IMDb user comments for
Ma nuit chez Maud (1969) Plus avec IMDbPro »

Filtre:

Meilleur Chronologique prolific Ils ont aimé Ils ont détesté Cacher les spoilers:

Page 1 sur 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

26 commentaires au total

---

20 utilisateurs sur 23 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Romer at his most conversational, 16 mai 2002
Auteur : Dennis Littrell (dalittrell@yahoo.com) de SoCal

"The heart has it reasons which reason knows nothing of." --Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

This is the Eric Romer film they warned you about. There is a lot of talk, talk, and more talk. But the talk is very interesting. One of the main topics of discussion is Pascal's famous wager. Pascal believed that if there is even the slightest chance of the Christian heaven being true, then as a matter of probability, one ought to be a believer. Even a minuscule chance of everlasting paradise is worth the bet because infinity (eternity) times even a very small number is infinity. And, of course, if not believing puts one in however small the danger of eternal damnation, then again one should be a believer. But, as Vidal (Antoine Vitez) sagely remarks in the movie, infinity times zero is still zero.

Jean-Louis Trintignant stars as a 34-year-old Catholic mathematician who has a way with women. He runs into his old school chum, Vidal, who introduces him to Maud (Francoise Fabian), who has a way with men. Funny but they don't quite hit it off even though she manipulates him into spending the night with her. Their conversation is witty, subliminal and revealing. Maud believes in the supremacy of love, Jean-Louis in being morally flexible. Although a believing and practicing Catholic, he tells Maud that one is not going against God's will by chasing girls anymore than one is going against God's will by doing mathematics.

The girl that Jean-Louis is currently chasing is 22-year-old Francoise (Maire-Christine Barrault) a blonde, Catholic girl that he has spied at church. At first it seems that although he is certain that she is perfect for him, she is reluctant. They too fence with words as they try to mislead and reveal at the same time, and the audience is intrigued, so much so that at times you might forget you are watching a movie. In this sense a Romer film is like a stage play. Whereas contemporary directors try to get by with as little dialogue as possible, to let the action itself reveal character, Romer is not shy about using dialogue to reveal character, plot, theme--the whole works.

The film begins with a long close shot of Francoise's profile as she listens in church, turning twice briefly to face the camera. She is pretty and intriguing. Although we won't realize it until the movie is mostly over, she is the focal point of the balance between the world views of Jean-Louis and Maud. After the night at Maud's during which Maud uses her intuition and sly intelligence to figure out Jean-Louis's character, he spends the night with Francoise. She uses her instincts to figure out not his character so much as his aptness for her. And then it is revealed how Francoise figures twice in the life of Maud. I won't anticipate the revelation, but be sure and watch for it. Suffice it to say that there are two reasons that Francoise is far from Maud's favorite person! The film ends, as French films often do, with the ironic affirmation of bourgeois values.

For today's DVD hound this movie will play slowly or not at all. The use of dialogue as something over and above the plot and action of the film will seem demanding and perhaps old fashioned. The deliberately drawn out scenes at church may cause you to yawn. But I recommend you stay with it. The movie has a quality that lingers long after the action is gone. The underlying philosophy about the nature of human love and how it conflicts or is compatible with reason and/or religion really does reflect to some extent the quotation above from Pascal, whose spirit is akin, although he denies it, to that of Jean-Louis, the careful protagonist of this very interesting film.

---

19 utilisateurs sur 22 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Unique style and rhythm, 28 octobre 2002
Auteur : Howard Schumann de Vancouver, B.C.

My Night at Maud's is the third in the Six Moral tales series. In this film, an introverted Catholic engineer (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is introduced by his Marxist friend Vidal (Antoine Vitez) to Maud (Francoise Fabian), a charming and worldly divorcee and ends up staying the night in her apartment. Jean-Louis, Vidal, and Maud spend the evening talking about philosophy and religion, particularly about their differing views on Pascal and his wager. The wager goes something like this: Given overwhelming odds against the existence of God (for example, 100 to 1), we must bet on that one chance. For if God does not exist, and we lose the bet, then our loss is inconsequential. But if God does exist, then our lives gain meaning and our reward is eternal.

After Vidal leaves, Maud tells Jean-Louis about her marriage, her ex-husband's Catholic mistress, and the tragic end to her affair with the only man she truly loved. When he is persuaded to avoid a snowstorm and stay overnight, Jean-Louis has to overcome Maud's advances and his own temptations to remain faithful to his ideal mate, a blond, Catholic girl (Marie-Christine Barrault) he recently met at church.

This was the first film I'd seen by Eric Rohmer and it was a puzzle to penetrate the uniqueness of his style and rhythm. Rohmer presents his characters in very natural, almost mundane situations, and heightens the realism by using only natural sounds of the environment. On the surface, the film appears very simple but underneath there is much complexity. Jean-Louis is conflicted between his Catholic principles and his love of sensual pleasure. He lives in a world centered almost entirely on himself, engaging in much philosophizing about choice but never choosing. He operates out of how he "should" or "should not" act rather than out of his experience of what works. When life does not fit his pictures, he deceives himself with endless rationalizations. Through his experience with Maud, however, he is shaken out of need for complete self-control and discovers the epiphany of grace.

Rohmer has a light touch and employs intelligent and witty dialogue to bring his characters to life. In the process, he creates an impersonal elegance that is totally captivating. Rohmer doesn't set out to change our lives just to make us think, and in My Night at Maud's, he succeeds admirably.

---

11 utilisateurs sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Pascal's wager, 24 janvier 2005
Auteur : stephen-357 de Etats-Unis

Can love be reduced to an intellectual calculation? Can faith? What role do the emotions play into this calculation? Blaise Pascal, a French scientist and philosopher, put down his thoughts regarding the Christian Religion which were published after his death and came to be known as "Pensees" or "thoughts". Here Pascal puts forth the case for belief: "Since the duration of our lives is but a moment and the state of death eternal . . . those who are guided by their own inclinations and pleasures without reflection and concern" for the reality of death eternal, are idiots and should be "condemned". He asks, "What would you wager? . . . God is, or He is not. Reason can decide nothing." And not to wager is not an option. Pascal reduces belief to a win/loss calculation with the following: "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing." MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S is a film devoid of conventional film devices to sway you one way or the other such as music, special effects, close-ups and general sentimentality. This is a film full of dialog and intellectual meanderings, but it is the emotions of the characters, those subtle distortions of the face, and the voice behind the eyes captured by a lingering camera that speak the truth. On the surface, this picture appears one dimensional and the end merely a continuation of the beginning, but under the surface, the characters have been transformed. One's actions may be controlled by intellectual pragmatism, but the emotions govern the inner world with a volotility that cannot be controlled. Single minded conformity to a religious proposition may bring security and comfort, but can love be divorced from the emotions? Can emotions be governed by the intellect? As to Pascals Wager, if one clings to this rigid proposition, despite the changing landscape of the emotions, perhaps shunning love itself, can the conclusion that "nothing is lost" still be held?

---

9 utilisateurs sur 10 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
The Woman Who Was Rejected, 1 septembre 2006

Auteur : nycritic

*** Ce commentaire peut contenir des spoilers ***

One of the most beautiful black and white films ever made, MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD might have been filmed today as it has been restored to pristine form, supervised by Eric Rohmer himself, and that only adds to the air of seduction that is ever present between the lead character, Jean-Luis, and the woman he dodges not without engaging in some intellectual flirtation first -- the lovely Maud.

MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD starts in almost near stillness. Jean-Luis (Jean-Luis Trintingant) attends mass one day, and there he encounters a fleeting blond beauty, Francoise (Marie-Christine Barrault) who somehow keeps getting away. Later on, an encounter with an old friend, Vidal (Antoine Vitez) leads to Vidal's invite that Jean-Luis spend the night at his friend Maud's house. While the two men spar on the nature of free will and religion -- namely, Catholicism and Christianity as well as on the theories of Pascal, Maud is most definitely a whirlwind of freedom and ages ahead of her own time. Divorced, living with her young daughter, with a casual look at how unlucky she's been with men, including Vidal, with whom she had had a one-night stand that went nowhere despite his unrequited feelings for her.

Once Vidal leaves, Jean-Luis stays the night. In the course of that night, Maud effortlessly engages Jean-Luis in a game of intellectual chess, goading him with his own illusions about love and his feminine ideal. She's sharp, too, as when she continually points towards "his Catholic blonde" and the fact that she herself would never fit the bill, being neither Catholic nor blond and already divorced. When Jean-Luis asks Maud how did she come to divorce, she opens up, and reveals herself to be quite vulnerable despite her rough exterior. It seems Maud's husband was cheating on her with a pretty, blond Catholic girl whom Maud herself could not stand, and despite her efforts to drive the girl away, her marriage was destroyed. Another lover proved fruitless, as he was killed in an automobile accident.

Night becomes day, and Jean-Luis does not make a move on Maud. When Maud does, he rejects her and she tells him to leave because she wants a man who knows what he wants. Even so, they remain friends, and meet up occasionally. It's at this point where Jean-Luis reconnects with Francoise, and in a move shy of stalking, he bamboozles her into accepting him into her life, even when she lets him in on the fact that he may not like some things about her. A short meet between Jean-Luis, Francoise, and Vidal says pages about her reaction to Vidal (and what history they may have together) even when it's never revealed. Jean-Luis is so hypnotized by her cool looks he never reads her messages and apparent rejection, even when it's clear that Francoise and Maud share a little too much history for either of the two to be comfortable together.

One of Eric Rohmer's finest films, MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD presents the situation of how one man's ideal turns out to be sitting atop a rotting, hypocritical pedestal, and how a more carnal, yet intelligent, honest, and accessible woman, whom he would be happy with as she is also looking for that unattainable man for a committed relationship, is the one he lets get away. A simple movie in which action is set aside and the characters pour their thoughts out, and they themselves are the ones that dictate what is to come later on, MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD gives its performers reams of material to work on. Jean-Luis Trintingant is restrained in his staunch position to remain committed to his religion and blind to what is staring at him in the face. Francoise Fabian, with her tanned looks, deep, wide eyes and raven black hair, is an earlier version of Demi Moore, but with a razor-sharp wit and sophistication. Marie Christine Barrault has the small but crucial character that ties the quartet together.

---

10 utilisateurs sur 12 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Still fresh, 21 septembre 2004
Auteur : michelerealini de Suisse

That's an intelligent film, provocative and still fresh despite it's 35 years old... This is the film which made Rohmer a worldwide known director in 1969. The beauty of "Ma nuit chez Maud" is that everything seems so natural, it seems that the camera captures situations which are not staged. It's like the camera is in a flat or in the street, and characters don't pay attention to it... Rohmer makes films as if they were documentaries!, that's an original and unique approach.

These are among the reasons, I think, for the freshness of the movie. Because the way people talk, cherish their own opinions and express emotions is something which still happens today in human relationships! The film contains exactly situations of the ordinary life -you don't see that movie and think "It's only a film!".

Good performance -as always- of Jean-Louis Trintignant and superb black and white cinematography by Nestor Almendros.

---

10 utilisateurs sur 14 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
A Paradox of a Great Film, 26 septembre 1998

Auteur : Keith Weston (jkweston@email.unc.edu) de Carrboro, NC

Only Rohmer could concoct a love triangle based on the age-old Pascal Paradox. To risk all for the ultimate gain. A gamble. The level of dialog is seldom equaled in other films (even his own); this one's a delight from start to finish. It is also lovingly photographed and charmingly acted. A first rate film all around, and my favorite of all time. Start with this one, then try "Chloe in the Afternoon" and "Claire's Knee". His more recent movies downplay the level of sophisticated dialog, perhaps because it is less that way itself.

---

9 utilisateurs sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
Irreproachable, 4 mai 2005

Auteur : flasuss de Rio de Janeiro, Brésil

The first Rohmer i saw, and justifies his reputation of slow pacing and almost non-stop dialogue, but also his fame as a great director. He does not have anything of the joviality of his Nouvelle Vague friends Truffaut and Godard, which work i know better, being more serious and mature. The picture is filmed almost as a documentary, being very realistic, and in opposite of 99% of the movies, Rohmer doesn't move the camera all around in the dialogues, abusing of shots and reverse-shots, keeping the camera in one character. The many and long conversations are very intelligent, and all the characters are complex and interesting, specially the Jean-Louis Trignant' one, which reminded me of Prince Míchkin from The Idiot, because of the Christian quietness (Dostoiveski's words) that both have in common, i don't know if it was intentional. I usually doesn't like to rate movies, because it's hard to put how much you like a film in a scale of quality, but in cases of perfect works like this one, there's no doubt: 10/10

---

8 utilisateurs sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
If you could drink film - Rohmer delivers the water., 29 avril 2005

Auteur : ossibiz de Allemagne

Just saw this movie (again) yesterday. Still fresh is a quote of an other comment here - yes that is completely right - no signs of wear in story or filming - still satisfying and essential like a cold glass of water for thirst. After seeing all "the movies" over the years this is not at least because of the black and white filming balsam for the ears and the eyes but for the smooth quiet story too. One misses nothing - no digital effects no surround sound no color no superstar actors - in this movie it seems that "fim-time" stands still. Trintignant is very good but Mme. Fabian is even better - her black eyes and face with the beautiful black hair and her body acting says even more than the words she speaks - one should send her an Oscar today. One should try to see the film without tone on - would be a nice experiment..... The end is a surprise and one has to remain concentrated to get and remember the point - then the moral message for me is clear: giving means taking and taking means giving - always - no runaway from that at any time possible......and of course surely not in love & sex.

---

9 utilisateurs sur 15 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
MY LIFE'S MOVIE, 28 octobre 2001
Auteur : (jnobremad@mail.telepac.pt) de Azores - Portugal

When you are sixteen and you enter in a dark room to see a picture like this, you may left after 15 minutes or this may be a unique shock in you life: Erotic, aesthetic, a delicatesse, a delicious time outside Time. And you may cry when it ends. You want more, much more. You want to be in the movie, and talk to Maud, touch Maud and maybe love Maud. This is the movie in my life. God bless you Rohmer.

---

3 utilisateurs sur 5 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
an excellent look at morality in relationships, or what is perceived as morality, 8 juillet 2007

Auteur : MisterWhiplash de Etats-Unis

My Night at Maud's is a "talky" film, though like the main character of Jean-Louis in going after the woman to marry this actually is a perception that is on face-value a little demeaning. This is such a rich screenplay because it takes its characters seriously and honestly, and there's nothing cheating in dealing with characters who have problems in confronting how to approach emotional contact, of using religion as a guise, or trying to follow a 'code of conduct' (as one French critic called it on the Criterion DVD of the film) that leads into a complex and troubling end. Even more-so than Love in the Afternoon, this is a work where the male perspective must have the counterpoint of a woman who is much more vibrant and life-affirming by not being connected to a kind of constricting religious ideology that can't really lead to anywhere aside from compromise. Jean-Louis is such a man who sees blonde Francoise (Stardust Memories' Barrault) riding on a motorcycle and decides right then that she will be the one he will marry. His is an idealized love where despite saying that he's been in love and relationships before he has not had to really make a leap into a consequential decision.

The philosophical arguments involved with Jean-Louis, Francoise and even with Maud, of whom Jean-Louis has a pensive and indecisive fling over the course of 24 hours, can last for quite a while after film's end, which is a major credit to Rohmer in making these characters real within the specific contexts. They may be bourgeois, or close to it, but the concerns of the characters are universal: How does one make a leap from emotional experience to belief. Or on the flip-side how does one who probably doesn't have any belief either way (watch Francoise's eyes when she goes with Jean-Louis to church, it's an exceptionally subtly acted scene) and has to fall into a kind of false love, where because she already knows of the image that Jean-Louis already has of her before she says a word that she has to continue it, marry him, have a child, and live with his own moral insecurities? The ending may seem clean-cut, but it's a lot more complex as a sort of continuing cycle. Marriages are formed and bonds made between people all the time when there is no love, but what might be a reason? This isn't Rohmer's central point perhaps, but it's an intelligent posit that is right there in Rohmer's character study.

And all the while, through Rohmer's simple direction- the only big stylistic choice, perhaps important in the Bergman sense, is the use of the landscape of winter and the mainstream conformity of Christmas- he gets great performances from his actors, as if in a play all working towards the cores of the character in order that all of the at-times heavy dialog comes off in a fairly approachable light. Rarely will you get Pascal and romance thrown together into a conversation, but it works in this case, and for someone who's only known Pascal from a triangle it's enlightening to see how moral choice, of probability and chance, come out in ways that leap from one place to another but always coherently in the scenes at Maud's apartment. There's a good deal under the surface that comes out little by little, and if one can give in to the rhythm of Rohmer's characters the rewards are just as satisfying as with other more flamboyant works by Rohmer's contemporaries. It may not be Jules and Jim, but in its own disquieting way it's just as powerful in the implications drawn from the characters, particularly long after the film ends. A+

---

---

Page 1 sur 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Ajouter un autre commentaire

---

Liens liés

Plot summary	résumé du Amazon.com	Notes
Récompenses	Revues externes	Plot keywords
Principaux Détails	Your user comments	Your vote history