TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

lreynaert This movie (a triptych) illustrates perfectly the universe and the themes of the great French writer Guy de Maupassant. The film is based on three of his stories: The Mask, The House Tellier and The Model. Guy de Maupassant is a master in analyzing the love (sex) life of the French bourgeoisie. Males spend their evenings in brothels ('maisons closes' in French), but, when these houses are really 'closed', they fight amongst themselves verbally and physically. Other themes in these stories are innocence and its loss and (the fight against) old age.The film explains clearly that the triggers which unmask the true nature and the real motives of the protagonists here are shocks, unexpected confrontations and reactions: the shock when the males find their brothels 'closed', the shock when the villagers are confronted with 'beautiful' people from the city, the shock of being remembered of one's innocent life as a young girl, the shock inflicted by an unexpected reaction of a mistress, or the shock when a real mask is taken off one's face. However, Max Ophüls doesn't explain very well why one of the 'city' girls triggers a general sobbing of all those who are attending a Holy Communion Service. Also, the title of the film doesn't cover the essence of its content.One should read the three stories of Guy de Maupassant after having seen the film.This film with its perfect casting and a Jean Gabin in great form is a must for all lovers of true French cinema, even if it is shot here by a German.

ronchow For me viewing 'Le Plaisir' in the DVD format happened by chance, as I knew nothing about Max Ophuls and the film until then. And what a surprise! It is good old-fashioned story telling (three stories) with a movie camera, in black and white. If not done right this can be a very boring exercise, but not with Le Plaisir.Story 1 about an old man putting on a mask to look young is probably the weakest story of the three. Story 2 about several women of pleasure taking time off in the country side is my favourite. All in all, the film is definitely engaging and the stories were well told. Max Ophuls, whom I knew nothing about, is on my watch list.A very enjoyable film for a quiet evening.

Uriah Piddle There is a certain mood that I am subject to which can be satisfied only by a sunny, quiet, late Sunday afternoon on the couch with Maupassant. (I suspect that Proust would do even better but I lack the stamina.) My wife and I discovered Ophuls by watching The Earings of Madame de... on instant Netflix. When I saw that Le plaisir was Maupassant my heart leaped and, after viewing it, I can now report that the film is as exquisite as the stories themselves (minus the soft Sunday afternoons, of course).The film contains three stories each of which depict an aspect of pleasure: the pleasure of youth, the pleasure of innocence and the pleasure of fate.The second tale, La maison Tellier ('Madame Tellier's Establishment' in my translated collection of Maupassant stories) is the centerpiece of the film. It describes a trip to a small country village by a madame and her platoon of lovable ladies in order to attend the first communion of her nephew where pleasure meets innocence. The scene in the church where Rosa, overcome with memories of her lost innocence, starts to weep and then everyone in the church is soon weeping, is one of the most poignant I have ever seen on film. It is a depiction not only of the seriousness of lost innocence but it's universality as well and serves to show Rosa's sins, on display for all to see, joined in one spontaneous flood of remorse and gratitude by the hidden sins of all the respectable village folk. See if you don't fall into tears as well.If you have not read Maupassant, doing so before viewing the film will heighten your enjoyment. For those who have decided to view the four major Ophuls films, I offer the opinion that this is the best of them and would be a good place to start.Social Commentary: Never having visited France, I cannot say whether the charming French idea of innocent naughtiness has given that country a better life. But if the concept of 'a little sin is the spice of life' adds something to the life of the well off (and I doubt it), it certainly does not work for the poor. Drive through any blighted urban neighborhood for the proof. So-called rigid bourgeois values may not make for good stories or movies but they are essential for those who have it in mind that their children do well in school and go on to live decent lives. Enjoy these stories and, yes, acknowledge the hypocrisy of middle class morality, but do not transplant la belle vie into your own family or you will live to regret it.

dbdumonteil One of Max Ophuls' finest achievements,one of the best Guy de Maupassant adaptations for the screen.This is a movie made up of three sketches;it is rather a long story (la maison Tellier) framed by one prologue (le masque) an an epilogue (le modèle).Guy de Maupassant is ,by far,the best writer France as ever known,as far short stories are concerned-He wrote about 200 of them,and even influenced Dudley Nichols for the screen play of "stagecoach"(actually ,Claire Trevor was Boule de Suif)Le plaisir (the pleasure) is something fleeting,but the hero of the prologue(le masque) can't stand life is passing him by.His wife is a victim,women are often sacrified in Maupassant's work.At best they are ways for men to social advancement(Bel Ami,see "the private affairs of Bel-Ami", filmed by Albert Lewin ,1947,watchable,but which has given a totally false rendering of the conclusion),at worst ,once their lover or husband has used them ,they are often deserted (see "une vie" , directed by Alexandre Astruc,1958,which has a fine Claude Renoir cinematography."La maison Tellier" is the main body of the work:the subject is scandalous:madam and her whores close the brothel and head for the country.There,they are to attend madam's niece's communion.Max Ophuls has not always been faithfull to Maupassant:if you read the short story,you will realize how much these women are ugly,vulgar and fat;here ,we've got gorgeous Danielle Darrieux,plus Ginette Leclerc and Madeleine Renaud.Ophuls is an esthete and he could not subscribe to Maupassant's depictions.The two men come together when it comes to describe the reactions of the inhabitants of the village:the prostitutes pass for grandes dames,well educated,chic,and when they enter the church,it seems as if they enhance the religious fervor !!Maupassant,who was anticlerical to a fault,lets his irony flow;but there's compassion in Max Ophuls'pictures and I'm not sure the tears his heroines shed are that much laughable:regaining a child's soul -particularly on this communion day- is many a human being's secret longing.But cynism get the upper hand quickly and madam's brother,a bawdy Jean Gabin (the father of the little girl making her communion),is much more interested in his sister's "residents" than spiritual elevation.This second part climaxes the movie,with its steam-powered train,its banquet,its brothel of which the shutter are closed -we're only allowed to have a glimpse behind them-The movie opens and closes the same way:woman is born to be deserted when she's not a whore,like in the second sketch.Josephine (Simone Simon) will find her lover back but the price she will have to pay is terrifying.Why "le plaisir" ?Pleasure is few and far between in this world.Pleasure walks hand in hand with suffering.Guy de Maupassant himself knew fleeting pleasures he describes in part 2,but if you read his biography,you 'll meet a tormented soul,an extremely pessimistic mind,and a faux bon vivant who lived a dissipated life which ended in madness.This is one of the most absorbing,ambitious,complex and artistically successful masterwork of the French fifties.