My Night at Maud's

The third of Rohmer's Moral Tales, and quite unlike the previous two. The first two clocked in at approximately 23 minutes and 54 minutes, respectively. "My Night at Maud's", almost two hours. While the first two Moral Tales were basically first-person narration accompanied by visuals, which were secondary but stimulating nonetheless, "My Night at Maud's" is a dialogue-driven piece in which character's exchange personal philosophies and trade the ideas of their favorite philosophers like baseball cards. Although I'm not sure of which films are in Richard Linklater's (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset) DVD collection, it would probably be safe to assume that this is one of them.

Because it is a dialogue-driven piece, much more happens in the 54-minute-long "Suzanne's Career", Rohmer's second moral tale, than in "My Night at Maud's", which is about an hour longer. It can seem meandering at times, especially the first-half of the film, but put your trust in Rohmer. We're being bored to death for a reason. Listening to two Frenchmen discuss Pascal's Wager isn't very entertaining, but the payoff comes when, later on in the film, the characters are put into situations in which they have to make their own Pascal's wager, metaphorically speaking. The reward comes when we see these philosophies which they discussed tested in real-life situations, and we see how true, or untrue, to their ideals these characters are.

During the first fifty minutes, you may be bored out of your skull, but the way the film unfolds, you'll probably want to go back and watch the first fifty minutes again after it's over.

My Night at Maud's is the third in the Six Moral tales series. In this film, an introverted Catholic engineer (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is introduced by his Marxist friend Vidal (Antoine Vitez) to Maud (Francoise Fabian), a charming and worldly divorcee and ends up staying the night in her apartment. Jean-Louis, Vidal, and Maud spend the evening talking about philosophy and religion, particularly about their differing views on Pascal and his wager. The wager goes something like this: Given overwhelming odds against the existence of God (for example, 100 to 1), we must bet on that one chance. For if God does not exist, and we lose the bet, then our loss is inconsequential. But if God does exist, then our lives gain meaning and our reward is eternal.

After Vidal leaves, Maud tells Jean-Louis about her marriage, her ex-husband's Catholic mistress, and the tragic end to her affair with the only man she truly loved. When he is persuaded to avoid a snowstorm and stay overnight, Jean-Louis has to overcome Maud's advances and his own temptations to remain faithful to his ideal mate, a blond, Catholic girl (Marie-Christine Barrault) he recently met at church.

This was the first film I'd seen by Eric Rohmer and it was a puzzle to penetrate the uniqueness of his style and rhythm. Rohmer presents his characters in very natural, almost mundane situations, and heightens the realism by using only natural sounds of the environment. On the surface, the film appears very simple but underneath there is much complexity. Jean-Louis is conflicted between his Catholic principles and his love of sensual pleasure. He lives in a world centered almost entirely on himself, engaging in much philosophizing about choice but never choosing. He operates out of how he "should" or "should not" act rather than out of his experience of what works. When life does not fit his pictures, he deceives himself with endless rationalizations. Through his experience with Maud, however, he is shaken out of need for complete self-control and discovers the epiphany of grace.

Rohmer has a light touch and employs intelligent and witty dialogue to bring his characters to life. In the process, he creates an impersonal elegance that is totally captivating. Rohmer doesn't set out to change our lives just to make us think, and in My Night at Maud's, he succeeds admirably.

I was quite bored for the first 25-30 minutes of this film, which is tedious in establishing its main character, shot in a neorealist style that overly elongates everyday activities (e.g. church services), and has dry philosophical discussions on the various opinions of Blaise Pascal. However, when a serious young Catholic named Jean-Louis (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is invited to join an old friend Vidal (Antoine Vitez) and his girlfriend Maud (Françoise Fabian) and the conversation turns to relationships, things improve, and it grew on me. It wrestles with the theme of balancing religious and moral convictions with the temptations of the flesh, as well as the decisions we make in life while selecting a partner.

There is a refreshing lightness and maturity to the way in which these characters (and perhaps the French in general) treat love affairs. They are spoken of as anything else in life, there is understanding when someone wants to move on, and when a woman says 'no', it's respected, without further pursuit. Vidal leaves Jean-Louis alone with Maud for the night, knowing there is an attraction between the two, and it's interesting to listen to them talk about their views while she lightly flirts with him. In his view, she has two strikes against her - one physical (she's not a blonde, his preference), and one spiritual (she's not a Catholic). On the other hand, it's because there seems to be no chance of a relationship that they seem so happy and natural together. Their scene later in the snow is fantastic. Unfortunately, he's already become attached to another woman he's seen in church (Marie-Christine Barrault), who, while blonde and Catholic, seems less interesting and less sensuous, setting up an interesting choice for him.

It's telling to me that despite his earnestness and apparent honesty, he tells each of them early on that he feels he's known her for ages. There is something devastatingly honest about hearing that, as we no doubt repeat ourselves in different relationships, and it can be read as being disingenuous, or as commentary that we can connect with many different people in life, and tend to do so, so that our final partner is somewhat arbitrary, even if influenced by certain principles.

While parts of the film were slow and I wish the philosophical discussions hadn't been so specific to Pascal and Jansenism, I liked the intelligent, meaningful conversations these characters have. I also liked the street footage in the wintertime, during the Christmas holidays, which is clearly real and adds to the film's aesthetic. Françoise Fabian lights up the screen in her scenes, and plays the most interesting character, one I empathized with (divorced, single mom) and related to (more down to earth, and what I would call a spiritual atheist). The ending scene makes us both wistful and accepting at the same time. It's not a perfect film, or even one I would recommend without at least some reservations, but at the end I found I had liked it.

Ma nuit chez Maud AKA My Night at Maud's is Eric Rohmer's third Moral Tale. Eric Rohmer, together with Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol & Rivette, formed the French New Wave, which offered a new view on narrative. Rohmer's films are often seen as more mature compared to his other French New Wave companions. My Night at Maud's is a moral study, which dialog achieves to catch the viewer right from the start.

Two men, Jean-Louis and Vidal meet again after 15 years. They decide to go to visit Vidal's friend, Maud. In Maud's apartment the group of three have interesting discussions about Pascal, philosophy, moral and religion. What makes these discussions so interesting is the difference of Vidal, Jean-Louis and Maud. Jean-Louis is a catholic who believes in the holiness of man. Vidal is a Marxist who replaces God with history, he believes in history instead of God. Maud is an atheist, who believes in true short-term happiness. When Vidal leaves the apartment, Jean-Louis gets to a moral dilemma.

Jean-Louis talks a lot about a young blond woman he saw in church, Francoise. He doesn't know anything about her, but she represents religious and an ideal woman to him. Where Maud is the opposite to him. Jean-Louis doesn't believe in short-term happiness. So as he spends the night at Maud's he gets to a moral dilemma. According to his religious beliefs he should resist the temptation of Maud. Again his lie to Francoise is Christian compassion, but it's also a desire to hide his dishonesty.

My Night at Maud's goes very deep. It's not just about what's on surface: the intellectual dialogs and the moral dilemmas. The intelligence of Rohmer goes much deeper. And that is what I like in his films, even if you don't understand everything, the films have something that make you watch them again and again. I'm 17 and when I walked into a dark theater to see this fine film, I was blown away. When the film is over, you have came from a moral journey. So Eric Rohmer's film, obviously doesn't just stop at being the battlefield of ideologies.

This is the third entry in Eric Rohmer's "Six Moral Tales" film series, following the charming romantic short "The Bakery Girl of Monceau" and the somewhat bland, but still well made and written, 55 minute film "Suzanne's Career". Out of the three "Moral Tales" that I've seen, "My Night at Maud's" is easily the best, and most mature. The first two, while fine films, seem more like warm ups to this film.

"My Night at Maud's" is a spectacular work of art, which mainly consists of the intelligent discussion that goes on in the apartment of a woman named Maud over the coarse of one night. Of course, plenty of other things happen as well, but most of the film takes place during this one long discussion. Joining Maud is the main character, Jean-Louis, a Catholic man who seems to be in love with a woman (named Françoise, who becomes more of a major character later in the film), but hides it from Maude and his Marxist friend Vidal.

The film is an hour and 50 minutes of watching these wonderful characters talk and talk about various things, mainly things dealing with religion, love, etc. While a film almost entirely consisted of various characters chattering away may sound boring, it really isn't, mainly because the talking is so much fun (and really interesting) to listen to!

The film is also beautiful to look at, with gorgeous, black and white cinematography that really enhances the pretty cold tone of the film.

A really great piece of filmmaking!