Quiet Days in Clichy

I'm reviewing this from the perspective of myself as a fan of Miller .. Though this is a poorly-done piece of amateur cinema, there is at least enough curiosity in seeing the presentation of the characters and other elements of the book, though you will likely be horribly disappointed with everything. "Quiet Days" is certainly one of Miller's crudest books, in terms of him coming off like a real jerk, albeit a smart and charming one (which the actor playing Miller totally lacks). In that sense, the film captures the baseness in the fact that it's as if the novel has been interpreted by tittering frat boys who pick out the most basic "shock" elements and run with them with anti-authoritarian glee. The previous review of this film mentions plot points which make no sense. This is because the director showed his obvious carelessness and sloppiness by not attaching logic to actions which are clear in the book. A curiosity of the late 60's (including footage of Paris in 69/70; also notable for the use of text within image which I actually quite liked), but a real disappointment for Miller fans, and a pretty bad movie overall.

I am a fan of Henry Miller and have read many of his books. When I saw a DVD of "Quiet Days in Clichy" on my local video store's "Staff Pick's" shelf, I excitedly plucked it off and read the back.

It sounded great, an artistic rendition of one of Miller's works. I took it home practically rubbing my hands.

As the previous reviewer commented, the acting is abysmal. Painful to watch. What a disappointment.

The photography is good. There are some (filming) tricks employed, but do nothing to salvage this failure.

I only heard about this when the Blue Underground DVD first came out; of course, I was aware of controversial author Henry Miller, on whose novel the film was based - whose work, incidentally, was contemporaneously being transposed to celluloid for the first time via the late Joseph Strick's TROPIC OF CANCER (1970).

Anyway, it was merely a coincidence that I ended up acquiring the two film versions of the book (the other being the 1990 adaptation by Claude Chabrol) virtually simultaneously! Since I was going through a retrospective of that director's work anyway, I decided to check this one beforehand; well, I am glad that my generally negative reaction to it did not give me second thoughts about passing on the remake (as the latter was a more rewarding, and altogether different, experience – but more on that in its own review)! Anyway, I have never been fond of Erotica per se and this is pretty much what one got here: some critics praised the kaleidoscopic style adopted here (actually borrowed from Richard Lester) but this particular approach dates the film more than anything else. Besides, it is further bogged down by the lack of a proper plot (a fault which is much better disguised in the later version), revolting detail (the graphic sexuality on display got it banned in the U.S. on original release – atypically, this is a Danish picture shot in the English language and black-and-white) and characters who seem to have crawled from under rocks (especially the two leads)!

In essence, we follow the dreary and over-sexed exploits of two penniless bohemians (the more studious-looking of whom is supposed to be an alter-ego for the author himself); they become involved with several women, of various ages and nationalities, and not even that good-looking in many cases. Eventually, they both become attached to someone in particular but, with respect to the protagonist's companion, the girl in question is a 14-year old half-wit!; in the end, the film just ends abruptly as if its makers had suddenly run out of money themselves…or film stock or, quite simply, ideas! However, the eclectic score is a big plus – some of it typically French and the rest comprised of numerous conceptual songs by Country Joe (McDonald) of the psychedelic and radical "Country Joe & The Fish" band fame.

This is a poetic movie describing recollection of aging Henry Miller of his stay in Paris before the WWII. It follow the adventures decribed in the book of the same title. The movie has both good humor and great bodies. I would love to have a copy of this movie in any format.

If you were there at the time the film makes sense. All of the taboos were there to be broken and this one tried to break them all at once just to prove it could get away with it. So there's naked women everywhere (in poses 'pushing out the envelope' of the day), bad language and lavatorial humour in abundance. My guess is that the producers were so fixated on pushing back the boundaries of the then conventional taste, that even the most the most rudimentary craftsmanship was contemptuously discarded.

So it's a pity that the acting is terrible, wit is noticeable by its absence and the nudes aren't really all that exciting. Some gross outs can be amusing. These ones were not.

With very little effort this could have been so much more fun and put one over on the wicked establishment at the same time.

Watch 'I Am Curious' instead. It's (they're) no great shakes but much better than this.