Almost under Maigret's nose, a young woman is murdered who had already visited Maigret a few times to report that strange things were happening in the house where she lived with her aunt. When the aunt is murdered, she wants to talk to Maigret, but he has other things to do first. And then it's too late. Of course, Maigret does not rest until the guilty party is also caught this time. The plot isn't the most original crated by Georges Simenon. But the ending is surprising enough and believably realistic. Bruno Crémer's composition is, as usual, simple and effective, accentuated by the robust actor's aging mass. The story is well built and driven through a square script and sober staging by Denys de la Patellière. We detect the know-how, the experience of the craftsman. No jingling, mise-en-scène always at the service of actors and the story. I have respect for this kind of directors, 'humble' but professional. I do prefer, however, the 1944 ¨Cecile est morte!¨ version directed by Maurice Tourneur.
3 Reviews
"I knew nothing. And Cecile is dead."
garywhalen5 September 2023
Cecile visits Maigret at the Quai des Orfevres claiming that furniture in her aunt's apartment has been moved about the sitting room, and she makes the claim during visit after visit for several months. Maigret shrugs it off. He's busy with other cases, and her story is such an odd one. And then there are two murders: the aunt and Cecile. As with many of Simenon's Maigret mysteries the solution is found not just in tracing and connecting recent events but also in digging into the past, often the distant past of those involved. As with all Maigret stories getting to and finding out "Who did it?" matters, yes, but only a bit. The best parts are the lingering moments in between.
After an intriguing set-up the novel concludes with a rushed ending. I felt there should have been another page or two, a bit more detail without me having to fill in some confusing blanks. The scriptwriters must have thought something similar because though they do stick closely to the novel's narrative flow they add a bit here and there, particularly near the end, so that the film's conclusion, to me at least, is more satisfying than in the book. But neither provides strong enough motives-it's all conjecture on Maigret's part and is really forced-and the steps leading to the murder of Cecile is a bit of a stretch.
The acting is fine, and the pacing is fine. I especially enjoyed Claude Pieplu in the role of Charles Dandurand, a rather dramatic disbarred lawyer who lives in the same apartment building as the victims. He gets a lot of screen time, but he's worth the time given. Still, while this is a good entry in the Maigret series it's not a great entry, but in this instance I blame the source material as much as I do the filmmakers.
After an intriguing set-up the novel concludes with a rushed ending. I felt there should have been another page or two, a bit more detail without me having to fill in some confusing blanks. The scriptwriters must have thought something similar because though they do stick closely to the novel's narrative flow they add a bit here and there, particularly near the end, so that the film's conclusion, to me at least, is more satisfying than in the book. But neither provides strong enough motives-it's all conjecture on Maigret's part and is really forced-and the steps leading to the murder of Cecile is a bit of a stretch.
The acting is fine, and the pacing is fine. I especially enjoyed Claude Pieplu in the role of Charles Dandurand, a rather dramatic disbarred lawyer who lives in the same apartment building as the victims. He gets a lot of screen time, but he's worth the time given. Still, while this is a good entry in the Maigret series it's not a great entry, but in this instance I blame the source material as much as I do the filmmakers.
Maigret is guilty
Tony-Holmes25 May 2023
Just saw this on the Talking Pictures channel (UK old films and TV). They've also just started re-running the entire 4 series of the Rupert Davies version, BBC, early 60s.
This French version has a slow pace (nearly 2 hours), and that allows a lot of time (too much?) for lingering thoughtful looks and pauses.
Maigret is well characterised, matching the book description, but this version (made in Prague for locations) hardly ever features trusty aide Lucas -- who I don't recall being absent from any of the books?!
This story was IMO opinion done better by the BBC's early 60s shows - Rupert Davies as Maigret - and they did the story in just an hour, without a set of meandering speeches by one of the chief suspects!
Oh, and the "guilty" in the title reflects his feelings, that he might have saved one of the victims if he'd just paid more attention.
This French version has a slow pace (nearly 2 hours), and that allows a lot of time (too much?) for lingering thoughtful looks and pauses.
Maigret is well characterised, matching the book description, but this version (made in Prague for locations) hardly ever features trusty aide Lucas -- who I don't recall being absent from any of the books?!
This story was IMO opinion done better by the BBC's early 60s shows - Rupert Davies as Maigret - and they did the story in just an hour, without a set of meandering speeches by one of the chief suspects!
Oh, and the "guilty" in the title reflects his feelings, that he might have saved one of the victims if he'd just paid more attention.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
