Les dimanches de Ville d'Avray (1962)
I actually prefer the original name because the English name gives away a mini-spoiler, which is a shame.
WARNING: "VERTIGO" spoilers below
It reminds me of the name Portuguese gave Vertigo: The Woman who Lived Twice... Like, f*** you, I didn't need to know that!
It reminds me of the name Portuguese gave Vertigo: The Woman who Lived Twice... Like, f*** you, I didn't need to know that!
Well... I see I'm the first to review this film, and I'm really curious to see what the general reaction will be. I'm expecting it to be the most debatable film of the HoF, so I can't wait for you guys to see it.
First, let me say that this film is tremendously well shot!
In fact, it's so beautiful that it helps to make the viewer more comfortable with the morals of the film.
Les dimanches de Ville d'Avray is a film that at least tries to have a debate on whether pedophilia can be acceptable or not and at most openly condones it. So, there's that...
The love story between Françoise and Pierre begins in a very innocent and paternal way, to the point I thought this was going up a very different path. A 12-year-old girl, abandoned by her father, is being visited by a 30-year-old man that quickly assumes the father figure. However, we soon see the girl admitting she loves him and talking about marriage which wouldn't be necessarily bad if Pierre didn't start to talk about the same things. From that point on, their dynamic is the same as the one of a loving couple. Pierre's wife is seen as an obstacle but she eventually sees them together and understands and Pierre's best friend, Carlos, an artist, supports the union since the beginning. Carlos' wife and Bernard are the only ones who appear to be firmly against it, citing the obvious reasons, and yet they are portrayed as the villains of this story, especially Bernard who eventually calls the cops on Pierre which would lead to the very tragic end of this story.
Now the question arises: Can a film still have value if it supports or at least suggests such an objectionable moral principle? I'd say yes.
Technically, this film is very very good. As I said it has an amazing cinematography, the few moments when music is heard are incredibly powerful and well-executed and the acting is very very good from everyone involved. My problem with it is that it's never clear how mature does the director wants Françoise to be. One moment, she's clearly a child, the next moment she quickly gains 10 years. The last line for instance: it's a beautiful line but it seems out of character.
Then you have Pierre, who is mentally disturbed by PTSD, looking sweet and innocent most of the time, but then he has that moment right after knowing Françoise's real name, where he blatantly looks like a psycho. We later know that by "surprise" he meant the rooster on top of the church, but that's not clear at first, which I think creates an unnecessary doubt.
The final scene, though inflicted by that small issue I've already explained, has an amazing gravitas to it, and made me feel sorry for Pierre, which goes to show how effective was Bourguignon's direction.
A challenging film, but a beautiful one nonetheless.
-