Stavisky... (1974) Online

For the first hour or more you keep stumbling - the movie s surface looks like a period romp, helped by Sondheim s elegantly quizzical score, but the narrative is fragmented and frustratingly hard to follow. But as it takes shape (with Resnais pulling a Vertigo by tipping us off on Stavisky s fall about two thirds of the way in) you realize the subtlety of his design - his earlier formal and temporal experiments are incorporated almost seamlessly here into a lush cinematic package. Resnais spends little time on the usual raw material of the genre: the fragility of Stavisky s position becomes apparent almost immediately, and Resnais shows how the myth of the gentleman thief always had to be a sham - emotionally, sociologically and politically. Power is always contingent on the cooperation of others, and thus always endangered. As endangered, indeed, as our confidence in our sense of time and space - in the closing stretch Resnais moves superbly between events before and after Stavisky s death: the man (a spectre; a figure of several manufactured identities) recedes as the overall design takes precedence. The final image though is purely elegiac and nostalgic; perhaps for the art as well as for the man.

"Whew..." If you liked "Enchanted April" or "Harold and Maude" "To Kill a Mocking Bird"...."Stavisky" rates amount them, as an old time Impressionistic work of film Art.

Stephen Sondheim, liked the movie, enough, to write the music for the picture. Rarely, does Sondheim write for film. "Reds" and one other perhaps.

The soundtrack is available with the Lincoln Center's concert performance of "Follies". I am so grateful they have kept this music alive for us.

Takes place in the 20's, mysterious gangsters, French, Monte Carlo, and a charming love story. Casting is perfect. Cinephotography is hazy like an impressionistic painting, texture, faded color, but warm in tone. The Art Direction is breathtaking, with vintage clothes, automobiles, airplanes, white roses, fragrances, smooth satin movements,with that the "haunting music" which enriches each shot. BRAVO

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.

If it were not for the stylistic excesses of Resnais, the epitome of auteur directors, this movie would rank with Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Too often, the cinematic tricks interfere with a powerful narrative, and distract from otherwise magnificent qualities of Stavisky, the movie. Seldom, has an acting ensemble delivered such consistent excellence. Belmondo, in the key leading role, delivers his character's development with perfection in every scene. Boyer's performance meets and surpasses all the great roles of his career. This is a movie that can only grow in importance with time.

Viewed during the financial crises of 2009, created with stunning derivative manipulations that parallel the voucher schemes of Stavisky, one sees history repeated. It is depressing to be reminded how we have ignored the lesson of history, and now we must live through the aftermath of financial corruption on a world wide scale that makes Stavisky's crimes pale in comparison.

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.

This story of a conman is elevated by Resnais direction and the writing from the late Jorge Semprun. The narrative structure takes a couple minutes to get into, and I'm still not entirely sure what Trotsky (yes, the one and only) is doing in the plot entirely except as a backdrop of the period and how Stavisky, I think, ultimately ties in with him being deported from the country to get out of his already asylyumed state. But the two main characters here are Belmondo, super charming as always but here his bs-artiste type from Breathless is given more of a dose of reality and even psychological realism, and Stephen Sondheim's score, which comes in from time to time almost too insistently, like a melodramatic friend asking to amp up a walk down a hallway or a tracking shot (though, damn, don't those tracking shots get lovelier with Sondheim's strings and horns backing things up). We want to see where this guy will go and how far he can take his schemes because we know there is ruin lying ahead.

I think there was a point about midway through where I was getting somewhat restless, as to the thought 'Resnais and Semprun and company have shown us this character, his very sleazy yet undoubtedly charming way of being around people, but where will it go now, what will the movie do to keep things interesting'. And in its own way it becomes more interesting than just being a series of 'how will he get out of this' as it is 'it's time for the downfall, let's hear what his associates, doctor, lawyer, the love he didn't really have - that was the one thing in the film that, while nice and had certain, brief sensual mood, was underdeveloped - had to say ala Citizen Kane. And another fascination comes with bringing the theater itself into it. Stavisky/Alex could have made just a wonderful actor, maybe a protégé of Stanislavski, but he decided to take it into the real world as opposed to just the stage, where he could read lines next to other actors but not as confidently as in a fine suit and cigar giving our fake money.

Maybe that explains, in a metaphorical part, the Trotsky thing, since Stavisky himself was from Russia too: the best way to subvert Capitalism, perhaps, is to just make a mockery of it, f**k the system and get away with millions and millions, always with a smile and courtesy. It's a moody, entertaining ride, the French-socio-historical- political flip-side of something like The Sting, also from the same time.

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!

....problem was there was not enough groundwork laid per how Stavisky came to wield such influence. Sasha Stavisky was nothing more than an elevated 'Ponzi' - buying influence and stealing millions.

There were riots, as noted by another reviewer after Stavisky's death, in Paris, that did result in deaths. I wish the film had gone deeper in showing the horrific impact of what the First World War did to Europe - Trotsky was sanitized in this film - yes he had arrived from the Prinkipo Islands (Turkey) and yes he was hounded by Stalin until he was murdered in 1940 in Mexico. But the problem was the script - they include Trostky but they make no mention of who he was - the former COC of the Red Army and a cold blooded murderer - (Kronstadt, Tsaritsyn, Ekaterinberg...). I will say they at least showed the usual addiction young people have to leftists but there is never an older person aware of the fraud the young adore.

France has a well deserved reputation of offering asylum even with strings attached i.e. Trotsky and Stavisky. The killings Jan. 2014 in Paris by the Muslim terrorists is proof why it is wise to be armed.

I found the acting adequate but the script was weak - it reminded me of a 'watchable' version of Bobby Dangerfield. No real analysis of Stavisky's moves but a constant sub rosa message for how cruelly a bolshevik was forced to leave France.

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).

This Alain Resnais film is just as enigmatic as its subject. As the 1930s French swindler, Jean Paul Belmondo gives one of his best performances. His Stavisky is indeed a crook, but he's also depressed, neurotic and obsessive. Stavisky, whose shenanigans involving phony bank bonds nearly crippled the French economy, is a man of no scruples and Belmondo excels --- he's likable and detestable at the same time. Resnais bends time and space & transports what could have been a run- of-the-mill gangster yarn into much more. It's a character study of a man without any character. Shot in the south of France and featuring a supporting cast that includes Michel Lonsdale and Claude Rich (as a very dogged inspector), this film is a classic. Charles Boyer gives a great late career performance as a count long past his prime, personifying everything Belmondo wants to have (and squander!). The oddball music score is by Stephen Sondheim!

This story takes place in France in the 1930s and details the last couple of years in the life of Serge Alexandre Stavisky, a con man whose shenanigans had financial and political repercussions at the highest levels of French government and international financial markets. Stavisky makes Bernie Maddoff look like a piker. His reach was broad: producing fake bonds, fencing jewels, laundering money, bribing officials, and so on. Stavisky would have flourished on Wall Street in the 2000s and he would not even have to have suffered the embarrassing indignity of being prosecuted.

Jean Paul Belmondo is perfectly cast as Stavisky--you get the feeling that if Belmondo had not chosen to be an actor, by using his good looks and charm he could have gone the way of Stavisky. Most con men are good actors after all. Charles Boyer is on hand, in this his penultimate movie, to play Baron Raoul, a member of the French upper class who was taken in by Stavisky. Boyer projects the refined grace of Raoul without breaking a sweat. I found the details lacking as to exactly how Stavisky rose from being the son of a Jewish dentist to the heights he achieved, maybe that is the subject for another movie. Part of his success was surely getting the confidence of Raoul. The essence of a con man seems to be just that, getting the confidence of his targets. The stunningly attractive Anny Deperey plays Stavisky's wife Arlette. She is not called on to do much more than add a touch of beauty and elegance, and she does that quite well. Her wardrobe must have run up the bill.

I was struck by how much effort was put into getting the period details right. This movie should have gotten some award for art direction, every scene is meticulously filmed. Resnais has the artist's eye for the use of color--always pleasing, never pretentious. The presentation is not linear, there are flashbacks as well as flash forwards. Some scenes overlap each other a bit.

The script is not without merit, containing little jewels like, "Old age is the most unexpected thing that ever happens to a man."

I found it challenging to sort out who all of the characters were and what relationships they had with each other. I could have benefited from a dramatis personae that had a brief description of each character. Also, the significance of some of the historical and theatrical references was not apparent to me. For example, I found it interesting to find out that Trotsky was granted asylum in France and lived there for several years in the 1930s, but the relevance of that for this movie escaped me, since Trotsky and Stavisky never met.

This is a quality movie. It puzzles me why it has not gotten more recognition.

story is entertaining but almost action-free, characters are a drag, no actor emerges from this period piece, the 30's, which is lavishly filmed, but we've seen it elsewhere already... Belmondo is a lovable crook, but he's done it before...

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.

Not least of the selling points for this movie is the chance to see Charles Boyer back on his own turf after making a fortune and a reputation in Hollywood. Perhaps best known for his refusal to 'speak' to a cockroach in Mitchell Liesen's 'Hold Back The Dawn', following which screenwriters Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett truncated his part and 'threw' the movie to Olivia de Havilland, Boyer was nevertheless a sensitive man, as well he might be with a philosophical degree from the Sorbonne who, rather than go on living without his wife, committed suicide two days after her death. With 20-20 hindsight it's tempting to look for parallels here - Stavisky was made four years prior to Boyer's suicide and he made only a further two on-screen appearances - in respect of Stavisky topping himself in the 12th reel but speculation aside Boyer does score heavily as what might be described as a thoroughbred who's been nobbled. He cheerfully pisses away his 'old money' in pursuit of the good life but when the chips are down he remains resolutely loyal to the lovable rogue who has lied to him blatantly.

Any film that features Francois Perier can't be all bad and here again he lends gravitas to an essentially lightweight project. All the production values are out of the right bottle and nostalgists will have a field day. The jury's still out on Belmondo but the film itself is well worth seeing. 6/10

We were having one of those parlor - game conversations, and we decided that Last Year In Marienbad was the "Worst Great Film of All Time". Maybe I should start this on IMDb, as a list...It would be interesting to see if people can stick with that as the concept - not overrated, or anything like that. Definitely great, definitely bad. What about Resnais makes this possible? He is gifted, he has things to say, he understands film form. He's not a pseudo - intellectual, but he might be a SHALLOW intellectual. Dropping names, connecting jejune scenes to major historical or cultural events, doing the "life is theater" thing until you're ready to strangle yourself. We know Claridge is a fancy hotel - why do we have to see the marquée as an establishing shot every time it shows up? Belmondo has lost his feral beauty, unreplaced by any particular depth. This film makes me miss '80s French TV with its intellectual surface and its hemming and hawing: "well, yes...Baudelaire...but, still...Girardoux...and, then, also...Trotsky!"

Sometimes I think I've seen every great film I'm ever going to see, and that it is only my love for FILM and not for FILMS that keeps me going. But then I saw Visconti's "Ossessione"...

It was interesting to hear a score by Stephen Sondheim. It had its thing - some feeling for the period. Not a classic film score, but not bad. The look of the film reminded me of Bertolucci's Conformist which is, however, a much greater movie. What were all the little animals about? If they were about the fact that Stavisky was ultimately a trapped animal, then that's terrible.And Resnais is too obvious with the flowers - he should've studied Douglas Sirk more.

I think this has to be my last Resnais film.

The marriage of manner with content which worked well in Marienbad doesn't really work here. Perhaps the viewer is meant to identify, or at least, can identify, with Boyer's Baron, who repeatedly complains that he doesn't understand all these high finance complexities. I certainly had no idea what was going on, and it was extremely annoying not to have it better clarified. It was watchable, however, and I lasted through to the bitter end. Belmondo is always magnetic. Perhaps that was the message: con-men are always charismatic; and congenitally incomprehensible. Perhaps they are tantamount to mental cases, living in some unrealistic fantasy world of their own. I wonder if there is a film of Stavisky's great contemporary, and far greater superior in the field of deceptive high finance: Ivar Kreuger ? Both these characters were reported to have committed suicide, but were later said to have been murdered.