Les Enfants Terribles
(1950)
|
|
| 0Share... |
Les Enfants Terribles
(1950)
|
|
| 0Share... |
| Credited cast: | |||
|
|
Nicole Stéphane | ... |
Elisabeth
|
|
|
Edouard Dermithe | ... |
Paul
|
|
|
Renée Cosima | ... |
Dargelos /
Agathe
|
|
|
Jacques Bernard | ... |
Gerard
|
|
|
Melvyn Martin | ... |
Michael
|
|
|
Maria Cyliakus | ... |
The Mother
|
|
|
Jean-Marie Robain | ... |
Headmaster
|
|
|
Maurice Revel | ... |
Doctor
|
|
|
Rachel Devirys |
|
|
|
|
Adeline Aucoc | ... |
Mariette
|
|
|
Emile Mathys | ... |
Vice Principal
|
|
|
Roger Gaillard | ... |
Gerard's Uncle
|
| Jean Cocteau | ... |
Narrator
(voice)
|
|
| Rest of cast listed alphabetically: | |||
|
|
Annabel Buffet |
|
|
|
|
Karin Lannby | ... |
The Mother
|
Elisabeth is very protective of her teenage brother Paul, who is injured in a snowball fight at school and has to rest in bed most of the time. The siblings are inseparable, living in the same room, fighting, playing secret games, and rarely leaving the house; though Paul's friend Gerard often stays with them. One day Elisabeth brings home Agathe to live with them also. She bears a strong resemblance to Dargelos, a schoolboy whom Paul had a crush on, and who injured him. Paul and Agathe become attracted to each other, causing Elizabeth to be very jealous. Written by Will Gilbert
I saw this twice in a single day. And couldn't stop watching this after. Each time I start watching a Hollywood movie I can't help but surrender back to this surrealist nutjob where nothing is really definable.
Much of the literature I've read on this focus on the unlikely collaboration between Jean Cocteau and Jean-Pierre Melville, with most putting it in context of Cocteau's other films. But I've always thought that Cocteau's Orphée, made during the same period, feels static and leaden amidst the classical style of its 50's direction. Les Enfants Terribles, while retaining a very classical premise, is completely revolutionary, resembling the unruly romanticism of Rimbaud's poetry. Nothing in the film stays the same - everything is constantly shifting; dyamics are constantly changing; even the sets change in subtle ways. Everything is made purposefully ambiguous and ambivalent such that paradoxes and contradictions abound in a single emotion. But ultimately, as all great Melvillian films are, the film is about the futility of humanity in the face of life and death.
I could go on and on about this movie; Melville is truly one of the great poets of cinema.