IMDb > Stavisky... (1974) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Stavisky... (1974) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 9 comments in total 

15 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
"You have to dream of him and imagine his dreams.", 27 March 2004
8/10
Author: TrevorAclea from London, England

Best known for the beautifully framed but now almost comically elusive and incomprehensible Last Year at Marienbad, Stavisky is one of Alain Resnais' most accessible films and one where he manages to marry style and narrative structure to his subject perfectly. While it helps to have some grounding in the disastrous pre-WW2 financial scandal his anti-hero precipitated to get the most out of the film, his approach is particularly well-judged.

For much of the movie we meet Stavisky, financier and con-man, at the height of his powers and the film concentrates both on his style and extravagance - he passionately believes that you have to be seen to lose money on frivolities to make money - and his play-acting - he is even seen reading a part onstage opposite an auditioning actress. Stavisky is a constant contradiction, a man who spends money to be remembered when he would be better spending it to be forgotten, whose need to be loved for the moment makes him unable to deal with oncoming disasters when they can still be averted. As Michel Lonsdale's doctor notes, "To understand Stavisky sometimes you have to forget files. You have to dream of him and to imagine his dreams." Stavisky remains an enigma simply because he is so simple - there is no real secret to him. Like his fortune, he simply invents himself.

Jean-Paul Belmondo is superb in the lead, at once at home in luxury and high society but still able to pull a petty swindle over stolen gems, supremely confident and alive in company yet in private haunted by his father's suicide over the dishonor his early arrests bought on the family name that drives him to strive to live purely in the present. He's complimented by Charles Boyer's wonderful final performance as an aristocrat who has happily wasted the fortune his ancestors took generations to amass over the course of his single lifetime and can forgive his friend anything for the joy to be alive that his company brings. The moment his casually anti-semitic right-wing aristocrat discovers that Stavisky is not only not French but a Jew is beautifully observed: he stands by him as a friend, but is disappointed that he was not honest to him, while displaying just a trace of awareness that had Stavisky been honest, he never would have become his friend.

But this is the story of a fall from a great height - indeed, our first view of Stavisky is of him descending in an elevator as Trostsky arrives in France to seek asylum. It is only in the last third that the dominoes start to fall and the real conspiracy starts to emerge. Stavisky is a criminal, a former petty informer who now has somehow managed to reverse roles and now has most of the government and police in his pocket and acting as his informers, but he himself is being used. Not only is he planning to block funds to facilitate the beginning of the Spanish Civil War (to him simply a financial opportunity: he has no conception of the moral consequences of his actions) but his downfall is used to destroy the left in French politics. (It is only here that the initially clumsy device of paralleling Stavisky's fall with Trotsky's brief period of exile in France comes into focus.) Although his end is not shown, it is left clear that he was more pawn than prime mover. Ultimately his fall leaves the left destroyed, the far right in control and only the most innocent imprisoned.

In a film full of pluses, the script is superb, Resnais' use of the camera impeccable and there's even a good score from Stephen Sondheim. The only major minus is Resnais' handling of the actresses - more vacant than vital, as is so often the case in his films of this era - and the tendency to turn the left-wing characters into purely walking-talking ideological monologues.

Sadly, the Region 1 Image DVD is a little problematic - aside from it not always being recognised by my player, the transfer is acceptable but not entirely without problems (it appears to be a standards conversion from a PAL master) and none of the few extras (including an audio interview with the camera-shy Resnais) from the StudioCanal disc in France that it has been cloned from have made the leap across the Atlantic. Highly recommended, nonetheless.

Was the above comment useful to you?

12 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Not a conventional period romp - but hugely subtle and satisfying, 16 July 1999
8/10
Author: allyjack from toronto

For the first hour or more you keep stumbling - the movie s surface looks like a period romp, helped by Sondheim s elegantly quizzical score, but the narrative is fragmented and frustratingly hard to follow. But as it takes shape (with Resnais pulling a Vertigo by tipping us off on Stavisky s fall about two thirds of the way in) you realize the subtlety of his design - his earlier formal and temporal experiments are incorporated almost seamlessly here into a lush cinematic package. Resnais spends little time on the usual raw material of the genre: the fragility of Stavisky s position becomes apparent almost immediately, and Resnais shows how the myth of the gentleman thief always had to be a sham - emotionally, sociologically and politically. Power is always contingent on the cooperation of others, and thus always endangered. As endangered, indeed, as our confidence in our sense of time and space - in the closing stretch Resnais moves superbly between events before and after Stavisky s death: the man (a spectre; a figure of several manufactured identities) recedes as the overall design takes precedence. The final image though is purely elegiac and nostalgic; perhaps for the art as well as for the man.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
"STAVISKY" A must see masterpiece..Stephen Sondheim wrote Music score, 16 June 2005
10/10
Author: victorsargeant from United States BOULDER COUNTY COLORADO

"Whew..." If you liked "Enchanted April" or "Harold and Maude" "To Kill a Mocking Bird"...."Stavisky" rates amount them, as an old time Impressionistic work of film Art.

Stephen Sondheim, liked the movie, enough, to write the music for the picture. Rarely, does Sondheim write for film. "Reds" and one other perhaps.

The soundtrack is available with the Lincoln Center's concert performance of "Follies". I am so grateful they have kept this music alive for us.

Takes place in the 20's, mysterious gangsters, French, Monte Carlo, and a charming love story. Casting is perfect. Cinephotography is hazy like an impressionistic painting, texture, faded color, but warm in tone. The Art Direction is breathtaking, with vintage clothes, automobiles, airplanes, white roses, fragrances, smooth satin movements,with that the "haunting music" which enriches each shot. BRAVO

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Current history makes Stavisky a must see, 9 March 2009
10/10
Author: donmac117 from United States

If it were not for the stylistic excesses of Resnais, the epitome of auteur directors, this movie would rank with Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Too often, the cinematic tricks interfere with a powerful narrative, and distract from otherwise magnificent qualities of Stavisky, the movie. Seldom, has an acting ensemble delivered such consistent excellence. Belmondo, in the key leading role, delivers his character's development with perfection in every scene. Boyer's performance meets and surpasses all the great roles of his career. This is a movie that can only grow in importance with time.

Viewed during the financial crises of 2009, created with stunning derivative manipulations that parallel the voucher schemes of Stavisky, one sees history repeated. It is depressing to be reminded how we have ignored the lesson of history, and now we must live through the aftermath of financial corruption on a world wide scale that makes Stavisky's crimes pale in comparison.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
The Pure Genius of Alain Resnais; Belmondo and Boyer ROCK!; Sondheim's annoying and intrusive score only drawback, 22 March 2001
10/10
Author: Aw-komon from Los Angeles, CA

To see a good print of this film in a proper movie theatre (as we were finally able to do last year at the all-too-rare Resnais retorspective at the Egyptian in Hollywood) is like ascending to friggin heaven for the true film fan. With the myriad of attention that's been paid over the years to 'gangster/conman' flicks, how many people know that the most modern and technically advanced of all 'narrative' film directors had already made in 1974 the greatest and most transcendently poetic masterpiece connected with that 'establishment flouting' genre? Not that many, and none of the Resnais screenings at the Cinemateque were even remotely the sell-outs they should've been.

Resnais makes films that stand up to and get better with countless repeat viewings but filmgoers for some reason have decided that any film that they don't fully 'get' in one friggin viewing is somehow flawed or lacking in composition! It never occurs to them to say that about a piece of music or even a silly pop song; they will listen to that over and over again--but a movie? Hell no! One pop-corn chomping two hour span is all their precious attentions can be taxed to give, and any film that doesn't seek to manipulate them is quickly dismissed as 'difficult' or 'art-school' cinema. That's too bad, because Resnais' films are only difficult for those not accustomed to deconditioning themselves from the manipulative commercial cinema around them; they are meant to be slightly imperfect on purpose, so that audiences can participate and complete the picture to a certain degree subjectively. Once you realize that these films are labyrinths of wonder and beauty that more than repay any amount of attention you put into them, watching a Resnais film becomes a thoroughly natural process, nothing 'difficult' about it. But you have to take that step out of passivity and readjust your perspective a bit (reading Kreidle's excellent book on Resnais is a great place to start readjusting your perspective).

Belmondo must be commended for putting his star power and his own money into financing this film with Resnais as his chosen director. He sure made the right choice! Much more than "Breathless" and even "Pierrot Le Fou", "Stavisky" is a timeless and absolutely exquisite film that basically hasn't aged one bit, and it serves as probably the ultimate display piece for Belmondo's superb gift and magnetic personality. It's the best 'F.Scott Fitzgerald''1920s' type looking film ever made. It blows away any other film in the beauty and shading of its shots, the lushness of muted, shadowy colors in its look, and along with Storaro's work in the "The Conformist" (which is a shallower film than it in the narrative sense), Vierny's cinematography is the most awe-inspiringly authentic and yet transcendently romantic looking 'period' look ever achieved on film. In addition to Belmondo, "Stavisky" features the great Charles Boyer in one of his greatest performances ever, forever immortalized in a work of cinematic art as truly deserving of his talents as "The Earrings of Madame de..." or "Algiers." The only complaint I have about this film is with regards to Sondheim's score. It's good when it stays in the background, but unfortunately it often becomes intrusive and in a 'cheap modern', second-hand-Stravinsky-meets-broadway way that's really annoying. Resnais would've been better off, even with a restrained Ennio Morricone score than this type of bogus music. Other than that one minor tolerable annoyance "Stavisky" is an awe-inspiring masterpiece.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Portrait of a swindler, and of his age, 2 June 2005
7/10
Author: michael_chaplan from Japan

Belmondo plays a swindler in early thirties France... His greatest creation is a new identity for himself. Completely amoral/immoral, he plays all ends against the middle.... in fact he is a Jew in France in order to swindle... and his existence is contrasted with (the Jewish) Trotsky who comes to France for political asylum... and a young Jewish actress in France to escape the Nazis.

In the end, everyone is betrayed, but the complicated story makes it extremely difficult to follow.

While it was going on, however, it was beautiful to watch and listen to.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
good insight into a charming sociopath, 31 October 2005
8/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

While this is far from my favorite French film, I did enjoy it--particularly as it did a good job of both including the historical aspects of 1933 with an in-depth portrait of a charming sociopath who had a touch of madness. The main character, Stavisky, was ably portrayed by Jean Paul Belmondo and it was very interesting to see the supporting work done by Charles Boyer (in one of his last films). However, I think the best work was done by the writers as they did an accurate job of showing a certain type of sociopath--the anti-social personality with some evidence of a thought disorder. The main character, though completely amoral and conniving, truly seemed to believe he was special and "moral" and that his illegal schemes would somehow magically work out fine. He stole and lied and cheated but somehow felt that society's laws were not intended for someone like him. In some ways, it makes you wonder if some of our most famous and successful moguls and politicians have a touch of Stavisky inside of them!

Was the above comment useful to you?

0 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
For Whom The Belmondo Toils, 27 May 2004
Author: writers_reign

Not least of the selling points for this movie is the chance to see Charles Boyer back on his own turf after making a fortune and a reputation in Hollywood. Perhaps best known for his refusal to 'speak' to a cockroach in Mitchell Liesen's 'Hold Back The Dawn', following which screenwriters Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett truncated his part and 'threw' the movie to Olivia de Havilland, Boyer was nevertheless a sensitive man, as well he might be with a philosophical degree from the Sorbonne who, rather than go on living without his wife, committed suicide two days after her death. With 20-20 hindsight it's tempting to look for parallels here - Stavisky was made four years prior to Boyer's suicide and he made only a further two on-screen appearances - in respect of Stavisky topping himself in the 12th reel but speculation aside Boyer does score heavily as what might be described as a thoroughbred who's been nobbled. He cheerfully pisses away his 'old money' in pursuit of the good life but when the chips are down he remains resolutely loyal to the lovable rogue who has lied to him blatantly.

Any film that features Francois Perier can't be all bad and here again he lends gravitas to an essentially lightweight project. All the production values are out of the right bottle and nostalgists will have a field day. The jury's still out on Belmondo but the film itself is well worth seeing. 6/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
probably Resnais' worst, most understandable...., 21 August 2001
4/10
Author: Eric Blanchard (eric.g.d.blanchard@wanadoo.fr) from Saint-Avold, France

story is entertaining but almost action-free, characters are a drag, no actor emerges from this period piece, the 30's, which is lavishly filmed, but we've seen it elsewhere already... Belmondo is a lovable crook, but he's done it before...

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Main details
Your user comments Your vote history