Muriel (1963) User Reviews

Reality vs memory of it

[Galina_movie_fan · 8/10 · 13 April 2007]

"Muriel" (1963) directed by Alain Resnais is a drama about the persistence of memory (aren't all Resnains' films? Incidentally, I named my review of "Hiroshima Mon Amour" that I saw about two years ago, "Persistence of Memory".)

Muriel of the title is dead by the time the movie begins, the victim of torture by the French soldiers during the occupation of Algeria. One of the soldiers, Bernard, is back in France living with his step-mother, Helene (Delphine Seyrig) in the province city Boulogne and hunted by the memories of war and Muriel. Helen deals with her own past and memories of Alphonse (Jean-Pierre Kérien), an ex-lover who comes from Paris to visit her in the company of his new 20-years-old girlfriend, Françoise (Nita Klein)

The story which Resnais tells is simple and the trailer for the movie gives a viewer a very good idea of what they are about to see: The Past. The present. The future - is it possible? Uncertainty. Suspicions. Lies. Four main characters, Helene, Alphonse, Bertrand, and Françoise are in search of what they are. There will be secrets and confessions. Is that time to love? The main theme of the film is reality vs. memory of it. Can we always trust ourselves with what we remember? Does our memory reflect the events the way they really happened or our vision of them is altered as time passes and new realities inevitably enter our lives?

What makes "Muriel" unique after all these years is the way the director presents the journey into the past of his characters, how they see it, and how it affects their present lives and the possibility (or rather impossibility) of love and happiness. Alain Resnains uses quick flashes of memory in the form of almost hypnotizing jump cuts of his genius cinematographer Sacha Vierny (Resnains and Vierny had made 10 films together). Vierny provided beautiful melancholic visual palette of washed out colors that created the atmosphere of unbearable sadness, loss, and hopelessness. Vierny who always underlined his preference for atmosphere over formal perfection, had said, "My satisfaction is that the photography is not remarked on too much for itself". The visual originality and innovation are accompanied by unusual unnerving soundtrack, eerie and haunting that adds to the understanding of guilt and remorse the film characters live with.

"Muriel" is a puzzling and multi-layered film that is easy to admire and meditate on. It is not entertaining or heart-warming and it is hard to identify with its heroes (or anti-heroes) but is always fascinating and rewarding and it may reveal its secrets after multiple viewings.

Ladies and gentlemen, the undisputed star of Muriel is... the editing.

[Asa_Nisi_Masa2 · 7/10 · 15 December 2006]

I had never seen an Alain Resnais movie before. Despite the fact most of my IMDb friends had told me to start off with Hiroshima Mon Amour, I was more drawn to Muriel and chose it as my first taste of Resnais. In a nutshell: it was far more interesting thematically and cinematographically (also on a purely technical level) than it was enjoyable. I'm still very glad that I saw it, though. The most fascinating aspect of it was without doubt the montage, or editing. Rather than directing or acting, or even the screen writing, it was the editing that had the lion's share of the movie, as if it were its star. I cannot think of another movie where this is quite as apparent. Some of Muriel's style of editing felt like machine-gun-fire, being so relentlessly fast and aggressive in parts, but it was in my opinion very powerful and efficient in leaving an impression of "mental flashes". This emulated the nature of memory, which is the theme at the heart of an otherwise grim and pessimistic movie. Yet this darkness is masked by an appearance of everyday banality in a provincial town, making it all the more depressing, since it's easier to relate the melancholy at its core to one's own, everyday existence. Not for nothing, the movie was also set in winter, and nothing is quite as melancholy and nostalgic as a sea-side town off-season.

The last 10 minutes of the movie, more or less from the "revelation" at Hélène's Sunday lunch right to the moments in which the word "Fin" (The End) appeared on the screen, were the most powerful bout of cinematic caffeine I've experienced in a while. Until that moment I was starting to worry that the film was going nowhere too specific, or at least not somewhere that I understood or knew. Then came the final emotional earthquake, redeeming the movie tenfold, and I was virtually just as shocked as most of the characters in it.

OK, I'll admit I wasn't overly enamoured of the acting. With the exception of Delphine Seyrig playing Hélène, who succeeded in convincing me with her interpretation of the character as well as making me feel sympathetic towards her, the other players left me virtually cold. For a while I thought I'd like Nita Klein playing Françoise, then I started thinking that her character was pretty much redundant and should have been far more marginal than it actually was (and what was going on between her and Bernard anyway? That felt like a contrivance). Since I mentioned Bernard, played by Jean-Baptiste Thierrée, let me say that he was the character I was least convinced by. Quite frankly, I wasn't partial to the way the actor chose to bring him to life at all. Yet he and his drama - the traumas he'd experienced during the Algerian war, his witnessing the torture of an Algerian girl, the titular Muriel, which scarred him for life - was probably the heart and kernel of the movie! Jean-Pierre Kérien playing Alphonse, is the player that most viewers here seem to criticise. In my view there wasn't much else he could have done with the character, seeing as he was mostly a pretext for Hélène's tragedy. But in the last ten minutes of the movie Alphonse's raison d'être comes sharply to the forefront, thanks to the shocking revelation previously mentioned. It was Bernard that I expected more from acting-wise, I guess. Furthermore, the soundtrack was occasionally strident and annoying, perhaps trying to be an aural version of the editing. But while it worked on a visual level, the music's jarred quality was ultimately grating.

However, for the courage with which the movie tackled subjects which are best rendered in a novel form, for its successfully experimental editing, as well as its genuinely moving ending, I'll still award Muriel a pretty high score: 7.5/10 (it would have been 8 if the acting, not just from Seyrig, had been more accomplished).

The return

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 6 May 2011]

Helene, a widow living in Boulogne, France, makes a living out of selling antique furniture and objects which she uses in her own apartment. The different pieces are part of the decor. She lives with her step-son, Bernard, a recently arrival from the Algerian front. Bernard is obsessed with Muriel, a young woman that was tortured by his army unit. He is now writing his recollection of her, as well as shooting documentary style films that deal with his recent past.

As the story begins, Helene had invited an old lover, Alphonse for a visit. Perhaps looking to relive the days of her first romance, she has asked him to come spend some time with her. To her surprise, Alphonse arrives with a beautiful young woman, Francoise, who he passes as his niece. It is clear from the start they know one another in a different fashion. Taking them in as her guests is a decision that backfires on Helene.

Helene has a weakness for gambling at the local casino. She loses most of the time. She seems to be pressed for money. Her good friend, Roland De Smoke, appears to be a well to do man. She gets money from him, as well as from another friend, Claudie, who holds the mortgage to her apartment, probably to guarantee getting money out of what could be a possible bankrupt Helene.

Alphonse, the visitor, is an enigmatic figure. He walks all over Boulogne making friends with the locals. In fact, Alphonse shows he is hiding from his own painful past. He too, has been living in Algeria managing a sort of club which he is too vague to describe. Helene, who has thought seeing her old love would lead to some change, ends up a lonely figure because nothing turns the way she had hoped.

"Muriel" was Alain Resnais' third full length feature. His popularity among the art house crowd was always strong, yet this film was not seen by a wider audience, as probably the producers wanted it to be. The problem might stem from the way Mr. Resnais cut the film which might lose the viewer if not paying close attention at what is happening on the screen. The scenario was written by Jean Cayrol. The film has a lot of symbolism that will elude a casual viewing. Antique furniture that equates with Helene's loneliness, a town devastated during the war, the memories of the recent Algerian conflict are part of the message Mr. Resanais wanted to project.

In Delphine Seyrig, the director found a muse, no doubt. The actress appeared in the first three films of Alain Resnais. She was a serious actress who collaborated with the likes of Joseph Losey, Luis Bunuel, Marguerite Duras, among others. Her Helene is about the best thing in the film. She gave a detailed performance, giving life to a troubled soul. Jean-Pierre Kerin appears as Alphonse. Jean-Baptiste Thierree is Bernard. Nita Klein, Claude Sainval are seen in the supporting cast.

One of the greatest films ever made; better than both 'Hiroshima Mon Amor' and 'Last Year At Marienbad;' Demands multiple viewings; difficult but ultimately magnificent and supremely satisfying

[Aw-komon · 10/10 · 3 August 2000]

The first time I saw 'Muriel' (it was, for years, extremely hard to find on video and only one video store carried it even in movie mecca L.A.) I was completely confounded by it. The radical presentation of the ordinary characters in the context of their transcendent thoughts and memories seemed to be uninteresting and bland, precisely because I hadn't thought of its connections to the universal. I didn't think it warranted any closer attention. But I knew there was something there I was uncomfortable with, I knew I had to come back to this film sometime and reassess it.

Needless to say, I am glad I made that reassessment because this is such an amazingly satisfying film, once all the pieces of the puzzle come togeher in your head in their subtle details. It is nearly flawless in conception and execution and has to be one of the supreme works of art this century. It works on more levels than any other film I can think of, even 'Pierrot Le Fou' and '8-1/2.' The difference is, almost all of it is hidden at first sight. You definitely have to pay UNDIVIDED ATTENTION and CONCENTRATE to start with, especially if you're reading the subtitles in English. Every word is there for a purpose and every shot counts. I'd suggest that you watch it (thank god it is now available on video and at such a reasonable price)at the bare minimum 3 times before you even presume to make a judgment. Here are only a few of the things I like about 'Muriel:' It is a thriller with many comic elements that ultimately becomes a sublime tragedy of modern existence. It has superb 'realism' in acting to beautifully contrast with what it's really about: the transcendent aspects of life such as memory and the way it and they (the other aspects) affect the present. The beautiful faded-tone, color photography is psychologically calculated (a definite influence on 'Red Desert') for effect and just indescribably poetic. The virtuoso, quick cutting in the middle section is completely chronological in nature but elegantly provides multiple perspectives without distorting things with unnecessary length (since all these things are going on pretty much at the same time).

I cannot recommend this film highly enough for anyone interested in great cinema.

A haunting and beautiful move about our grasp of the past

[arp46 · 23 January 2004]

This movie was made in the context of the revolution in the French cinema and novel which took place in the sixties. Just like the work of Margueritte Duras and Claude Simon whose novels avoided a straightforward narrative style, this movie tells its story in an episodic and almost surreal manner.

This can make it difficult going for anyone seeking a simple tale, well told. But, if your taste runs to the more abstract, there is a lot to like here. Like "Juliet of the Spirits" this movie is infused with an intensely subjective portrayal of the story which unfolds of a betrayed love, an act of war time atrocity, and the desparate plight of a compulsive gambler.

Excellent cinematography and direction make this movie a wonderful and richly textured work which deserves several viewings to appreciate completely.

Here again we see Resnais exploring themes of time and memory

[Mike_Olson · 6/10 · 21 March 2017]

Slow burn relationship drama, an old relationship renewed and examining current relationships; lovers, family... The title of the film itself seems a play on words as it's less a take-your-pick affair than it is saying the film is about these two things, connected but because the characters share connections in the present day.

Here again we see Resnais exploring themes of time and memory as was the case with his previous two feature films: Last Year At Marienbad and Hiroshima Mon Amour. This, his third feature, reflects on times past, the characters talk about the past, but it doesn't go into filmed flashbacks or creative revisiting, looping back on itself, adding or changing subtle details. Memory does also come into play. With the one side of the two stories it's two characters with a shared past, of which one asks why this, how come, what were you thinking then...the other attempts to answer. But it remains elusive, a story told in pieces. Hard to assimilate as we aren't really shown enough connect-the-dot details of a shared past so much as we are just shown they had a shared past and make of it what you will. This approach can wear thin...it lacks cohesion and as a consequence comes up short on dramatic tension. The other part of the story also looks to the past, also fragmented and elusive.

Early on the sound score, arriving at specific points, provides more than emphasis or support as it temporarily lends an air of mystery or sly menace that wouldn't necessarily be noticed at all otherwise. Neat trick in the way it suggests unsettled feelings or hints at perhaps darker revelations to come, something I didn't get from the dialogue alone. It too is another piece. There is other symbolism to be found, a gun shown disassembled, in pieces...

At a couple points the film goes into quick edits. A single line of dialogue, jump to another scene and another line. On and on. More little pieces. It may have seemed a clever film editing technique at the time but the dialogue as presented is disconnected, unfocusing the passage of time with muddled glimpses. Which may have been the point but more than anything I found it to be somewhat annoying.

Enough. The film is an exercise in patience. For me, too much so because, even though it comes to some conclusions, in the end I didn't feel it was enough to justify the scattered approach of uncertain reflections and eventual points made. Even though from the same time period, I don't feel this film is in the same class as the Resnais films Marienbad and Hiroshima, two films that are masterpieces or nearly so. You could say the approach with Muriel is radical, as was the case in those two previous films, but that doesn't, in and of itself, make it a great film. In my opinion, yours may differ.

brilliant, difficult movie

[sw1964 · 9/10 · 22 September 2005]

not for the casual DVD renter. Muriel is *not* entertainment but a film that demands that we endure its theatricality and embalmed atmosphere in order to reflect, along with Resnais, about various kinds of unbearable pasts, personal and national. The city of Boulogne is itself a character in Muriel, rebuilt and unrecognizable after the bombings of World War II...Helene (Delphine Seyrig) is an antique dealer whose home is her gallery--so she lives in a jumble of distant French pasts all the better to avoid her own. The "home movie" sequence is one of the few in French cinema of the 60s where the Algerian War is figured--but here, we see happy soldiers hanging out, images to send home (and to French TV), while the voice-over (Helene's stepson) recounts the rape and torture of the Algerian woman named in the title. Daring, in light of French censorship of any text that compromised state security during the "Algerian situation." Muriel will leave you with more questions than resolutions.

Politics and perception

[dmgrundy · 7/10 · 13 September 2020]

Some decades before Haneke's 'Cache' once more centralised the trope of Algeria-guilt amongst the bourgeoisie, 'Muriel' is less a polemical allegory-and less marked by immigrant experience-and more a kind of spider's web of implication, its critique of French conduct in Algeria constructed as a kind of puzzle which is only really a puzzle if we ignore those political truths hiding in plain sight-which is precisely the point. Haneke is concerned to reveal his cards half-way through the film-it's important that one *get* and *absorb* a message. Likewise, in Muriel, the account of torture committed by the ex-soldier now returned to Boulogne-sur-Mer plays out at the half-way point. But for Resnais and scriptwriter Jean Cayrol, to whom the film equally owes its striking detail and shape, form and message are imbricated in closer ways. Likewise, compared to other experiments with narrative within avant-garde cinema of the period-including Resnais' own-here, complexities of perception rendered through avant-garde technique may reflect existential questions of memory, desire and so on, but more precisely, they serve a political purpose. As in Demy's Parapluies de Cherbourg the following year, the film's critique of French conduct in Algeria is presented as both motor to and peripheral figure / irritant within what is in some ways a love story. But there are no Michel Legrand songs here, no bright-burning neon glow, no dwelling in sentiment: the film is analytical, critical, clipped, dense. The constructs of desire, loss, the attempt to regain past intimacy, told in half-finished stories, never-received letters, interrupted monologues, the constant unspoken-the evasions and illusions of romantic love-are open secrets around which the lovers tip-toe, traipse and on which they trample, while the Algerian conflict is imbricated within the social fabric of a particular town, and, metonymically, the broader society in which it has its place. Of particular interest for the film is the way that the community of that town is constructed through a mixture of the repressed memory of trauma (the second world war and national service in Algeria-attack by or complicity with fascist occupation domestically and participation in colonial violence abroad), the militarist underlay of the business world, of Gaullism, of particular modes of masculine identity. The clipped precision of the film's extreme fast-cutting turns editing at once almost hallucinatory in its flashes of distorted logic and extraordinarily precise in its planned juxtapositions: the trope of mystery-who is Muriel? What happened in Algeria? What happened to break apart the now elderly lovers reunited in a web of half-truths, half-desires, and deceit?-a diagnostic frame at once personal and social. Resnais may suggest that film itself-at least, as conceived of as a repository of direct truth, the authenticity of visual experience-is inadequate: as when the young ex-soldiers' Algerian footage literally burns up in the projector when exposed to the light. But film, understood differently-for its challenge to, its going against the grain of perception-provides the shock to the habituated dailiness of looking so that an antique table, the door to a café, a walk around town, the assassination of a far-right terrorist, flicker and bunch up together like a terrible revelation of what lies beneath.

Secure set

[Polaris_DiB · 10/10 · 22 April 2009]

If we hold it to be true that "cinema is life with all the boring parts cut out", then "Muriel" takes it further by being cinema with all the boring parts cut out. What amounts to quite possibly a four hour movie condensed and compounded into a pristine narrative about memory and guilt, Alain Resnais' post-Marienbad movie shows a remarkable talent in plugging directly into the viewer's senses in unforgettable ways. Emphasis on the unforgettable.

Ever had those moments where you were falling asleep during a movie, and then something important happens and you suddenly snap awake and fret over whether you may have missed something? Yeah, that's every single cut in this movie. "Muriel" feels less like the full cinematic experience and more like all of the parts you remember after you haven't seen it for some years. That is not to say, however, that it is missing anything in its structure, including story and character development. It's all there, it's just compounded: dialog continues after the scene has changed, reaction shots are cut in half by moving on to the next reaction, establishing shots are also the first action shots of the scene, and the score is minimalized in, well, the maximum way possible (sometimes a single note stands in for an entire emotion). Same thing works with the writing and how it's blocked. Characters get upset and in the next frame are smiling. Someone asks where Bernard is and the next cut he's directly with them, having been there for several hours. The few days over which this story take place could just as easily be hours or years, and characters are constantly reading the news and never responding to it. Time and space in this movie are altered in very significant and unusual ways--in my opinion, brilliant ways.

Leave it to the director of Night and Fog and Hiroshima, Mon Amour to come up with something like this. What would seem for the most part to be a story about fractured relationships in a small French town is also an essay on the culpability of the French character in WWII and Algiers. The title refers not to a character, as it seems at first, but to Bernard's victim. Alphonse's statements about being a part of the resistance are later proved false, showing that even in his attempt to make amends with his ex-lover, he cannot stand up for his own liability in the war-efforts of a past generation. The only woman who cares for both of them (Helene, Bernard's step-mother and Alphonse's ex-lover), truly cares, has only a tenuous relationship with either, and can't even remember if she truly did love Alphonse while also being emotionally stuck on a fire that burned down her house, killing Bernard's father.

This is a spectacular movie in pretty much all respects. It's not for the easy-going film-goer, as it keeps a very brisk pace and thus can be hard to keep up with if one is not paying attention. However, it is so securely set in its writing, mise-en-scene, and editing, that it's not necessarily difficult to understand. A must for any fan of Resnais, French cinema in general, or those who are attracted by the relationship between cinema and memory--especially emotional memory.

--PolarisDiB

Third Time Not the Charm?

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 7 April 2016]

In the seacoast town of Boulogne, Hélène sells antique furniture, living with her step-son, Bernard, who's back from military duty in Algiers. An old lover of Hélène's comes to visit - Alphonse - with his niece Françoise; he too is back from Algiers, where he ran a café.

This was Resnais's third feature film, following "Hiroshima mon amour" (1959) and "L'Année dernière à Marienbad" (1961). The first is a classic, the second is one of my all-time favorites. This film, though, does not seem to be widely known and is the less of the three. Not bad by any means, just not on par with the two previous works.

The music from Hans Werner Henze is notable and quite good, really being he highlight of the film for me. Henze is a strange and interesting figure, who worked in Germany, Italy and Cuba, but that is really neither here nor there.

What a waste of time!

[ilovesaturdays · 2/10 · 25 August 2021]

Lack of a proper structure, uneven editing & detestable characters ruined this one from me. The gambling antique dealer, the eerie stepson, the flaky ex-lover & his young "niece" were all very annoying. The 'Muriel' angle is good & sufficiently soul-shattering but unfortunately, that excellent opportunity was lost in the middle of all the pretentiousness. Some scenes seemed to have been cut midway while in a few other scenes I had a feeling of having arrived after the drama was done so that I was struggling to understand what was happening. It has too many disjointed scenes & so it really tested my patience. At some point, daytime photographs interrupted nighttime scenes, which was quite irritating. And although I do not particularly hate nonlinear narratives but this one was much too incoherent for me. The end is a little bit better than the rest of the film but by that time I was so bored that I didn't really care what happens to the characters.

I understand that the theme of the film is that people find it hard to face their past (sometimes even their present!) & try to evade it using all possible tools like subterfuge, lying, etc. And it's a good theme! If only it was executed in a better manner!

A pretzel you can't quite untangle, but you won't mind.

[Ben_Cheshire · 8/10 · 11 May 2015]

Muriel is a riddle. It may just have been the first art-house movie I ever saw. It was on local TV one day when I was about 18 maybe and I left it on because I was studying French and had been told to watch French movies. I found myself amazed and dumbfounded by the jump-cuts and seeming lack of continuity between scenes.

Today, 12 years later or so I've finally seen the whole thing and I feel like I saw a completely different movie to the one I saw last time. I feel I understand who the characters are, what the central mystery is, but I understand very little of the minute by minute goings on of where characters are moving and why. I feel this is a film that intentionally tries to disorient you constantly. Just as you are becoming comfortable in a scene, it will switch completely and never return. It reminds me of a perfectly normal film about four characters and their interrelations that has been sliced up and then recreated anew in the editing room. The characters make reference to dreams and memory, but on this viewing I didn't see it as necessarily a recreation of those things, but as a depiction of disorientation.

I found the newsreel section in the middle, which I don't at all remember seeing 12 years ago, particularly important addition, and the whole thing is just as refreshing as it ever was.

what a weird movie.

[leaderofdbzgt · 3/10 · 13 February 2019]

I got a blu-ray copy of this and was not really that interested. seeing france in the 60s, seeing how people lived and acted in that time was really interesting.

the plot is just all over the place, the soundtrack is just awful... the only thing which carries the movie is seeing people doing daily life things in that movie. seeing this movie in the year 2019 was refreshing. people led stressy lives already back in the days, you had autistic/retarded guys not being able to confess their love to a girl, people not responding to phone calls, life never changes, i guess.

there is one small easteregg being seen in the movie, but i am not sure, how to understand this: there is an alsace-restaurant shown in the movie, one character responds to the waitress in quirky german and the waitress looks away. is this something because alsace got back to france without liking this fact? or was it just because the character wasnt liked by the actress? iam not sure if this has also something to do with the 60s...

anyway, except for the nice shots and seeing the countryside of france, the movie isnt anything you are missing.

Space of memory, past and future fears

[chaos-rampant · 12 May 2011]

Resnais is one of the seven sages of cinema, perhaps even one of the most important ones. Within him we find others, like Godard and Marker, who inherited the problems he first posited with clarity of vision and eloquence of mood. Problems of memory, firstly how the past forms manifest in consciousness and synthesize an illusionary space which we then inhabit (in itself a poignant inspection of the mechanisms of cinema), more importantly what these past forms are, which we understand as the self and identity, and how they trap us in meaningless dilemmas.

His astounding contribution to this field, is in how he brilliantly envisions this space by means of a visual vocabulary and how he articulates within it. The museum in Hiroshima (which reappears here again, as homage), the hotel in Marienbad.

We find the wandering of memory again in Muriel, in a form a tad less inspired this time than those films.

Passions past and present, which defined the participants as persons and left indelible marks on their souls, we see how they appear again after time. We see these people use memory as the only means of reliving time, of painfully trying to claim again the ethical vindication that escaped them the first time. How this past, projected in their minds, appears again around them to trap them anew. And we see how, their lives stifled as a result of those past anxieties, the memory of these things points at no way out.

The characters in this are fittingly restless, always rushing particularly nowhere, actually running from things they won't admit. Running perhaps against all hope that they will face them again. Moments of reflection are burdened with half-remembered sadness, while life outside continues indifferently.

Entire scenes of this play out as they would in ordinary melodrama, then the narrative seems to break down for a time. Virtually recalling fragments of images and conversations which mean nothing, we become privy to the destructive powers of memory. We actually experience the disorientation as part of the movie.

But Muriel lacks something in comparison to those other films. Perhaps it's the political angle (re the Algiers conflict and how it resonates in a complacent French bourgeois society), which in previous Resnais films is quietly buried underneath, dormant and supine, yet here greets us upfront, often violently demanding our discourse. Perhaps it's the pastel color palette, that may had been intented to invoke the contours of melodrama whose tropes the movie rearranges, but renders the film now a relic of the times.

Nonetheless Resnais here gives us an important realization. How we spend the present moment reliving past sufferings or anticipating the future with fear or hope, allowing these chimeras of the mind, born of desire, to cloud our soul, to disrupt our contact with the world. He gives us this not as a grave speech, something Bergman would do who was impotent in the face of suffering, but in the form of a merry jingle, which one character playfully recites after a dinner gathering, as a way of reminding us how trivial and unimportant these past or future fears are.

Alain Resnais 2nd or 3rd important film. this film still lingers after 40 years of being made.

[dfwforeignbuff · 9/10 · 27 September 2010]

Muriel (Muriel ou Le temps d'un retour) Muriel, or The Time of Return 1963 In the seacoast town of Boulogne, Hélène sells antique furniture, living with her step-son, Bernard, who's back from military duty in Algiers. An old lover of Hélène's comes to visit - Alphonse - with his niece Françoise; he too is back from Algiers, where he ran a café. Bernard speaks of his fiancée, Muriel, whom Hélène has not met. The narrative, like memory & intention, is jumpy; the past obscured by guilt, misperceptions, & missed possibilities. Appearances deceive, things change. As Hélène & Alphonse try to sort out a renewal, everyone seems off-kilter just enough to hint that all cannot end well. Can anyone know another? Delphine Seyrig won a Volpi Cup for best actress at the 1963 Venice Film Festival. The film was nominated for a Golden Lion. I only recently heard about Resnais while reading up on new foreign films not release here in USA (or in limited release) His new film is Les Herbes Folles (Wild Grass) which won a lot acclaim at Cannes & other festivals this year. Muriel is a film that is about thinking about past times. I Interesting exploration of memory/existentialism. It is also a film about madness. Several of the characters appear to be mad ( or more than mildly eccentric in many ways. ) As a film maker I find his French new wave & camera techniques & storytelling very fresh & inventive. This is my first film of his to view I have ordered most all except the one that bombed. (I Want to go home) I guess if you are not one of the art film crowd the movie will be too choppy & weird for you. I think I will watch it again this weekend. I found it intriguing. I loved the opera arias interspersed with the odd ball Avant garde jazz. Strange tale strange music strange story strange film making techniques. I LOVED THIS FILM. One problem on my disc some of the subtitles hung & I missed the conversation in a few scenes then they would come back on again. I am looking for the script to the movie or the full subtitles. Resnais's images are never quite as striking in this film as they were with a limited color palette (in some of his other films) Sacha Vierny creates some gorgeous Antonioni-like shots of landscapes and architecture.

A world gone by

[bob998 · 8/10 · 13 February 2015]

It's about 50 years since I first saw Muriel; in those days the wounds of the Algerian war were still fresh: bodies of Algerian immigrants were found floating in rivers, Sartre's apartment was fire-bombed because he'd supported Algerian independence and so on. Resnais had enough reason to make a film about those troubled days. The trouble with the film has to do with the uneasy juxtaposition of domestic drama (the unhappy love of Hélène and Alphonse) with the ordeal of Bernard and Robert in Algeria, and the dead girl over whom Bernard obsesses. The love story is so much more interesting than the political theme that we are left frustrated with the necessity of ignoring the latter to the benefit of the former.

Delphine Seyrig gives a wonderful performance as Hélène; she's always in movement, trying to calm Bernard down, trying to coax some emotion out of the stony Alphonse, on the phone with Claudie cadging some money to gamble at the casino (she's not good about repaying debts). Jean Champion shows up in the second half as Ernest, Alphonse's brother-in-law, trying to bring him back to a sense of his duties to his family. He sings that wonderful song at the lunch party, then launches into an angry tirade about Alphonse's dereliction of duty. It's a superb performance. Nita Klein as Françoise is appropriately prickly, analyzing her options as she sees Alphonse sliding away from her. Claude Sainval is very oily as de Smoke, a man who can't stop thinking about the money he's lost on a derelict building: ''can't even get the doorknobs from it''

A must-see

[philosopherjack · 2 June 2023]

Alain Resnais' Muriel will probably seem disorienting at a first viewing, at times dawdling and at others jarringly jumping around, the events shown on screen often seeming less significant than others that are frequently referred to, its ending unresolved and cryptic. But with repeated viewing, these characteristics come to seem central to its astounding interweaving of form and content, and evocation of history and memory; it feels less like watching a film than moving around inside it, always aware that to look in one place is to miss what's happening in another. The plot has Delphine Seyrig's Helene reconnecting with her old wartime lover Alphonse after many years, during which she was married and widowed and now lives with her stepson, dealing in antiques out of her home (a perfect representation of a life highly conditioned by memories, if not necessarily one's own). The stepson, Bernard, refers to a fiancée, Muriel, who appears not actually to exist; we later learn that during his wartime service, the same name was used to denote a woman subjected to military atrocity, an event which continues to haunt him. But it seems it wasn't that woman's real name either (the real Muriel in the film isn't even seen, being merely the subject of a briefly overheard cry in the street), and likewise almost every aspect of Alphonse's past and present is unreliable, a characteristic reflected in the film's unstable-seeming, pliable form, and in its small-town setting, damaged during the war and now uncertainly evolving (one of its key landmarks is a brutalist-looking casino which appears to wreak havoc with Helene's finances). The ending, coming in the wake of some abrupt realigning of the lives we've been watching, follows a previously unseen character arriving in town and wandering alone through Helene's space, providing a strangely appropriate sense of rebalancing even as it withholds conventional closure. Overall, a must-see (and, as noted, once won't likely do).

One hot, steaming pile

[futures-1 · 10 March 2006]

"Muriel" (French, 1963): Somewhere in your life you've heard some redneck fool call all foreign films a "dumb ass waste of my time". Or, if you heard it from a regular fool, you heard something like "I just didn't get it!" Well, it had to happen - this time they're both right. Directed by Alain Resnais, this film is one hot steaming pile of pretentious crap. Mediocre acting and low production values are only the start. We are also presented with a terrible mess of "artsy" editing, random shots, and bad, poorly integrated music. Maybe it wanted to be the "Beat Poem" of Film Making. Maybe Resnais had no real clear clue WHAT the goal was. But, no matter what the intent, "Muriel" exemplifies what so many people used to say about "those foreign films". Thankfully, foreign films this bad are few and far between. We, as Americans, have a much worse record when it comes to BAD movies.

not better than last year at marienbad

[glendafolsom · 24 December 2002]

This movie is alright, but no comparison can be made to Last Year at Marienbad. This movie is a little slow at first, and although the shots and techniques are well done, they are not Marienbad or in anyway equal to it.