The Stranger (1967) User Reviews

if you can see it, please do

[Quinoa1984 · 8/10 · 11 April 2016]

I had heard about this movie and wanted to see it for years, but it's one of that increasingly smaller handful of pictures featuring notable names and a world-class filmmaker (and based on such a book as it is) that is not available, and never has been, on home video (VHS/DVD/VoD, Beta, you name it). So to see it in 35mm is something of a major treat - the question is, how does it hold up almost 50 years later, adapting a book that is nearly 75 years old? Is it timeless? Well, yes... and sort of no, but I'll get to that.

What Visconti does is actually adapt the book quite closely, and even gets into the tone of not so much existential despair as existential don't-give-a-damn. Meursault (Mastroianni) is a character who is affected by the world around him, though that's not to say he's a cynic per-say or completely one to not connect with anyone; clearly he connects with Marie, who cares for him dearly, and he meets a 'friend' in a man who repeatedly hits his woman and has him write a letter for him under dubious circumstances. Oh, and his mother dies to begin with, which becomes a major point of contention later in the story.

The point is that through this story of a man who works as a clerk and keeps to himself and doesn't say much, unless he has something to say or has to, Visconti finds a tone that is curious and yet also distant, which is a kind of contradiction in terms that fits the Camus' style of absurdism. This is a world where there is underlying political strife; it's set in Algiers at a time when France still occupied it (though it's populated by Italians just buy into them being all French, ironic that Karina gets dubbed), and the centerpiece that sets this character heading to oblivion comes when he shoots an Arab for.... what reason? Was it because he and another guy were bothering his friend with a knife? No, no real intention that way. It was... the sun, maybe(?) Who knows?

Meursault is a particular kind of character to play who has such a worldview that is tricky to make into a compelling sight to want to be with for 105 minutes. He is even called, in almost polite terms, "peculiar", though at other times he's called worse when it comes time for those long (but totally engrossing and fascinating) courtroom scenes where it becomes almost a farce of pulling emotional-teeth. So who do you get to play him? Though he considered Alain Deleon (which would've been... not bad for sure), Mastroianni is so good a match that it's hard to picture anyone else. While he is older than one might've pictured the character in the book - not that we get too clear an idea of what he looks like based on his first person take on things, but he seems fairly young - it doesn't matter after a few minutes.

This is the Mastroianni from La Dolce Vita only *more* broken, like if he just decided 'f*** it' and went even further into just disconnecting from the world around him. Only it's not the world of the rich, on the contrary Meursault is surrounded by people of his own class - though some of course are white while others are the Arabs, as they're called - but it's not that he has any prejudice either way. He just doesn't care about things that he doesn't have to, and this includes religion and whether there's a God or not.

What's tricky for Mastroianni to play, but what he pulls off and makes palpable, is this sense of quiet desperation hidden under a calm demeanor. He can get emotional, he can even enjoy life and of course Marie by her side (and though we don't hear her actual speaking voice, by the way, Karina is very good here too, playing the opposite side as someone who is ALL emotions and vulnerability). But that is the key isn't it is the vulnerability factor; when reading the book, which is a little better (hard not to be when it's one of the greats... ever, arguably), there's an edge and a rawness to the narrative that is difficult to get on film, much less by someone like Visconti who usually in his movies thrives on high, operatic emotions.

What's intriguing is how Visconti pulls back in some ways, though he still keeps the camera moving when he can - one aspect that does date is is the over-use of zooms (sometimes it's fine, other times it's closer to 'we get it, move on, this device isn't engaging with the text like you think it is') - and gets certain set pieces and places to be effective and affecting in a purely cinematic way. When our (anti?)hero goes forward to do his killing, it's on a beach where Mastroianni moves like in a total daze with the music playing in such an eerie way that is both hypnotic and terrifying. And places like the jail cell in the last section of the film or even a stairwell that is at Geursalt's apartment, they feel like real places but also crafted for dramatic effect, if that makes sense.

Most memorable and one of Visconti's highlights as a filmmaker in his career are those final scenes in the prison where a discussion about God and a place in the world happens that is so incredible words can't do it justice.

more context than a review

[breyerii · 6/10 · 10 January 2011]

Reviewing isn't really my thing. However, it seems that some information about this film, information that was only fully told when the film was restored in 2001, isn't easily accessible in English. So, here's the rundown:

1- during the long gestation of the project (from 1962), Visconti was often tempted to underscore the political side of the novel; this was shot down by the Camus family.

2- the first choice to play Meursalt was Alain Delon, but negotiations fell apart. In came Mastroianni, who offered to make the movie for half his usual pay. There was no way producer De Laurentiis would say no.

3- Visconti had envisioned a flashback structure to the film, with different viewpoints. The Camus widow imposed a writer of her choice (Roblès) to ensure literal faithfulness to the novel.

4- at this point Visconti tried to walk out, but he was bound to make this film by contract, and had to despite losing all enthusiasm. He was to remember it as his worst film.

Now for the vote. It is professionally done, and while Marcello gives a completely different take on Meursalt from the book - close your eyes and imagine young Delon instead - he gives it his best. A sufficient effort, if one does not think of what it could have been.

One-Line Review: Lo straniero / Excellent Tragedy with a Terrific Lead Performance / 8 Stars

[nairtejas · 8/10 · 19 March 2020]

The tragedy of Lo straniero (The Stranger) is accentuated by the terrific performance of Marcello Mastroianni who looks totally in character of Albert Camus's anti-hero in the popular novel on absurdism, nihilism, and apathy as well as by the linear, straightforward storytelling that is true to the novel and by the haunting score that just helps it conclude itself as a social drama that reflects the sometimes unbiased yet righteous-looking wisdom of the society. TN.

(Watched for free on YouTube.)

Stunning adaptation

[Jackstone54 · 3 February 2006]

Luchino Visconti's sublime adaptation of Camus' "unfilmable" existentialist classic is all but forgotten. It's one of Visconti's best films, a searing, intelligent film. Marcello Mastroianni reportedly stepped into the role of Meurseult, which Visconti had earmarked for his protégé Alain Delon, who would have been too pretty to play the character. Mastroianni gives a masterful performance. As his mistress Maria Cardona, Anna Karina is stunning. She is especially moving in the courtroom scene. Giuseppe Rotunno's cinematography is peerless. Pauline Kael voted this as one of the top three films of 1967, after "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Chimes at Midnight". I hear that the reason why the movie isn't available on DVD or video is because of the rights. Hope this is rectified soon.

A great challenge for Luchino Visconti.

[zutterjp48 · 7/10 · 6 October 2019]

The stranger is very famous novel of the French literature writen by Albert Camus who tells the story of the murder of a man and then the arrest and the trial of his murderer.To adapt this novel for the cinema is a great challenge , at first sight the story seems easy to understand, but later we can hardly understand why Arthur Meursault killed the young Arab , why he doesn't try to defend himself. The film directed by Luchino Visconti is really a good adaptation of that novel and Marcello Mastroianni 's performance is excellent.

Visconti successfully brings Camus' ideas to a new medium

[timmy_501 · 9/10 · 1 May 2009]

I've just finished watching Luchino Visconti's 1967 adaptation of Albert Camus novel The Stranger (aka The Outsider) and I want to share my thoughts. I'll start by saying that it's been a few years since I read the book but a review of the film I skimmed before watching it and my own surprisingly thorough recollection indicates that Visconti's film is a rather close adaptation.

The central premise of The Stranger is that Mersault, a normal man, commits a crime accidentally and is punished ostensibly for that crime but actually for his inability to fit in with the absurd society that he is a part of. This society is apparently bent on upholding traditions with no regard for the differences in individuals: Meursault is often emotionless when society expects him to be most emotional.

At the beginning of the film Meursault goes to his mother's funeral and appears rather stoic. We learn later that he sees death as a natural part of life; just as she has lived she must die. For Meursault mourning his mother's death would be like mourning a sunrise. Meursault and his mother's relationship had actually ended on good terms when she was alive and there was no reason for him to heap honors on her when she could no longer benefit from them. Unlike most people, Meursault isn't willing to show off emotionally for others.

Next we see Meursault having a relationship with an attractive woman about his own age. Society expects these two to fall in love and get married; this is something that the woman never thinks twice about. Our hero just doesn't see the point, however: he's happy enough to enjoy this woman's company but he doesn't feel like committing himself to her for the rest of his life. It's logical: why should he change things when they are going well already? Once again he isn't willing to pretend in order to conform to society's expectations.

The central event in the film is the a murder committed by Meursault. Due to his friend's indiscretion with a young woman Meursault is drawn into a fight with that woman's brother and some other men. One of the men has a knife and Meursault's friend produces a gun: fearing a hasty murder he takes the gun away from the man and sticks it into his pocket. Later, by chance, he runs into the knife wielding man again: he thinks he sees the knife (its ambiguous whether it's actually there or just some other object that reflects the sun) and shoots the man several times.

At his trial Meursault once again refuses to conform to expectations: he doesn't care what the judge or jury thinks of him. The trial is utterly absurd; more is said about his lack of emotion at his mother's funeral than his actual crime. Essentially, he is on trial for being a noncomformist.

In prison we see that he doesn't regret what he's done though he may regret the absurd world he lives in. In fact he gets most emotional when he runs across his opposite: a man who is so caught up in conformity that he is little more than a shadow of a man. That man is of course a priest and it's obvious that the story is meant to show contempt for this non thinker. The utter absurdity of a man who shuns logic preaching to a logical man is almost too much for both of them but it's the priest who must retreat from the cell.

The Stranger successfully portrays the difficulty a logical, self aware man has living in an absurd conformist society thus encapsulating Camus' Existentialist philosophy.

Visconti's film is a bit hard to separate from the source; the film has some brilliant ideas but they're just copied over. Still, I think even copying these ideas successfully into a new medium is pretty impressive. The film also does a really excellent job with lighting. Someone could surely write a nice essay about the lighting in this film but I won't bore you further with an attempt to do so, I know this is a bit long. Still, this was my first Visconti and I was pretty impressed. I find it a bit inexplicable that many people dislike this and don't think it expresses the novel's ideas very well.

Visconti's 'The' Stranger'

[bazarov24 · 6/10 · 6 September 2006]

"THE STRANGER," with Marcello Mastroianni,is a faithful pictorial representation of the Albert Camus novel—and that's what causes the trouble.

The events of the story are depicted with scrupulous adherence to the facts. But Camus told a story that hinged on "interior" matters, not so much what happened, but what it meant to the laconic young Frenchman in Algiers who killed an Arab and was sentenced to be executed for his crime.

Mr. Mastroianni is a perfect representation of what one might imagine the hero to be— handsome and not so much withdrawn from society as disengaged from it. Anna Karina plays Maria, the beautiful girl with whom he has an affair, in an earthy style that adheres to the manuscript with equal fidelity.

As produced by Dino De Laurentiis and directed by Luchino Visconti, the scenes are striking illustrations for the novel. The segments showing the young man attending his mother's funeral at an old-age home are especially well done. The soundtrack, in French, with typographical-error-laden English sub-titles, stays close to the words of Camus, with the star even reading some of the passages behind the film image because they cannot be acted.

But right there lies the big "but." The point of the story, or at least one of its points, is that man's fortune is decided by chance. This hangs over every line, the thought that one can do little to change things.

Even the senseless shooting of the Arab took place at an accidental, surrealistic moment, prompted by the oppressively hot sun. The death sentence results from the piecing together of incidental mishaps. There is here an undercurrent of Eastern fatalism—insh' Allah, God's will—and French ie m'en fou-tisme, the hell with it all.

Camus has expressed this brilliantly in literary form. But translated into film here, the thoughts lose their dramatic impact, because they deal with intangibles that are not portrayable in traditional cinema terms. Because of this, "The Stranger" becomes stodgy and colorless, even in color.

Because "The Stranger" deserves so much more, it is all the more disheartening to see an effort so painstakingly loyal wash out as a mere story line.

The Camus of Visconti

[arichmondfwc · 10/10 · 12 March 2005]

A naked room, a dead old woman lies on a wooden coffin, across the coffin we see her son. His head down, his face slightly contorted. We move in to notice with a chill that he's just trying to get some dirt from under his fingernails. Mersault. Visconti's Mersault inspired by Camus's Mersault. The film was attacked in its day and the Albert Camus's purists shouted blue murder or worse, they didn't say a word. Visconti knew what he was doing. He chose Marcelo Mastroianni to play Mersault. By that choice alone he was departing from Camus's intentions and yet, if you read the book today and see the film today, Mastroianni is Camus's Mersault. It is the driest of all Visconti films. His toughest. Mastroianni gives a performance that defies description. If you've seen more than once,"XXX" by choice, I don't promise you that you'll surrender, automatically, to the power of this film, but I can assure you that both films belong to the same Universe, yours, ours. Give it a try. Then, you tell me.

Capturing the novel's mood well with commendable performances by all the actors

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 4 September 2019]

Very truthful to the novel of Albert Camus, capturing the book's atheistic and existential mood. All the actors (specially Mastroianni) are very close to what the novel suggests. Yet the film is not a major work of Visconti--it merely adapts an important literary work. One of the best visual sequences in the film is of Mr Mersault sitting on a chair viewing his mother's closed coffin at a distance with another lady sitting closer to the coffin with her nose covered. Throughout the film Visconti underscores the heat and the oppressive humid weather that led to the death of the Arab. A second important sequence involves a kind act of an Arab prisoner who offers Mersault a makeshift pillow and a cigarette in a crowded prison cell. The "bad" Arab can be a "good' one!

The book is better than the film despite all the efforts of Visconti and his talented team, which included three other co-scriptwriters.

Visually hypnotic adaptation of Camus' L'etranger

[ted-129 · 10/10 · 28 August 2006]

Visconti brings to life the Camus novel with the minimum of dialog and surreal visuals.

Algiers sweats. The sun's glare beats down and doesn't let up--right up to the courtroom scene where one watches a dazed Mastroianni in the foreground while the fans of the jury members move in constant motion in a soft-focus background. Much of the film has a dreamlike feel that fuses with the existential blankness felt by Mastroianni's character.

I recall this film playing frequently in San Francisco at the Times Theater back in the early stoner 70's. And with the 70's, this film has all but disappeared. One only hopes that all of Visconti's films will someday make it to DVD--but especially The Stranger!

nope

[treywillwest · 7/10 · 5 November 2018]

About as direct an adaptation from book to movie as you can get, this film version of Camus' famous novel by director Luchino Visconti raises interesting questions about the inherent difference between page and screen.

As much as Camus's first-person prose is included in the film in the form of voice-over, the fact remains that a movie can't get us inside the head of a character like a book can. This is highlighted all the more by the fact that Marcello Mastroianni is outstanding as Camus' Meursault, one couldn't ask for a better performance. Nonetheless, the sense one gets here of understanding (or not) Meursault's perspective pales to that of the novel.

On the other hand, even the most vivid prose cannot transport us to the physical reality of a time and place like a well made film. This version of The Stranger is as much about occupied Algeria in the early twentieth century as it is about Meursault or any of the philosophical questions that Camus was wrestling with in his novel. This version is more overtly political, literally showing the ways in which racism and colonialism shape the interactions of the characters.

Lo Straniero (1967)

[scarfacejoe91 · 10/10 · 25 September 2014]

Well this Movie is known only to a fistful of people. Its a real treasure of Italian Cinema and worth more attention. Whoever read the book will see, that it is the perfect adaption. The ones who will understand what book and movie are about, will love this. Personally it is my second favorite Movie of All Time and I'm glad to own the VHS at least.

My rating: 10/10

I guess you can't make a movie like that anymore nowadays, because it is pure art and not like the Computer-Crap now.

Sometimes, a movie (like a Wine) needs time to mature. I think thats why Visconti himself didn't like this Movie that much. I don't know how it must have felt watching it back in 67 in Italy, because its based upon a philosophical literature and the average Man/Woman in Cinema wouldn't understand it without the background.

"I killed an Arab."

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 8 August 2021]

Inspired by Albert Camus' seminal work of 1942, one is hardly likely to see a more faithful or indeed reverential adaptation than this.

It is easy to get bogged down in discussions as to whether or not Camus' piece is Existentionalist. He himself denied this and it is probably safer to say that if anything, it represents the philosophy of the Absurd.

The novel is written as a first person narrative by the 'Stranger' of the title although I have always felt the alternative title of 'The Outsider' to be far more appropriate. Arthur Meursault by name, he is the sheikh of apathy and his total indifference is evident in both his manner and such utterings as "It doesn't really matter" or "It makes no difference one way or the other." He cannot bring himself to show any grief at his mother's funeral and reacts impassively to his adoring girlfriend's suggestion of marriage. He is even unable to give a reason for his apparently motiveless shooting of an Arab other than "I think it was the sun." He simply does not behave as society dictates he ought and for his inability to play the game he pays the ultimate penalty.........

I cannot agree with the view that Marcello Mastroianni is miscast in the role. He had previously worked with Visconti in the cruelly underrated 'Le Notte Bianchi' of 1957 and during the intervening years he had become the finished article and excelled for Fellini, Antonioni, Bolognini, Germi and de Sica. Very few actors convey blankness or lassitude quite as well as he which makes his final rant against the religious platitudes of the prison chaplain so dramatically effective. By all accounts he lobbied for the role and turns in a splendid performance.

Visconti is the most 'operatic' of directors which is why he seems an odd choice for this austere, almost Bresson-esque material. He has of course the services of a fine cast, notably a touching Anna Karina as Meursault's lover, Georges Geret as a pimp, Bernard Blier as Meursault's feeble defence lawyer, Georges Wilson as an evangelical examining magistrate and Bruno Cremer as the prison chaplain.

The sun-baked imagery and oppressive heat are wonderfully captured by Visconti's chosen cinematographer Giuseppe Rotunno whilst Piero Piccioni, much favoured by Bolognini, contributes one of his most offbeat scores.

This is not really to do with plot but is all about 'mood'. Both novel and film are pervaded by a sense of 'Ennui', that evocative word that covers so many negative emotions.

The ultimate challenge is to make a film about boredom without its being boring. Has Visconti succeeded? On balance, with minor reservations, I think he has.

Strange movie

[newjersian · 3/10 · 30 July 2016]

This is absolutely illogical movie. On a hot day the hero comes home. Instead of washing his face and drinking some bear, he goes on the beach and walks under hot sun almost falling unconscious. And, of course, he meets an Arab who attacks him with a knife. The hero shoots and kills the attacker. And then in the court hearings there's not a single word about self defense? During most of the film nothing happens. Probably Luchino Visconty wanted the viewers to listen for one hour and a half for senseless dialogues just for the final scene, in which the hero proclaims that life is full of filth, the people are garbage, and there's no hope. The famous director could tell all this in a short film. And spare us from listening to a shallow Camus philosophy and watching empty episodes for 104 minutes.

Camus by way of Visconti

[JasparLamarCrabb · 10/10 · 13 April 2014]

Marcello Mastroianni is Meursault in Luchino Visconti's extremely cold adaption of the Albert Camus existential classic. Visconti takes the book and lays it out on the screen almost verbatim, with Meursault narrating much of it so we know in very short time that he's a man without any mission or ambition in life. For that, he's brought to a tragic end? Mastroianni is perfect in his role, his blank faced recitation of Camus' dialog is infuriating. His apathy is palpable. His favorite response to virtually any question seems to be "what does it matter?" A vivid and always compelling tale of how an already undone man's last violent act leads to his final foray into nothingness. Expertly photographed by Giuseppe Rotunno and brilliantly edited by Ruggero Mastroianni. The shocking, sparsely used music by Piero Piccioni brings a real sense of foreboding. The excellent supporting cast includes Georges Géret as Meursault's trouble- making friend, Bruno Cremer and Georges Wilson. Anna Karina is Marie, the only person who has genuine feelings for Meursault, though she, like everyone else is rebuffed. Shot on location in Algeria.

The Outsider

[ItalianGerry · 27 July 2011]

I watched two different copies of "The Stranger," the French version and the Italian version. I'm not quite sure which I prefer. The French version sounds more authentic, of course, because of the setting and the fact that everybody performed for the camera in French. Mastroianni did too, but his spoken French probably remained too accented and so he was dubbed by a native actor in the final version, or in THIS version. You get his voice in the Italian version, though Italian dialog in that setting makes no sense, and all the supporting performers, from Karina to Blier, are dubbed. Despite Mastroianni's talents as an actor, he really seems miscast here. He just doesn't look or feel right as Meursault. Yet he is still unforgettable. I've been re-reading chapters about the film in studies by Monica Stirling and Gala Servadio. Visconti originally had Alain Delon in mind for the role, and the Camus people preferred him, but I believe the Italian producers wanted Mastroianni, and Delon supposedly asked for too much money. The Camus people also insisted on absolute fidelity to the novel, whereas Visconti wanted to enlarge and adapt it, moving it to the present and including references to the struggle for Algerian independence. It was filmed in Algiers, about a year after Pontecorvo's film "The Battle of Algiers." The alternate English title "The Outsider" is a better one, since it clearly describes that character's alienation from society. I don't know if the results are a masterpiece, but it is still an indispensable work.

Probably Visconti's Best Film

[tangoviudo · 9/10 · 23 August 2004]

Although completely panned by critics and Visconti fans ever since its release, I happen to think that this is probably Visconti's best film.

For starters, I was never a Visconti fan. I always thought of him as a talented window-dresser rather than a great or even a good filmmaker (Bertolucci has inherited his mantle). So I wasn't surprised that he thought he could make a halfway decent film adaptation of Camus' great novel. That he happened to do so was a complete surprise to me.

Though dubbed by a French actor, Mastroianni makes a superb Meursault. And Anna Karina was never more beautiful (especially in her first nude scene). The locations are chosen well, though it's often hard to remember that Visconti was trying to stick to the period of the novel (1930s Algiers). There are a handful of other fine performances, and Giuseppe Rotunno uses a palette of colors that is a study in itself.

Piero Piccioni summoned up a bleak, modernist musical score that suitably catches the somberness of the material. This film is an unrecognized and almost forgotten example of what an overrated "auteur" can do when budget limitations and a combination of good casting and a talented crew come together in a highly serious attempt at adapting a great novel. (And it is far better than Visconti's later prissy adaptation of Mann's "Death in Venice.")

One of my top 10 films

[manolian · 10/10 · 15 January 2006]

Too bad it's not available on VHS or DVD, when I first saw this film years ago I was blown away , the mood it evokes is totally what living life day to day is all about , pure existentialism, my father was one and I have some of that in me , so I totally got it , Life is but a fleeting moment by moment .Existentialist ,Camus was one along with Sartre it's the same day everyday ,only we ,measure our own decay with the man made notion of time.Based on Camus's novel This film will either impress you or bore you.But then again it all depends on how you look at life. If you enjoyed films such as Fellini's "La dolce Vita" or "wager with the devil" then you will certainly enjoy "The Stranger"

Visconti's Interpretation of Camus' Classic of Existentialist Literature

[ilpohirvonen · 8/10 · 18 September 2010]

When Lo straniero (The Stranger) was released Luchino Visconti was already a critically acclaimed director in the world of cinema and theater. His controversial art touched many and left a permanent influence on the history of cinema. But for some reason Lo straniero has remained very unknown. Probably for many reasons, but one of them was the Camus family. Visconti didn't want to just visualize the novel by Albert Camus. He wanted to highlight, comment and focus on different themes but of course on many similar themes too. The Camus family didn't like the film and it got into a whirl of copyrights issues and even today it's quite unknown and very hard to see. I got the chance to see it in cinemas and am not even sure whether it can be seen on DVD or not.

Albert Camus, together with Jean-Paul Sartre, is still one of the most renowned authors of French existentialist literature. There has been controversies whether he was an existentialist or not. He didn't consider him as an existentialist, more of an absurdist. As did Franz Kafka but his work is still counted strictly in the district of existentialism. Luchino Visconti wanted to bring up the atheism of the novels' protagonist, Mersault, but also the extraordinary honesty in him. The things other people see as disregard and insensitivity in Mersault are just other forms of honesty, for him. He's a very honest person who doesn't hide his true opinions and harsh words. This is at least what he thinks in his head. We the audience see him as an apathetic and laconic person.

The most intriguing thing, to my mind, in Lo straniero is the reason why the court sentences Mersault. Not because of he killed the Arab but because he told the truth which is something the society cannot stand. Mersault is judged by the moral of others and this is where his honesty betrays him. The subjectivity of truth and absurdity of being reflect from Visconti's version just as they do from the original text.

The cast of Lo straniero is brilliant: Marcello Mastroani achieves to bring some sympathy to the laconic character of Mersault. Through this the audience can understand him and feel empathy towards him. Anna Karina does also a wonderful job as the lover of Mersault, Marie Cardona. Nothing has any value for Mersault. It doesn't matter whether he loves Marie or not, whether to marry her or not. Since nothing really matters, which refers the bottom idea of existentialism: "We're thrown into the world, doomed to be free and forced to give our own life a meaning." The distressing freedom exhales from Visconti's interpretation in a form of unbearable heat and sweat. The famous opening line of the novel quite well perceives the character of Mersault: "Mother died today. Or was it yesterday, I don't know."

The Stranger portrays the life of an individual: through his whole life Mersault has been very apathetic, all the things he has felt and experienced feel the same to him. Only in his death row he realizes the worth of life. He is happy for that he has got to live. The collision of Mersault and the priest in the death row is a very raw scene by Visconti. The dramaturgy reaches its climax - the dramatic intensity in the faces of the characters destroy the original laconic scene by Camus. The atheism of Visconti is quite interesting and it can never be seen directly in his art, but it is there beneath the surface. Another good example of this is Luchino Visconti's earlier melodrama Bellissima (1951).

In The Stranger Luchino Visconti creates an ironic picture of Italy and the justice system. The final scene where Mersault has truly realized the beauty and value of life is beautiful. The picture of his melancholy crying face is very startling - it doesn't last long but it feels like an eternity for the viewer. Because this is the first time we can see Mersault feeling something and it scares us, touches us and changes us.

Not one of Visconti's masterpieces.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 4 October 2022]

Perhaps because this film is not very high budgeted, it has limited appeal. Or perhaps because as good as Marcello Mastroianni is, he's not the focus of the conflict although he's definitely the lead. It's a rather messy script which has Mastroianni supporting to the big conflict, aiding his friend Georges Géret in court who is accused of beating his girlfriend, eventually in court for murder himself, supposedly killing someone who he thought was out to kill Géret.

It takes going from point A to point C to resolve points B and D, with Mastroianni grieving for his mother inward yet refusing to share that grief with those who love or care about him. His attorney turns out to be a religious zealot, taking the plot further into weird twists, and after a while (with his attorney referring to him as Mr. Antichrist), it begins to go down uncomfortable paths that may aggravate the viewer.

As good as Mastroianni is (as well as female lead Anna Karina), the film is weekend by it's messy script and unclear direction even though there are some pretty locales and unique visuals. This is one of those foreign films that makes me not really want to see many of them, because they are trying to be too literal and end up being pretentious as a result. I've seen other Visconti films that were more direct, and those ones are the classics while this one is barely known. I found it troubling almost from the beginning so I can't give it a good recommendation.

The Stranger is NOT Existentialist

[shelemm · 31 January 2010]

Camus had nothing to do with Existentialism. He publicly said so. In Existentialism, existence precedes essence. You are not born with a particular nature, you are free to do whatever you want. Many other ideas have been glommed on to this basic concept (we are born into a void, the only thing that matters is this life, our actions), just remember Kierkegaard, the Father of Existentialism, believed in God. Kierkegaard is Danish for 'churchyard,' and it is proper to say that Kierkegaard is buried in the Kierkegaard, his church yard.

The Stranger is a condemnation of Modern Society. Camus was an absurdist. Meursault is a young man who lives only for simple, physical pleasures. The warmth of the sun on his skin, smoking cigarettes, sex. He has no deep emotional attachments and no compassion. His elderly neighbor is just an ugly reminder/ stain to him. When he commits a murder based on nothing but his reaction to basic physical sensations, he doesn't see what everyone is getting so upset about. He doesn't reject God... he hasn't even given deep thought - to anything really. This is an extraordinary film. See it, and see it again.

We're all gunna die anyway, so what's the point?

[wombat_1 · 8/10 · 4 July 2001]

I first saw this movie more than 30 years ago whilst studying French in high school. At the time, I thought that the movie captured the atmosphere of the place (well as I thought I understood it as a callow youth!); and of the state of the "hero's" mind, which is ultimately the most important aspect of this book/movie.

We studied this book as an example of Albert Camus' existentialist philosophy (which is succintly stated in my summary above); both the film and the book seem to encapsulate this perfectly. The hero lives a life in which it seems that he doesn't really care what happens to him or what he does to others. Perhaps in another age he may have been labelled a psychopath. Certainly he seems to both under-react and over-react (and quite grossly too, in both directions) to many events that occur to him. And indeed he simply seems to float along the stream of life so that events occur TO him; rather than he be in control of his life.

One fascinating sidebar was that the book we were reading in French was supposedly the untouched original; yet an English translation that one of my fellow students had contained the odd extra paragraph! One of these was quite significant in that it described a rather violent homosexual relationship that the hero had whilst in prison.

Another amusing point is that the book has one throw-away line about a sexy red and white striped dress that Marie is wearing on one occasion; and the movie faithfully shows this. Please don't attach any significance to this other than as a bit of throw-away humour.

Hell On Earth: 1967's "The Stranger" By Visconti From Camus

[project717-629-119383 · 10/10 · 8 August 2021]

The last scene alone doomed this extraordinary film to oblivion. A man truly free of all societal forms of illusionary human freedom becomes the truly crucified Christ of a Satanic and Hellish world. I believe with all my heart that is the reason it was never acclaimed the way it should have been....even to this day. It was "too hot to handle" in more ways than one....even in the so-called "liberated" late Sixties. A lost masterpiece of no small importance.

"Not only is Meursault innocent, he is the only authentic person in his world. His authenticity takes the form of immediate contact with existence, the only real certainty, in contrast with the false moral, religious and customary beliefs of ordinary people."--Camus

"One would therefore not be much mistaken to read "The Stranger" as the story of a man who, without any heroics, agrees to die for the truth. I also happened to say, again paradoxically, that I had tried to draw in my character the only Christ we deserve. It will be understood, after my explanations, that I said this with no blasphemous intent, and only with the slightly ironic affection an artist has the right to feel for the characters he has created."--Camus.

is existentialism this bleak? (spoilers!)

[snucker · 28 July 2004]

with my shaky understanding of existentialism, some of this film went over my head. the first half of the film moves along like your typical art film, episodic and ambiguous encounters of the everyday kind. we have Meursault swimming, talking with his bosses, talking to a street person about his missing scarred dog. but something isn't quite right about him. he's just very aloof and he's non-committal about everything. he tells his girlfriend that he doesn't care if he marries her or not, doesn't even care to ask himself if he loved her. she's loyal, pretty and typical and played by the lovely anna karina. he tells his boss that he rather not take a promotion that's been offered to him because he likes where he lives and hardly saw a promotion as step up from his current life. in fact, it seems that nothing is a step up for this guy, in his odd way of thinking, there's a brutal equality to everything. losing a job and getting a promotion would practically be the same thing to him, since life has no meaning for him, so such lofty goals are not his priority. nothing is his priority. he acts normal enough just to get by, he inquires about the homeless man and his lost dog and why he won't go to a pound to find him, but in reality, Meursault probably doesn't give a care about the dog. just asks to look normal and inquisitive, and he does a good enough of a job doing it. if there is one phrase to describe Meursault, it would be that the man is an island onto himself. complete outsider in every sense of the word. it's like apples and oranges with you compare him to the rest of society.

(spoilers here)

after he kills someone on a beach and is tried for murder, all his character witnesses basically don't know what to make of him. they interact with him, but they too sense something not quite right with him. they don't hate him, but they can't seem to defend his character because he perplexes them, only his girlfriend comes to his defense.

the first part of the film is about Meursault interacting in real life, observing how Meursault fits in society. after the murder, society confronts Meursault and his existentialist philosophy about life in a murder trial. only, it feels like a show trial for the religious gossip-seekers. the trial is about establishing character and religious beliefs as indicator of guilt, not evidence. this man is not given a fair trial. you can think of it this way, an existentialist outsider vs. the religious god-fearing public and judicial system that use his character and his fear of god as an indicator of his guilt.

he hardly bothers to defend himself, and when convicted and faced with death, his fear and uncertainty about death reveals our existentialist hero to be a psychopath has he carefully reasons how death works in his godless philosophy with a chaplain. through out the film, he has no sense of morality, but no real sense of evil either. what is left is a general fear, angst and hopelessness that morphs itself into a frightening declaration of abandonment and nihilism when faced with death. his last words are chilling: "let as many people see me die. let them have hate for me in their eyes."

Suspect

[federovsky · 26 May 2017]

Verbatim rerun of Camus's study of motiveless murder. Quite competent (except for the lamentable fight scene) but on the whole adding no artistry of its own, and with its lengthy courtroom scenes, rather dull. Mastroianni is also utterly wrong for the part. What really interested me here is what attracted Visconti to the project, which bolsters my suspicion that this is one of most misunderstood novels of the twentieth century, along with Kafka's The Trial. Let's see: life as meaningless and absurd, somewhat angst-ridden, nibbling away at society's mores, an ambivalent attitude towards women. Hmm.

Consider that the eponymous Stranger may well be the Arab, not Meursault - a significant shift of focus that doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. Certainly Meursault is hardly an outsider, as the translated title claims. His only fault is a certain impassivity - the word is repeated at key moments - it is really his impassivity that condemns him. But why has he become emotionally impotent? Consider that Meursault is compelled back along the beach towards the Arab accompanied by melodramatic dazzling sunlight and dizziness. That the murdered man is an Arab only aligns this scene with a certain age-old North African cliché that Wilde, Gide and Bowles knew all about. In any case we can't assume it is meaningless. The dizziness is his disorienting attraction to the Arab that drives him to distraction. The five shots could stand for a different kind of shot - consider that we only have Meursault's word for what happened, and evidently whatever did happen cannot speak its name (another age-old cliché). Writ larger, the murder itself is a metaphor for his visceral rejection of a certain kind of intolerable desire.

This is much more interesting than mere antisocial nihilism - not just an errant frame of mind but a potentially life-blocking quasi-existential condition. If Camus was in the closet, his anguish must have been deep. Of course, there's no evidence at all that he was, and plenty that he wasn't, but I will be scrutinising his work closely in future in the light of these circumstantial indicators, plus the rather salient fact that Visconti was attracted to the story.