I fell in love. This film is so damn good it hurts, especially compared to the majority of English language films of the '40s.
It's difficult to add much to the comments already made on this classic film (without writing a book on it), and I agree wholeheartedly with the praise it receives.
The cinematography is beautiful, the writing is sharp and tight, the cast is superb and from beginning to end it's gripping and intense.
I seem to have reacted differently to many on one point, however. Reading through the other comments, I see a plethora of words like dark, misanthropic, disturbing, grim, depressing....
Personally, I spent much of this film chuckling to myself (quietly, so I didn't miss a single line of dialogue), gleefully revelling in the wonderfully mordant comedy which lurks just beneath the surface.
Does it really present a negative view of people? I would say not. The film states emphatically, over and over, that everyone has faults and flaws.
Denise sleeps around. Laura want to, but can't. Rolande misappropriates funds from the post office. Marie Corbin filches morphine from the hospital. Rémy, our protagonist, is an abortionist (and in a Catholic country to boot!).
Town officials fill their pockets, drink and doze and dally while they should be working, have affairs and act... like humans.
Not evil - flawed. Denise want to be respected. Laura wants to be loved. Rolande wants to live the good life. Marie is fiercely loyal. Rémy is a passionate doctor who acts according to his beliefs.
To me, not even "le Corbeau" himself was wholly evil. Vorzet's actions are certainly evil, and their results tragic and catastrophic, but his insanity is pointed out as coolly as the foibles of the other characters. By the good doctor himself, which is a nice touch... one which made me laugh at the end, looking back on the jovial commentary he provides throughout the film.
The humour is certainly on the dark side - and somewhat obscured by the emotional impact of the characters and the impetus of the story - but I found that at the heart of the film's darkness is a fundamental affirmation that life is a complex tapestry of good and bad, selfish and altruistic.
Nobody is all good or all bad. I honestly believe that. To say so isn't misanthropic or negative - it's just a fact. Neither does such a view condone selfish or destructive behaviour; rather, I would say, it implies a degree of awareness (whether observational or personal) which is more likely to discourage than encourage.
After all, if a person doesn't see their own faults, how can they deal with them? Compared to many films (not just of its own era), this is a morally complex tale. It treats all of its characters - from Rémy Germain and "la mère du cancéreux" to Vorzet himself - with a delicacy and sympathy which is unusual and moving.
The fact that it's also bitingly satirical and viscerally intense... well, that's just a bonus!
It's difficult to add much to the comments already made on this classic film (without writing a book on it), and I agree wholeheartedly with the praise it receives.
The cinematography is beautiful, the writing is sharp and tight, the cast is superb and from beginning to end it's gripping and intense.
I seem to have reacted differently to many on one point, however. Reading through the other comments, I see a plethora of words like dark, misanthropic, disturbing, grim, depressing....
Personally, I spent much of this film chuckling to myself (quietly, so I didn't miss a single line of dialogue), gleefully revelling in the wonderfully mordant comedy which lurks just beneath the surface.
Does it really present a negative view of people? I would say not. The film states emphatically, over and over, that everyone has faults and flaws.
Denise sleeps around. Laura want to, but can't. Rolande misappropriates funds from the post office. Marie Corbin filches morphine from the hospital. Rémy, our protagonist, is an abortionist (and in a Catholic country to boot!).
Town officials fill their pockets, drink and doze and dally while they should be working, have affairs and act... like humans.
Not evil - flawed. Denise want to be respected. Laura wants to be loved. Rolande wants to live the good life. Marie is fiercely loyal. Rémy is a passionate doctor who acts according to his beliefs.
To me, not even "le Corbeau" himself was wholly evil. Vorzet's actions are certainly evil, and their results tragic and catastrophic, but his insanity is pointed out as coolly as the foibles of the other characters. By the good doctor himself, which is a nice touch... one which made me laugh at the end, looking back on the jovial commentary he provides throughout the film.
The humour is certainly on the dark side - and somewhat obscured by the emotional impact of the characters and the impetus of the story - but I found that at the heart of the film's darkness is a fundamental affirmation that life is a complex tapestry of good and bad, selfish and altruistic.
Nobody is all good or all bad. I honestly believe that. To say so isn't misanthropic or negative - it's just a fact. Neither does such a view condone selfish or destructive behaviour; rather, I would say, it implies a degree of awareness (whether observational or personal) which is more likely to discourage than encourage.
After all, if a person doesn't see their own faults, how can they deal with them? Compared to many films (not just of its own era), this is a morally complex tale. It treats all of its characters - from Rémy Germain and "la mère du cancéreux" to Vorzet himself - with a delicacy and sympathy which is unusual and moving.
The fact that it's also bitingly satirical and viscerally intense... well, that's just a bonus!