My Night at Maud's

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.

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.

Can love be reduced to an intellectual calculation? Can faith? What role do the emotions play into this calculation? Blaise Pascal, a French scientist and philosopher, put down his thoughts regarding the Christian Religion which were published after his death and came to be known as "Pensees" or "thoughts". Here Pascal puts forth the case for belief: "Since the duration of our lives is but a moment and the state of death eternal . . . those who are guided by their own inclinations and pleasures without reflection and concern" for the reality of death eternal, are idiots and should be "condemned". He asks, "What would you wager? . . . God is, or He is not. Reason can decide nothing." And not to wager is not an option. Pascal reduces belief to a win/loss calculation with the following: "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing." MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S is a film devoid of conventional film devices to sway you one way or the other such as music, special effects, close-ups and general sentimentality. This is a film full of dialog and intellectual meanderings, but it is the emotions of the characters, those subtle distortions of the face, and the voice behind the eyes captured by a lingering camera that speak the truth. On the surface, this picture appears one dimensional and the end merely a continuation of the beginning, but under the surface, the characters have been transformed. One's actions may be controlled by intellectual pragmatism, but the emotions govern the inner world with a volotility that cannot be controlled. Single minded conformity to a religious proposition may bring security and comfort, but can love be divorced from the emotions? Can emotions be governed by the intellect? As to Pascals Wager, if one clings to this rigid proposition, despite the changing landscape of the emotions, perhaps shunning love itself, can the conclusion that "nothing is lost" still be held?

That's an intelligent film, provocative and still fresh despite it's 35 years old... This is the film which made Rohmer a worldwide known director in 1969. The beauty of "Ma nuit chez Maud" is that everything seems so natural, it seems that the camera captures situations which are not staged. It's like the camera is in a flat or in the street, and characters don't pay attention to it... Rohmer makes films as if they were documentaries!, that's an original and unique approach.

These are among the reasons, I think, for the freshness of the movie. Because the way people talk, cherish their own opinions and express emotions is something which still happens today in human relationships! The film contains exactly situations of the ordinary life -you don't see that movie and think "It's only a film!".

Good performance -as always- of Jean-Louis Trintignant and superb black and white cinematography by Nestor Almendros.

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.