48 am

can't wait for this. I'm a big fan of Melville and despite my tight budget and the poor purchasing power of the american dollar i just couldn't stop myself from pre-ordering this.
here's hoping amazon will ship my copy right away instead of waiting for the other title i ordered (Bamako) to release!

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#27 Post by MichaelB » Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:51 am

I've just watched it, and it looks fabulous. The print isn't exactly pristine, but given the production circumstances I suspect it's the best we're likely to get - and damage is generally kept to a minimum (tramlines are very faint, for instance, and while there are flickerings of chemical damage around the edges of some frames, they're never distracting).

And I couldn't see the slightest sign of any transfer problems - it's correctly framed, the image is wonderfully rich and sharp, the soundtrack is entirely acceptable (given late 40s mono is never going to win any awards), the subtitles are idiomatic and typo-free - and conscientious enough to "translate" Shakespeare correctly by reverting to the original.

I haven't watched the Ginette Vincendeau discussion yet, but I've dipped into the booklet, which is typically superb - two long extracts from valuable Melville books, one of which has been out of print for decades.

User avatar
Awesome Welles
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:02 am
Location: London

#28 Post by Awesome Welles » Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:37 pm

This looks fantastic, it looks so clean! I can't wait to get it through my door. I hope HMV are quick about it.

My order just shipped from HMV, I can hardly wait, I've been waiting to see early Melville for ages.

User avatar
What A Disgrace
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:34 pm
Contact:

#29 Post by What A Disgrace » Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:00 pm

Mine shipped from CDWow, along with Painleve & Svankmajer sets, Mulholland Drive SE and Peeping Tom SE. A spectacular birthday package for me.

User avatar
TheGodfather
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:39 pm
Location: The Netherlands

#30 Post by TheGodfather » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:33 pm

FSimeoni wrote:My order just shipped from HMV, I can hardly wait, I've been waiting to see early Melville for ages.
Just read the shipment e-mail from HMV as well. Already shipped on the 21st. Well before I thought it would ship.
This is gonna be one hell of a week for me

User avatar
Don Lope de Aguirre
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: London

#31 Post by Don Lope de Aguirre » Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:28 pm

I have just watched this DVD :shock: What a film! Incredible... I am in awe of Melville, as always. Who would have thought that you could create such a powerful drama when two of the three principal characters completely refuse to engage in all dialogue! The scene when the soldier plays Bach's eight prelude and fugue is simply sublime... Melville very rarely reached such emotional depths again.

The image is (globally) very strong too though the sound displays a lot of very distracting hiss at some points. Additionally, the Vincendeau intro is very good (as usual for her).

Beau travail perpee!

User avatar
TheGodfather
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:39 pm
Location: The Netherlands

#32 Post by TheGodfather » Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:01 pm


User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#33 Post by Tommaso » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:01 am

I watched this yesterday, not having seen any of Melville's other works apart from "Les enfants terribles", and was pretty much blown away by it (unsurprisingly). What I didn't know about were the unusual conditions surrounding the production, as detailed in the booklet and in the introductory video piece, and after learning about them, I was even more intrigued. How could anyone do a film like that without virtually no experience, no money and a cinematographer who had only done photographs and documentaries before? An unbelievable achievement, well preserved by one of MoC's most excellent transfers.

But the film also posed some questions that were not entirely answered for me by the (excellent) booklet. First about cinematic style: the essay says that Melville's use of light and darkness was extremely unusual for the time, and that he had to drop two cameramen before he found one willing to do the sometimes extremely dark shots. But was that lighting scheme really SO unusual at the time? The whole look of the film reminded extremely of Cocteau, who had done similar lighting schemes already in "La belle et la bete", three years earlier, and as there's even a direct reference to Cocteau in the narrative itself, the similarities seem no coincidence. Being more or less a Melville newbie, how does the style of this film relate to Melville's later work (apart from "Les enfants terribles", of course, which was virtually co-directed by Cocteau)?

Second, about the implications of the portrayal of the Germans in the film.

The character of Werner de Ebrennac, so the speculation goes in the booklet, might have been modelled at least partly on the author Ernst Jünger, who indeed was in Paris at the time, was a highly cultured man, and had a lot of friends among intellectuals there (again Cocteau, for instance). He published his diaries about these years after the war, and in them, there emerges a much more differentiated portrait of the German officers occupying France than we find in the film (including portraits of those later involved in the Stauffenberg attempt to kill Hitler). Jünger clearly was a strict conservative with a belief in militarist ideals (but not a nazi), and this stance brought him a lot of dismissals and attacks by the German left since the 50s, but apparently he was always accepted in France as someone who understood 'french' culture and a man who could think for himself.

So, if Ebrennac was indeed modelled on Jünger, why then does the film fall back to a pure black/white scheme when it comes to the portrayal of the Nazis in Paris, and factually disregarding historical time when mentioning Treblinka one year before its existence (as the booklet points out)? This was something that Melville put into the film, and is apparently not in the novel. Same goes for the flashback in which Ebrennac's girlfriend sadistically tears apart the mosquito after having praised all God's creation in the sentence before. This was the one scene in the film where I thought Melville (or Vercors) is stressing the point of the film so much that it becomes almost ridiculous. It also endangers the message of the film by making a pure caricature of the enemy and by seemingly demonstrating their 'inherent' or 'natural' evilness, as this moment occurs to happen totally unforced by the historical circumstances. I also can't recall (but I may be wrong) having ever heard of any plans of a 'total destruction of French culture' as are made by the nazis in Paris.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this to be a 'political' point (even if I'm German), but an 'aesthetic' one. I know it's a book and film made with the intention of praising the résistance, but I cannot help feeling that the film falls into an unnecessary, purely 'propagandistic' stance and at least in those scenes loses the subtlety that it has otherwise. In this respect, the (seemingly inevitable) comparison made in the booklet between Ebrennac and Rauffenstein in "La grande illusion" may not really be to the point. Rauffenstein is by far the more conservative, 'manly' and militarist character (and he might have much more in common with Jünger as well), but Renoir's film is more openly 'humanistic'. But, as we have recently found out in our discussion about it, the difference may well be that between WWI and WWII.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#34 Post by zedz » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:46 pm

Tommaso wrote: (apart from "Les enfants terribles", of course, which was virtually co-directed by Cocteau)
I'm pretty sure this is an old wives' tale that really only had currency way way back when Cocteau was a 'major director' and Melville was known primarily for this film (his other work either unseen by critics or dismissed as enjoyable genre stuff). Cocteau may have directed one scene. The fact that the legend is still fit to print after all these years is down to Melville's amazingly faithfulness to Cocteau's vision, as expressed in the novel and screenplay, but in terms of filmmaking style, it's quite different from Cocteau's own filmmaking.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#35 Post by Tommaso » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:51 am

davidhare wrote: To call Cocteau a co-auteur is an altogether different - and quite appropriate - thing. But Melville's staging blocking and direction of actors is altogether different to Cocetau's in, say Orphee, in which he uses higher angles for medium shots, differently rhythmed decoupage and a hundred other things.
You're certainly right in calling Cocteau a co-auteur rather than a co-director, and basically that was what I had in mind, although I remember reading somewhere (or was it on the commentary track of the bfi disc?) that Cocteau interfered with Melville's directing more than Melville would have liked, and at least tried to have the film made his way. I wouldn't compare "Enfants" to "Orphée" though, but it rather reminds me of the claustrophobic atmosphere in Cocteau's little seen 1948 film "Les parents terribles". I haven't seen that film for ages, but I seem to recall a far greater reliance on medium shots, close-ups and very 'tight' blocking than is usual in Cocteau. Wouldn't "Parents" be a great addition to the MoC catalogue, btw?

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#36 Post by Tommaso » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:58 am

I agree completely re:"Parents" and Melville's "Enfants" is by far the better film, but its total neglect in terms of dvd releases seems somewhat inexplicable considering that Cocteau still is somewhat of a 'cult' artist. The 'kammerspiel' atmosphere might make it particularly interesting as it clearly is something one wouldn't expect from Cocteau. And I think it's much better than "L'aigle à deux tetes", a film which heavy-handedly tries to bring one of his weakest plays to the screen (though, admittedly, it has some very great décors).

Your mentioning of "L'éternel retour" might bring us back to topic. This is a film as neglected as "Parents", perhaps, but for reasons that also reflect the immediate post-war situation and the German-French conflict. In this respect, its fate is the reverse of that of "Le silence de la mer". "Retour" was heavily criticized for what reviewers thought was its 'German' style, you know: the Tristan&Iseult theme and the VERY blond, short hair of Marais. It never recovered from that ill reputation, and as far as I know it has never been restored or even released on dvd in France (I have an unsubbed Korean dvd taken from a horrible, horrible print). But it's a film that deserves to be seen, and its transmutation of an ancient myth into modern times might make it a nice companion piece to "Orphée".

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#37 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:39 am

Glenn Kenny blogs about this DVD release and three other Melville films.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#38 Post by Tommaso » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:45 am

Never mind, Dave, about the delay.

Ahm, what is wrong with those sweaters?! They look pretty stylish indeed, but what can they possibly have to do with alleged Germanic leanings? Okay, you'd rather wear them in Northern countries (i.e. Scandinavia rather than Germany) where it's colder than in France, but after all this IS an adaptation of Tristram and Iseult (which, if it can at all be located originally, is of Irish/Celtic origin). Probably they thought Wagner invented the story....
davidhare wrote:Look this whole subject of Occupation period French cinema is given a beginning elsewhere on the forum. But we never got very far with it. One of the problems here, I think, was its confusion with the 50s Tradition de Qualite issue and the Right/Left Nouvelle Vague bizzo.. (And in the process I think we have scared off at least one if not two posters.)
I can't remember that thread... perhaps it was started before I entered this forum about one year ago? But I guess what you mean. In Germany they have only lately begun to tackle films (i.e. discuss them as films, not to speak of the still very scarce dvd releases) made in the latter half of the 1930s, at least those that COULD be seen as endorsing Germanic values or even only traditions (Trenker's astonishing "Der verlorene Sohn" with its portrayal of pagan winter rituals comes to my mind immediately). And of course you could see a film like "Children of Paradise" as problematic because it clearly does not talk about the circumstances of the time and might be seen as escapist, and it might even be true. But that doesn't diminish any of its value, and ditto for "L'eternel retour".
davidhare wrote:I have NEVER seen l'Aigle - but after watching the Antonioni version I really relish it! Bad as it might be.
Well, I have never seen Antonioni's! I think the problem with "L'aigle" is not so much Cocteau's film, but simply his original play. The film makes the best of it, but cannot really save it. Still worth watching if you can get to see it somewhere. After all nothing Cocteau ever filmed is really bad. Just don't spend a fortune for that unsubbed Korean disc, it simply looks and sounds bad, although I'm glad it exists at all. The reason why the French avoid it despite it being a 'true' Cocteau film is probably quite similar as with "Retour", but here Cocteau seems really to endorse 'aristocratic' values (it's set in a fantasized 19th century Austria, though, but that doesn't seem to matter) much more than in "Retour". But the film was indeed made in 1947, and would clearly not fit into the climate, if "Silence de la mer" is representative for what people actually wanted to see at the time. But on the other hand, as I said before, no criticism by me of "Silence" either, it's definitely much better than "L'aigle", and in its own way almost as entrancing as "Retour" (which gets a lot of its interest from Marais and the magnificent Madeleine Sologne, of course).

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#39 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:51 pm

Watched this the other day. This was a very respectful DVD package of a film I figured would never get released, massive props to peerpee and crew for this one. =D>

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#40 Post by denti alligator » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:36 am

Just watched this and was really impressed. I have a question about the transfer. I noticed a high degree of pixellation, especially in dark shadows (of which there are a lot). Now this might be my new display (though I doubt it, because other discs haven't shown this problem), or it might be the disc (is it possible I got a defective disc?), but I found it distracting. Am I alone in seeing this? Otherwise the picture is incredibly beautiful: very sharp, lots of detail. But in dark scenes (especially when the oncle goes down to hear who is playing the hamonium) the detail is lost to blotchy patches of dark that look very digital. It's not unusual for me to see slight amounts of this kind of pixellation in unfocused background shadows, but here it was more pronounced than usual.

The filmed discussion of Melville and Le Silence de la mer was excellent! I can't wait to dig through the very thick booklet.

bluesea
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:41 am

#41 Post by bluesea » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:55 pm

That pixellation may be caused by a combination of your particular DVD player, and the disc. I have a Pioneer 50avi and it will on rare occasions produce the same artifact. I haven't viewed my la Mer disc yet, but will report back when I get a chance.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#42 Post by denti alligator » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:27 pm

I withdraw my remark about the pixellation. I had the backlight on my display set too high, which was emphasizing the existing (but normally mostly invisible) pixellation in shadows.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

#43 Post by Yojimbo » Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:57 am

I don't know whether this has been mentioned but as I was watching it I was struck by two things:
1), how untypical it was compared to the Melville of such as 'Bob', 'Cercle Rouge', and, to a lesser extent 'L'Armee Des Ombres' that I had come to know and love;
2). My favourite Bresson, 'Diary Of A Country Priest' has much in common with 'Silence' in terms of mood, pace, and feel, to such an extent that I wonder did it influence Bresson.

Also interesting that Melville gravitated more towards the Hollywood-influenced crime film shortly afterwards
(although I haven't yet watched 'Leon Morin: Pretre' so I couldn't comment on similarities with it.

Jack Phillips
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:33 am

#44 Post by Jack Phillips » Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:22 pm

Yojimbo wrote:Also interesting that Melville gravitated more towards the Hollywood-influenced crime film shortly afterwards
(although I haven't yet watched 'Leon Morin: Pretre' so I couldn't comment on similarities with it.
LM:P is more like Diary than any other film I know (although there remain great differences between them). You raise an interesting point about the similarities between mature Bresson and the non-crime films of Melville, although I don't know if either can be said to have influenced the other.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#45 Post by GringoTex » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:50 pm

Yojimbo wrote: My favourite Bresson, 'Diary Of A Country Priest' has much in common with 'Silence' in terms of mood, pace, and feel, to such an extent that I wonder did it influence Bresson.
Melville always claimed he did Bresson before Bresson did Bresson. Typical Mellvillian hyperbole. I don't see it at all. The only similarity is that the father and daughter appear to give non-performances, but their stoicism is narrative-driven, as opposed to Bresson.

Their mise-en-scene is completely opposed. Bresson pinpoints action to the point of abstraction. Mellville, in this film particularly, concentrates on the stillness of space.

This is my favorite Mellville, but I doubt it had much influence on Bresson.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

#46 Post by Yojimbo » Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:16 pm

GringoTex wrote:Melville always claimed he did Bresson before Bresson did Bresson. Typical Mellvillian hyperbole. I don't see it at all. The only similarity is that the father and daughter appear to give non-performances, but their stoicism is narrative-driven, as opposed to Bresson.

Their mise-en-scene is completely opposed. Bresson pinpoints action to the point of abstraction. Mellville, in this film particularly, concentrates on the stillness of space.

This is my favorite Mellville, but I doubt it had much influence on Bresson.
I read about the Melville comments subsequent to my viewing and forming my own impression.

I've never actually made a subsequent comparison, but I'd be very surprised if Bresson wasn't at least aware of the Melville film.
I've always found that directors tend not to acknowledge influences which critics and indeed, perceptive viewers, tend to associate.
Thats human nature, if nothing else.

But, as a Melville and Bresson fan, if it is the case, I suspect it could be considered a tacit acknowledgement by Melville that Bresson 'did' Bresson better than he did.

but, with regard to your comment regarding 'stillness of space', would you not agree that applies especially to 'Diary Of A Country Priest'?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re:

#47 Post by HerrSchreck » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:27 am

Tommaso wrote:But the film also posed some questions that were not entirely answered for me by the (excellent) booklet. First about cinematic style: the essay says that Melville's use of light and darkness was extremely unusual for the time, and that he had to drop two cameramen before he found one willing to do the sometimes extremely dark shots. But was that lighting scheme really SO unusual at the time? The whole look of the film reminded extremely of Cocteau, who had done similar lighting schemes already in "La belle et la bete", three years earlier, and as there's even a direct reference to Cocteau in the narrative itself, the similarities seem no coincidence. Being more or less a Melville newbie, how does the style of this film relate to Melville's later work (apart from "Les enfants terribles", of course, which was virtually co-directed by Cocteau)?

Second, about the implications of the portrayal of the Germans in the film.

The character of Werner de Ebrennac, so the speculation goes in the booklet, might have been modelled at least partly on the author Ernst Jünger, who indeed was in Paris at the time, was a highly cultured man, and had a lot of friends among intellectuals there (again Cocteau, for instance). He published his diaries about these years after the war, and in them, there emerges a much more differentiated portrait of the German officers occupying France than we find in the film (including portraits of those later involved in the Stauffenberg attempt to kill Hitler). Jünger clearly was a strict conservative with a belief in militarist ideals (but not a nazi), and this stance brought him a lot of dismissals and attacks by the German left since the 50s, but apparently he was always accepted in France as someone who understood 'french' culture and a man who could think for himself.

So, if Ebrennac was indeed modelled on Jünger, why then does the film fall back to a pure black/white scheme when it comes to the portrayal of the Nazis in Paris, and factually disregarding historical time when mentioning Treblinka one year before its existence (as the booklet points out)? This was something that Melville put into the film, and is apparently not in the novel. Same goes for the flashback in which Ebrennac's girlfriend sadistically tears apart the mosquito after having praised all God's creation in the sentence before. This was the one scene in the film where I thought Melville (or Vercors) is stressing the point of the film so much that it becomes almost ridiculous. It also endangers the message of the film by making a pure caricature of the enemy and by seemingly demonstrating their 'inherent' or 'natural' evilness, as this moment occurs to happen totally unforced by the historical circumstances. I also can't recall (but I may be wrong) having ever heard of any plans of a 'total destruction of French culture' as are made by the nazis in Paris.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this to be a 'political' point (even if I'm German), but an 'aesthetic' one. I know it's a book and film made with the intention of praising the résistance, but I cannot help feeling that the film falls into an unnecessary, purely 'propagandistic' stance and at least in those scenes loses the subtlety that it has otherwise. In this respect, the (seemingly inevitable) comparison made in the booklet between Ebrennac and Rauffenstein in "La grande illusion" may not really be to the point. Rauffenstein is by far the more conservative, 'manly' and militarist character (and he might have much more in common with Jünger as well), but Renoir's film is more openly 'humanistic'. But, as we have recently found out in our discussion about it, the difference may well be that between WWI and WWII.
Although there's a historically tuned-in side of myself (I'm a bit of an amateur WW2 historian) that wants to agree with you Tom, the film is 1) so much more than a WW2 tale of Occupied France and 2) in the terms that it is, we must remember how difficult it would be for any Frenchman, three years after the end of the war, to present a sympathetic view of German officers in general while rendering the character of Ebrennac. The effect might have been a bit much to take (for a resistance tale no less, much less one that needed approval from the 'board of Distinguished Resistance Fighters' who had to give their OK) in immediate postwar France.

I'm much more interested in 1)-- this is a tale of the coming together of kindred spirits, of a small sliver of humankind that will always exist and experience the epiphany of finding each other versus the great grey mass of oblivious, often idiotic souls. Souls who see and maintain in their hearts a fidelity to and cognizance of certain beauties and agonies of life in the universe. How this man who comes into someone elses home works gently-- knowing he's despised-- on feeling out and playing by repetition certain notes, and at the same time doing this not only for gentility's sake, but for his own sake, to maintain his own sanity, to keep alive his own sense of the sublime. And the great moment at the end when the unwanted becomes wanted, when the Stranger openly becomes almost the loved one-- it's one of the most moving moments in all cinema.. really.

As to the Germans-- Tom it was VERY difficult for Germans to speak out. Denouncement went on rampant, and really only within enclosed family units, and in fighting army divisions in garrison or out in battle, was speaking ones' feelings against the regime done openly. There aren't many tales of German resistance to the Nazis, especially once the war is rolling-- beyond the White Rose, and Stauffenberg and the Army plot in general. Even more heartbreaking than the staunchest SS or SD officer spouting teutonic vitriol, was the common German-- Ebrennac's poet freinds, etc-- allowing their mouths to be filled with horseshit.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Re:

#48 Post by Tommaso » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:18 pm

Oh dear, it's so long ago that I wrote the post you quoted that my memory of the film itself has basically lost all the details I was talking about (which only indicates that I watch too many films anyway). But it seems to me that we do not disagree very much about the film at all. I fully understand that it would have been hard for a Frenchman (and of Jewish origin on top of it) to present a sympathetic view of Germans in general, quite apart from the fact that the difference between Ebrennac and the officers is a dramaturgical necessity. I only thought that one could have found different ways to achieve and show this difference; having them ramble on about the planned total destruction of Paris just seemed to me a rather easy way out, as the film turns them almost into caricatures this way, at least with hindsight. But I agree with you that even the film as we know it must have been difficult to take for some French viewers, after all that had happened in the years before.
HerrSchreck wrote:I'm much more interested in 1)-- this is a tale of the coming together of kindred spirits, of a small sliver of humankind that will always exist and experience the epiphany of finding each other versus the great grey mass of oblivious, often idiotic souls. Souls who see and maintain in their hearts a fidelity to and cognizance of certain beauties and agonies of life in the universe.
Yes, and that's why it reminded me so much of "Grand Illusion" in this respect. In a completely different way, thematically, I find something similar also in Sirk's "A time to love and a time to die", with its central character somewhat hopelessly struggling to maintain a certain amount of decency despite what is required of him, and in this case even paying for it with his life.
HerrSchreck wrote:As to the Germans-- Tom it was VERY difficult for Germans to speak out. Denouncement went on rampant, and really only within enclosed family units, and in fighting army divisions in garrison or out in battle, was speaking ones' feelings against the regime done openly. There aren't many tales of German resistance to the Nazis, especially once the war is rolling-- beyond the White Rose, and Stauffenberg and the Army plot in general. Even more heartbreaking than the staunchest SS or SD officer spouting teutonic vitriol, was the common German-- Ebrennac's poet freinds, etc-- allowing their mouths to be filled with horseshit.
In a word: yes. I'm still surprised that Jünger got away with his symbolic/allegorical speaking-out about the whole situation in his 1939 "Marmorklippen" novel. In film, there is of course virtually nothing produced during the regime that might be read as at least only hinting at opposition, though Käutner's (immediately banned) "Kitty und die Weltkonferenz" might be a point in case. But as far as normal people or army officers are concerned, there is no doubt about the situation as you describe it.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 46 Le Silence de la Mer

#49 Post by HerrSchreck » Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:38 pm

Sorry if this came outa left field tom (re your remark you wrote your original comments so long ago etc), but I had just revisted this film w the acquisition of the subbed MoC. Even without subs from the other dvd this film was my favorite JPM, but with subs (despite some of the florid quality of the text lost in translation, as David points out.. even my limited apprehension of French could recognize this) this film turned into one of the two or three most moving film experiences of my life. Seriously. Maybe not the Best Film quote unquote, but in terms of moving the fiber of my substance deep deep down in me, this film mined me way down to the guts. Incredibly beautiful-- it signalled the arrival of an amazingly rare individual... I mean this in terms of personality.

A piece of highest art.

User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: 46 Le Silence de la Mer

#50 Post by jbeall » Wed May 27, 2009 12:58 pm

Just finished watching this for the first time, and what a revelation! As Vincendeau points out in her commentary, the film succeeds at being simultaneously literary and cinematic, and as david hare points out, musical to boot. What strikes me, given the opening scene where the briefcase containing resistance materials is exchanged, is that the film eschews the suspense thriller entirely and instead develops so, SO patiently. How many first-time directors could have handled that subject material in such a manner?

I noticed a couple of typos in the subs (one that sticks out is around the 68 min. mark, where one of von Ebrennac's friends says "all writing will be allowed, except technical writing" when he clearly means the opposite), but the print is wonderful and detailed.

MoC deserve incredible praise for bringing this out--give yourself a pat on the back, peerpee.

This thread reminds me why I enjoy this forum so much; there are some brilliantly insightful comments, esp. those of Tommaso, david hare, and Herr Schreck, that have significantly deepened my (already considerable) appreciation of this film. Thanks all.

Post Reply