User reviews

There's a lot to enjoy in Claire's Knee: the relaxed easy pace, the charming characters, the warm and insightful conversations, the stunning scenery of the French Alps.

Unfortunately I can't find any way to identify or empathize with a world that is so comfortable, so boring, so unambiguous, and ultimately, so superficial. None of the characters seem to work; no-one ever seems anxious or troubled; nothing particularly bad or good happens, or seems likely to ever happen. It's a film of low-level emotions, and low stakes -- for the characters, and for the viewers.

In this bland world, the only question of importance becomes: will the main character, a man of 35 or older, seduce one of the two teenage beauties? No particularly momentous moral calculus is involved, and ultimately the stakes were so low that I could not bring myself to care. The character is good man, or he's a lecher, or he's neither...but I feel Rohmer did not give me any reason why any of this might matter.

Claire's Knee is a hymn of praise to French charm, bourgeois comforts, and inconsequential easy pleasures. If that's your thing, enjoy yourself with this film. Me, I'll be over there in the corner, watching films by directors that ask harder questions.

The title of this charming film by Eric Rohmer is perhaps too provocative. It really gives the wrong impression, yet Claire's knee is exactly the central point of the film, although in a way that will surprise you. This is the story about a thirty-something year old diplomat, Jerome Montcharvin, who encounters two pretty girls, sixteen and eighteen years old, while on vacation at Lake Annecy in France (near Lake Geneva, Switzerland) a month before his wedding and finds that they affect him more strongly than he might have expected. It is especially Claire who brings out a side of his personality that is seldom exposed, much to the merry interest of his friend, Aurora, a writer, who has guided his interest in the girls, ostensibly as material for a story she is writing. Claire's Knee, it need be said immediately has not so much to do with the pretty girl's knee as it has to do with the protagonist's self-perception. Jean-Claude Brialy, who plays Jerome Montcharvin, brings a veracious mix of smug confidence and little guy vulnerability to the part spiked with a clear case of self-delusion that illuminates his character very well. And the girls are indeed very pretty, with Laura, played with coquettish innocence by Béatrice Romand, also being clever and slyly sophisticated, vulnerable and honest. In contrast Claire, played by Laurence de Monaghan, whose fawn-like beauty is perfect for the part, seems superficial and ordinary and a bit distant. I found myself more attracted to Aurora, played with a gentle and understated irony by Aurora Cornu. She provides the objectifying point of view for us to realize that while Jerome imagines he is a man in touch with his feelings and has an objective understanding of himself, he is really a man who fools himself about his motivation, a man who can be ugly when frustrated, as he is by Claire's lack of interest in him. The dialogue, written by director Eric Rohmer, which some have found excessive is anything but. It is instead clever and witty and at times profound as Rohmer relentlessly explores the nature of love, sex, sensuality and self-delusion. The cinematography of the lake and the French alps in the summer time is luscious, and the privileged, softly indulgent life style of the characters living around the lake provoked a twinge of jealousy in my soul. This is a beautiful film, worldly wise, warm, sensual and subtle as a dinner by candlelight.

In "les Liaisons Dangereuses", Isabelle de Merteuil defies Sebastien de Valmont to deflower Cécile de Volanges, a young girl, then to seduce and to reject Marie de Tourvel, a married woman. If he succeeds in accomplishing it, the bounty will be Isabelle herself.

Nothing as harsh in "Le genou de Claire", but there is the similar thematic about a gamble. Jérome (Jean Claude Brialy) meets Aurora (Aurora Cornu), an old friend (lover?). Aurora, a writer, is in search of a new story for a possible novel. She offers Jérome a gamble in the form of a love game ("marivaudage" as we say in French) involving Laura (Beatrice Romand), his neighbors daughter, who is obviously attracted by him, and, later, the Laura's sister Claire (Laurence de Monaghan) whose knee fascinates Jérome.

Unlike "The Dangerous Liaisons", not a single ounce of violence or dramatic events, everything will be just metaphorical: a half-stolen kiss and a stroked knee (and no excessive promised reward from Aurora). "Le Genou de Claire" is a filmed essay about friendship, love, sensuality, desire, fantasies and their incoherences.

As usual with Eric Rohmer, thoughts and emotions have to be said and not just shown, therefore everything is explicitly said by the characters. This is the reason why the Rohmer's movies seem unrealistic and talkative to the unprepared audiences. Some say that Rohmer is a writer who uses a camera instead a pen, but that primacy of the dialog doesn't prevent Rohmer to use the actor's play, the camera, the set's and costumes colors in a very accurate way. In fact, he is a real film director with a very personal style of cinematic language.

The cast: A Jean-Claude Brialy bearded like a pirate plays a charming young diplomat and he delivers his lines with natural ease and a sensual chemistry between him and the beautiful Aurora Cornu (a Romanian poet, novelist, and actress). Unfortunately the Romanian actress doesn't seem at ease with those long lines in French, and, in my humble opinion, she overplays quite a bit.

Beatrice Romand, 18 years old at that time, in her first true part in a movie, plays the 16 yo Laura. She steals the show, the light and the camera, and in view of some mind-blowing shots, for example in the Jérome's room, she seems to have been an obvious delicacy to light up for the great master Néstor Almendros, in charge of the cinematography. When the movie was released in 1970, the French medias became suddenly obsessed for a while by this very young actress, her exotic beauty and riveting charm. The clever and fizzy Béatrice appeared everywhere in the magazines and on the 2 (not more than two in 1970!) channels of the French TV! Then the fame faded away. The industry of entertainment prefers the blonds... The Beatrice's fans (I am a Beatrice's fan!) love Rohmer's "Le Beau Marriage", "Conte d'Automne" and Claude Faraldo's "Themroc", a situationist weird movie.

Laurence de Monaghan, in contrast with the dark haired and milky skinned Beatrice Romand, plays Claire, a tanned blond of cold beauty, in fact a perfect arrogant and stuck-up chick with perfect body, legs and knee, the famous knee, object of Jérome's desire.

For the fans of Fabrice Luccini, his short part as the young Vincent pontificating about girls is a "collector", not to be missed! By the way, still for his fans, not to be missed too there is his hilarious (and sulfurous) part in Walerian Borowczyk's "Contes Immoraux" (Immoral Tales) 2 years later. Keep in mind that "Le Genou de Claire" forms a part of Rohmer's "Contes Moraux" (Moral Tales)...

Time has passed, "Le Genou de Claire" remains amongst the Rohmer's most sensuous movie, and Claire's knee keeps on fascinating.

This is one of the best movies of Rohmer's earlier series of moral tales. The movie wonderfully depicts the complicated relatioship between the hero and his desires, represented by Claire, and the reality of Claire's younger sister, who as masterfully played by Beatrice Romand. This is a wonderful comedy of manners, in which we can laugh at all the characters, how in their attempts to fool others, they only fool themselves. Rohmer has intricately plotted every action, I enjoyed every moment of the film.

I think the moral point of "Claire's Knee" (probably not Rohmer's) is that Jerome's conversion from womanizer to a serious and challenging relationship with Lucinde, is flawed. And that the flaw is his invoking the escape hatch of an "open marriage." He (or his new persona) half believes that he will not use it, but the accidental presence of two enticing teenagers at his Lake Annecy vacation sets the stage for his self-delusion, his devaluation of intimacy, and for the resurfacing of his sensuous ways.

For "open marriage" as a cover for "adult," is really another form of ambivalence and duplicity. What it means to Jerome is that the door of puerile fantasy is at his fingertips. Thus in the rarified air of Annecy, in the flow of summer, thin, mod teenagers Laura and Claire become not only sex objects to Jerome, but potential love partners--one at 16, assessed as adult enough, and the other 18, assessed as legal. We see them together, he invariably clothed for late autumn weather, they for mid-summer. In the emotional cat and mouse games that ensue, Laura and Claire are, to him, mere temptresses, and perhaps part of a self-test, and not, in any sense, young women with lives of their own & chosen boy friends. Instead, their boundaries begin to blur under his voyeurism, his not so subtle acts of aggression, his familiar touching, fondling, pointed remarks, and prescriptive suggestions. He offers them no affection, no friendship, and no communication.

How could it be otherwise given their demure youth, beauty and his permissive "open marriage," and when possessing them is his goal--pederasty and fetishism his means. But his fling with inspiring youth having fulfilled his KNEEDS, he can now discard Laura and Claire without in any way having deviated from his new mature male role-- as willfully possessive as he's been. Whether Lucinde has actually signed off on the "open" deal or not, she, despite her maturity, worldly success, and her sculptured character, must be no more than a symbol to Jerome, extracted for his KNEEDS, which must come first before commitment and support.

After a dispiriting encounter with THE COLLECTOR (1967), the fourth number of Rohmer's SIX MORAL TALES, I feel elated that the fifth entry CLAIRE'S KNEE has rekindled my passion in Rohmer's body work, his superlative insight as regards self-boosting pretension over real agenda inward has reached a high-point in this basically nothing-has-happened miniature.

A high-flying diplomat Jérôme (Brialy) has returned to Lake Annecy to sell his family house, one month prior his wedding, he will marry the woman who he has an on-and-off relationship over 6 years. By sheer chance, he meets his old friend, the novelist Aurora (Cornu), who has lodged in Madame Walter's (Montel) lake house at the foot of the mountain nearby, to finish her latest novel.

While the two reminisce about the past and update each other with information of the intervening years, Aurora is slightly agape to know that Jérôme decides to tie the knot, in her view, he is not a marrying type, but Jérôme claims that he and her fiancée has reached a perfectly and mutually understanding phrase - an open relationship as long as there is nothing too serious to undercut their marriage, which implies that two-timing is not a problem at all.

Later Aurora introduces Jérôme to Madame Walter and her teenage daughter Laura (Romand), who, strikes up a crush on Jérôme. Aurora is stuck in writer's block, so Jérôme volunteers to be her guinea pig, to explore the situation with Laura, then reports back to Aurora with all the details. Laura is genial, precocious, coruscating with contradictory ideas (the love/dispute relation with her mother, bored/fascinated by the picturesque scenery), she is not afraid to admit her feelings for Jérôme, but when the latter attempts a wet kiss, she brushes him aside, teases that she wants to be totally in love, not with a soon-to-be-married man, yet the truth is that she will embark on her study in Britain, sooner than Jérôme's due date.

Jérôme enjoys Laura's company, takes her mountain hiking and riding in his motorboat, tries to cop a feel when timing is proper and fails epically, but how can any man not lap up the gratifying feeling of being the receiving end of a teenage girl's passing fancy?, although Laura's candid sophistication is something saps him of any further actions. However, before soon, Laura is no longer his main focal point, because Claire (de Monaghan), Laura's slightly older half-sister, a sultrier blonde arrives, so is her boyfriend, a muscle-showboating jock Gilles (Falconetti). Jérôme involuntarily develops a fetish for Claire's knee, tender, smooth and immensely arousing for his taste, he confesses to Aurora, and takes the ultimate task: to touch Claire's knee under her full consent.

So, obviously Gilles is the weak point to achieve his mission, expressing to Claire that she can find someone much better than Gilles is a stock line from a sour man who is not even qualified for competition, but insidiously avenges to break up a seemingly matched couple on a shaky pretext, it doesn't work usually, as the heart wants what its wants, there is always some behind-the-closed- door magic potion can retain a relationship, so who would take an onlooker's subjective opinion seriously, especially he is a total stranger? However, Jérôme seizes a golden opportunity, dismantles Claire's defence by aiming her Achilles heel, a young girl's intuitive insecurity, and he accomplishes his task, almost grotesquely surreal, during those time-still minutes, a whimpering Claire glances at Jérôme, whose hand is continuing rubbing her knee, she seems baffling but doesn't care to stop since it seems to be an innocuous gesture, still, in the eyes of a beholder, a latent sexual tension has reached its breaking point.

In Jérôme's self-satisfactory version, his act is bold but meritorious, not only he fulfils his primal desire, it is also beneficial for Claire, to save her from the hands of a philander, so, he leaves with triumphant brio to his approaching wedding. Aurora stays, and in the end, from her eyes, we see what happens afterwards between Claire and Gilles, it is a far cry from what Jérôme has envisioned. It is all mapped out under Rohmer's master-plan, one's shallow and subjective vision versus what happens in reality, most of time, we are prone to feel conceited by our own judgment and perception, yet, most of it is indeed a fanciful illusion, a bubble masterfully bursts under the strikingly scenic palette and a spare cast.

The acting is above-par, a heavy-bearded Jean-Claude Brialy effortlessly alternates between a welcoming rapport with an amateurish Aurora Cornu (the Romanian-born French writer, who visibly glimpses into the camera many a time and inclines to speak her lines with eyes zooming in on the floor, but those tics doesn't impede the narrative, on the contrary it renders a vérité feel), an engaging and heart-to-heart communication with the newcomer Béatrice Romand, and his voyeuristic limerence with an attractive but vapidly uninterested Laurence de Monaghan. Told in a style of visualising diary entries in a one-month span, CLAIRE'S KNEE is mostly about talking, and talking could be tedious or overbearing, or sometime both, it all depends on who's talking, and how do the repercussions pan out, here Rohmer has found his feet and to say the least, the film is an undeniable acme in Rohmer's awe-inspiring oeuvre, a significant cultural legacy bequeathed to all mankind.

Our protagonist, Jerome, returns to his vacation home to sell it. There, he runs into an old acquaintance, Aurora--a writer who asks him to get involved with a teenage girl, Laura, so that she can get material for her writing. The premise is interesting but his relationship with the girl offers little worth writing about or filming.

Then Jerome meets Laura's step-sister, Claire, and becomes fascinated with her knee. This is an even more interesting idea, but again the result of his fascination is less than fascinating.

"Clare's Knee" is one of Eric Rohmer's "six moral tales". Some might find moral issues within this story, but I think it deals more with philosophical speculation. Jerome and Aurora--in what I see as a particularly French approach to film--pontificate on and speculate about the best way to deal with young lovers and the value of such relationships. It is little more than discussing the best way to bake a ham. And while it might be self-indulgent, the greater sin is its boring quality.

This is Jerome's story. Ninety-five percent of the film centers on him. If he were to exhibit passion or obsession, then the viewer might find the emotions within this story. But he and Aurora clinically dissect the action and, worse yet, the director does not give us a gateway into his emotions. This is not "Lolita", where Humbert would have us understand his obsession with a knee.

In the end, we find that Jerome really understood little about anything. The quality of the photography is enjoyable, but it can't make up for the unartistic nature of this film. Some have called this film "warm" and "sensual". I found it to be neither.

'Claire's Knee' is arguably the most well-known of Rohmer's films, mainly for the attraction of the young girls in it. The title is a come-on and the heterosexual sheep of the sensation seekers follow. It is a clever ploy, but it is not only the girls that the camera lingers over. What of the young men, equally in a state of almost permanent tight swimsuits? When we first see a hand placed on Claire's knee, it is so filmed that we see a double-eroticism: the crotch of the beautiful Gerard Falconetti, as well as Claire. There is a bisexuality of image. And despite famous critics always talking of the girls and women in Rohmer's films, what of the young men in such films as 'Pauline at the Beach', 'The Aviator's wife' , 'My Girlfriend's Boyfriend', 'A Summer's Tale' and 'Full Moon in Paris' where one of his sexiest youths is pivotal to the ending of the film?

All are beautiful young men, and visual proof alone shows that Rohmer chose them as equally for their beauty as the women. As for showing more mature men as sexually attractive beings, they can be seen in many other of his films. I have said recently that Rohmer is my favourite director, and he rarely disappoints. But to return to 'Claire's Knee'. I read the film as a fiction within a fiction. A female author (excellent Aurora Cornu) uses in her way the ambiguous guest played well by Jean Claude-Brialy to find her a story. And once the story of various flirtations and semi-seductions is achieved the film draws to a close. She has her scenario, but Brialy in a scene near the end with a mountain storm breaking, attempts to destroy Claire's love for the young man played by Gerard Falconetti. This is the strongest scene for me in its Laclos-like 'perversity' in reducing her to tears so as to achieve his erotic goal. It is here that we wonder if the whole scenario has been built on questionable truths, and that what people say is certainly not what they are thinking. How much do we create fictions for others? Rohmer, with a light touch and with images bathed in natural beauty (this time by Lake Annecy) seduces us into questioning how much we are self-created fictions. A great film to be watched countless times.

First let me say, I have seen some very excellent French films, both relatively recent ones and some of the classics from decades past. It would be preposterous either to condemn or praise a country's cinema across the board. But there is a genre of French film where I can barely make it past the first reel, and often don't, and that is the meditation-on-the-nature-of-sexual-love genre.

In that arena, these folks have a positive genius for taking two interminable talky hours to tell us nothing of consequence whatsoever, and certainly nothing we didn't already know. Love is complex, both painful and pleasurable. Yeah, all right already, we get it. Please, move on to some issues that are located above the waist for a change.

I could tell you something about this film specifically, but there are plenty of other descriptions of French films like this that you can simply plug in here, so I'll save us both the time.

Well, I came across this movie while reading Roger Ebert's Awake in the dark and thankfully was able to get a chance to get a hold of Éric Rohmer's masterpiece Claire's Knee. I hadn't read Ebert's review (usually I watch a movie before going through the reviews) so was not sure what was I going into - haven't watched any trailer as well so I was not sure what this would be about, but with my experience with foreign movies I was sure it would be good and I guessed by the name that it suggested something like Lolita or many other movies based on such abnormal (sometimes immoral) desires.

So, when you start with the movie you are somewhat aware where this is going - the expected storyline basis the title- but soon comes to these well-performed characters and while getting engrossed in the discussions between characters on love, choices, life, etc. you get more understanding on the way each of them sees the world - what they desire? what they like? and why they do so? The great part with such discussion was that first, it didn't go into a preachy tone- that x is right and y is not, each of them had their views which they justified by their past or by their behavior - it reminded me of the Before trilogy and, second, while listening to such great lines, one start thinking and contemplating of one's own stand on the topic of love, moral & desires.

There is a scene where the protagonist talks about a notion where he as a person do not have desires on the beauty aspect of women but because of a character his friends ask him to play, he started thinking like that character, and somewhere knowingly or unknowingly he too as a person starts to have those desires. The beauty of this notion is that this happens to the viewer as well, you don't look at claire's knee or her in that sense- but because the movie tells you that this is important - this is beautiful - and to be desired you look for it in that passionate way. You too, play the character in the movie.

Like most of Eric Rohmer's work, you will either enjoy the laid-back atmosphere and chatty characters in Claire's Knee, or find it all incredibly boring. I happen to love them. It's rare to find movies that don't want to be sensationalistic and violent, but would rather present universal questions and then investigate them throughout the course of the movie.

I would recommend Love in the Afternoon as an entry into Rohmer however, as it is a little more pacey for those unfamiliar with his style. And my personal favourite is "The Green Ray"... but don't start there as the subject of the film is about boredom!

The first Éric Rohmer movie that I saw was "The Marquise of O...", which I watched because I had read the novel in a German literature course in college. I've finally gotten around to watching another one. "Le genou de Claire" ("Claire's Knee" in English) is part of his morality series, focusing on married (or about to get married) men tempted by other women. John Wakeman called these movies "subtle psychological investigations about what characters think about their behavior than about their behavior itself". In this case, career diplomat Jérôme (Jean-Claude Brialy) finds himself attracted to the daughter of an old friend.

It's a slow-moving film, but deliberately so. It takes time for the characters to develop. It adds up to a profound, intellectually stimulating story. While slow-moving, it turns out interesting (which is more than anyone can say for the empty, pointless movies that Terrence Malick has turned out in the 21st century).

Definitely one that I recommend.

I'm a huge fan of Rohmer's Moral Tales (and his Tale of Springtime, and Tale of Summer), but Claire's Knee just left me.....waiting for.......waiting for what? Not sure. All I know is: I did not "enjoy" what I heard and saw.

It's not just because this was the only moral tale to be set outside of a French city, though it didn't help as far as I was concerned.

For the first time in a Rohmer film, I did not care about the characters. I guess that explains it right there.

But I love so very many of his films. We're all allowed to cough a time or two.

Ok towards the end of the movie, watch out for the scene where Jerome takes leave of Aurora - as they walk towards the boat - Aurora looks straight at the camera for a full second! Why don't they cut that out?

What the heck - its a nice Sunday evening movie - waiting for the work week to start. Makes you think and re-evaluate your attitude towards love and fidelity. Not that mine changed.

This award winning drama by the ever great Eric Rohmér is definitely a film I was looking forward to watching - after all the praise it had gotten and all of the great actors involved, as well as a director I am definitely a big fan of.

And safe to say, it is indeed a masterpiece in every sense of the word. The actors all do an incredible job, and the cinematography, cutting and editing is, as per usual with Rohmér, incredible and very characteristic.

It is very cleverly written and features some great dialogue, and splendid character work.

Overall, an incredible film that is definitely recommended for any lover of film!

I am quite fond of these New Wave movies with intensely personal perspectives on smaller, narrower dialog, and introspection. Saw this movie in the 1990's and just watched it again with great interest. Enjoying the details that set the time -- the cars, the clothes, the conversation.

One inexplicable error is casting Aurora Cornu -- she is truly a horrible actress. Leaving aside her thick, unattractive accent that might escape the viewer unfamiliar with the French language, the problem is that she is unburdened by any acting skills. She recites her lines in a wooden way, looking away from the interlocutor and exhibiting zero chemistry with Jerome. Painful amateur hour.