Stavisky...

Irresistible charm and talent helps Serge Alexandre alias Stavisky, small-time swindler, to make friends with even most influential members of French industrial and political elite during the early 30s.

The film began as a commission by Jean-Paul Belmondo to the screenwriter Jorge Semprún to develop a scenario about Stavisky. Resnais, who had previously worked with Semprún on "La Guerre est finie", expressed his interest in the project (after a gap of six years since his previous film); he recalled seeing as a child the waxwork figure of Stavisky in the Musée Grevin, and immediately saw the potential of Belmondo to portray him as a mysterious, charming and elegant fraudster.

It seems like most historical French films either take place during World War II (focusing on the occupation) or are in some way related to Algeria. This one really has neither, because it is set between the two world wars, with some interesting supporting characters (Leon Trotsky!). I had never heard of Stavisky, but now I'd be curious to know more (despite having no real passion for French history).

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.

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!

I didn't realize, until I went to Saulnier's page, just how much my experience of French film of the 1960's and 70's was shaped by this man's vision. He was production designer or art designer for Les Cousins and A double tour (Chabrol); Les Amants and Le Voleur (Malle); Marienbad, Muriel, La Guerre est finie, Providence as well as Stavisky... (Resnais); Le Chat and La veuve Couderc (Granier-Deferre). As well as his tremendous work on these art-house films, he worked on box-office successes like French Connection II, What's New, Pussycat and Le Clan des Siciliens.

I am discussing the art direction and the lovely costumes by Jacqueline Moreau (Anny Duperey looks ravishing in those gowns--and that jewelry!) because I find little else to talk about in this glacial exercise in political cinema. Characters mutter about bringing down the left-wing Daladier government and effecting a fascist takeover of power; it's as though Stavisky's fiscal film-flammery is just a side show, when in fact it's the central story. Why do we see Trotsky in two scenes, and why does he never speak? The idea of Trotsky remaining silent as his future is being discussed--that's startling. A simple check of the history of the time will tell you that the Front populaire triumphed in the June 1936 election, so there was no fascist takeover.

Happily, there is fine acting from Charles Boyer (it's one of his finest roles) and Francois Perier as Stavisky's adviser--one of the toughest jobs anybody could have, as it involves giving sage advice to a wild-eyed dreamer. Silvia Badescu has an impressive scene as a young Communist actress who rehearses a scene with Belmondo.

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.