Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Film: 'La Chambre Bleue' / 'The Blue Room'

I never looked up the details of this beforehand, erroneously assuming that it would be based on the play of exactly the same name and adapted by David Hare, where Nicole Kidman created a stir on the London stage (and later on Broadway) by appearing eight years ago completely nude in a small, intimate theatre. (Unsurprisingly ,the entire run was a sell-out!)
Anyway, it turned out not to be that, but rather an adaptation by its main star, Mathieu Amalric (that hottie, who also directs this film) of a Georges Simenon novel. As it transpired, I had no cause to be disappointed as the film is a goodie, though in saying that I am at variance with quite a number of reviews I've only just now read.

It's a crime drama (entirely in French), but what's unusual about this is that near the start we see Amalric under police interrogation, but it's not until right towards the the end of the film that we eventually discover what the actual crime was. By a series of flashbacks from interrogation, we see Amalric in a series of amorous assignations - complete with brief, full-frontals of both parties - in an hotel room with a married lover (Stephanie Cleau). During the police questioning we get to know more and more of what has happened through further flashbacks as if peeling back a series of layers, including his own life with wife (Lea Drucker) and their 10-year old daughter. Although we can see that he's obviously under arrest, we are left in the dark for a considerable while as to knowing what the precise charge is. Has someone been killed or has disappeared? - his lover.....her husband.... his own wife? Has the alleged crime even got anything to do with his illicit affair? It actually goes considerably deeper than that.
The film is at an agreeably slender 75 minutes, a brevity to which many much longer films ought to have aspired. (Do you hear that, Bridget J?) It doesn't have a chance to get boring at any point and never even approaches it because the level of intrigue regarding unanswered questions from the audience keeps us keenly absorbed.

Acting and direction I have no complaints about. I thought the superficial warmth between Amalric and his wife was particularly well observed, they both recognising that it concealed a mutual emotional estrangement without putting it into words.

I liked this a lot, and have no regrets about seeing it even if I was in error regarding expectations. If I'd known that it had nothing to do with what I'd thought it was I might well not have bothered, and that would have been a pity...............7.5





10 comments:

  1. I once saw an Australian film that, from what I remember, sounds very much like this; with a man being interrogated by police for hours and we don't know exactly what he is said to have done.

    It's a long shot, but I'm going to look for this one at our closest arthouse theater! It sounds very intriguing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob, Paul (below) explains why this might be difficult to find in cinemas, together with how you can now find it. I've checked with IMDb and can confirm what Paul says - that although it was released in the UK on 9/9 just gone, it did in fact get an American release as long ago as Oct 2014. Why the 2-year delay here is a mystery.

      Perhaps the Aussie film you saw was based on the same source as the technique employed is certainly far from common on film.

      Very much hope you can catch it, if not on big screen, which now looks unlikely, then at least on small. It doesn't require expanse anyway as it's a small-scale chamber piece, and all the better for the story. Good luck.

      Delete
    2. Then I'll search my cable peeps and see if they have it somewhere!

      Delete
  2. Love Amalric and will watch him in anything, but don't get the chance since very few of these gems make it to our arthouse.

    Looked it up and found that it was released in 2014. Took another chance and found it on Amazon Streaming and watched it last evening. Completely agree with your review. Merci beaucoup for bringing this to my attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Paul. Your absence was conspicuous and your input has been very sorely missed. I do hope that all is well with you. Welcome back.

      I hadn't realised that this film is so old. Perhaps what you say helps Bob (above) to track it down.
      I'm really pleased you searched it out and enjoyed it. Your agreeing with my favourable opinion is less important than your having enjoyed it, but I'm glad that you feel as I did - a film that is modest in production and in length, yet in terms of satisfaction and value delivered, far superior than many more ambitious films of today.

      Delete
  3. I watched this again yesterday as there was a question that troubled me about the conclusion. After thinking it over, I came up with something. I won't mention it because it might spoil the film for someone else. Did you have an unanswered question when you left the theater or were you comfortable with the conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been thinking about this, Paul, for over an hour now, and while I was writing my latest review. It needs quite a shift of gear to cast my mind back to how I felt at the end. I think I recall the final scenes and, I'm not sure if I'm now imagining it in the light of what you're saying, but there may just have been a slight niggle of irresolution in my mind when it ended (something to do with the method chosen to bring about a certain result?) but I can't be sure. If something concrete comes to mind I'll post another comment here - or if you can say more without giving away too much, you're also welcome to post more.

      Delete
  4. Ray,
    I like these kinds of films. Another helpful review. I'll see if I can get it on Netflix.
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll find it there, Ron - and I'm quite sure it'll turn out to be be 'your' kind of film.

      Delete