I saw this movie about 35 years ago and have been searching to find it again for the past twenty five. It's the only movie I know of that has a companion. It's the anatomy of a marriage from the eyes of both the husband and wife. Both tell the same story, but from different perspectives. This one, I believe, is from the husband's perspective. The other is from the wife's. The acting doesn't make this movie great; it's the unusual feature of it being part of two movies and you have to see both to get the psychological effect. There are identical scenes in both movies, but some scenes in each are not in the other. There are other scenes which are the same, but they are different. I'd love to rent the video and see them again.
5 Reviews
And they say only the Nouvelle Vague used to innovate in all those years!
dbdumonteil19 March 2006
This is an unique work.I do not know another experiment which can be compared to that one.
André Cayatte ,largely underrated and stupidly nicknamed "the lawyer of cinema" by the likes of Truffaut,had invented the concept "the movie in the movie" (les Amants de Verone" ) long before "day for night" .During the fifties he championed any good cause going but some of his works remain very interesting even now ("Avant le Deluge" "Justice est faite")."Vie Conjugale" is the follow-up to "le Glaive et la Balance " as absorbing a thriller as today's works.
"La Vie Conjugale" temporarily gives up the great causes (but only partially as part 2 bears witness)and focuses on a young couple's life.
The first thing to bear is mind is that there are actually TWO movies ,which tell the same story,the first one is the wife's point of view ,the second one the husband's.And the two movies look and do not look like each other.
Marie -José Nat plays a Law student (proof positive that the director does not leave his milieu)who meets a lady killer.They fall in love,sleep and study together.He gets her pregnant:she 'd rather have an abortion -the scene with the doctor is priceless: "the price to pay for the operation is you my dear"- but he decides they'll get married.
Conjugal life begins.This first part,seen through the lady's eyes, is not kind to the hubby:poor Françoise becomes a housewife ,they leave Paris for the Provinces where he becomes a children's judge and she begins to get bored.Back to Paris ,she makes a volte-face claiming that she needs a life (hence a job) and now she's in advertising.Pretty soon her career will be in healthier shape than her lord and master.Parting is near..
(to be continued)
André Cayatte ,largely underrated and stupidly nicknamed "the lawyer of cinema" by the likes of Truffaut,had invented the concept "the movie in the movie" (les Amants de Verone" ) long before "day for night" .During the fifties he championed any good cause going but some of his works remain very interesting even now ("Avant le Deluge" "Justice est faite")."Vie Conjugale" is the follow-up to "le Glaive et la Balance " as absorbing a thriller as today's works.
"La Vie Conjugale" temporarily gives up the great causes (but only partially as part 2 bears witness)and focuses on a young couple's life.
The first thing to bear is mind is that there are actually TWO movies ,which tell the same story,the first one is the wife's point of view ,the second one the husband's.And the two movies look and do not look like each other.
Marie -José Nat plays a Law student (proof positive that the director does not leave his milieu)who meets a lady killer.They fall in love,sleep and study together.He gets her pregnant:she 'd rather have an abortion -the scene with the doctor is priceless: "the price to pay for the operation is you my dear"- but he decides they'll get married.
Conjugal life begins.This first part,seen through the lady's eyes, is not kind to the hubby:poor Françoise becomes a housewife ,they leave Paris for the Provinces where he becomes a children's judge and she begins to get bored.Back to Paris ,she makes a volte-face claiming that she needs a life (hence a job) and now she's in advertising.Pretty soon her career will be in healthier shape than her lord and master.Parting is near..
(to be continued)
When two different stories are both true! A unique film.
ukraine0130 March 2003
This movie is from my parents' generation, yet it is still interesting to watch now, even in black-and-white. The psychological situations the characters go through are common to many families.
What is great about this film is its two parts - two sides of the same story. The first is through the husband's eyes, and the second one is through the wife's. Some episodes are found only in one part, for example, the husband didn't know the temptations his wife resisted when a rich businessman and other men were pursuing her. Most episodes are the same in both parts, except different events happen in them, depending on the two people's perceptions. That's what I loved the most - the spouses or the script can't lie to viewers, but the events are different between the two parts of the movie. I still wonder who actually left the room first and slammed the door when they broke apart. :) He remembers that she did, and she remembers that he did...
The first part to watch is his story, then her story because the latter elaborates on the final outcome, which his part made quite brief. I also think this is the order the film is supposed to be. I've watched it this way as a single film, and the English titles in IMDB are numbered correctly.
I hope to find this film in the U.S., as I watched it on cable TV in Ukraine in 2000.
What is great about this film is its two parts - two sides of the same story. The first is through the husband's eyes, and the second one is through the wife's. Some episodes are found only in one part, for example, the husband didn't know the temptations his wife resisted when a rich businessman and other men were pursuing her. Most episodes are the same in both parts, except different events happen in them, depending on the two people's perceptions. That's what I loved the most - the spouses or the script can't lie to viewers, but the events are different between the two parts of the movie. I still wonder who actually left the room first and slammed the door when they broke apart. :) He remembers that she did, and she remembers that he did...
The first part to watch is his story, then her story because the latter elaborates on the final outcome, which his part made quite brief. I also think this is the order the film is supposed to be. I've watched it this way as a single film, and the English titles in IMDB are numbered correctly.
I hope to find this film in the U.S., as I watched it on cable TV in Ukraine in 2000.
Simply fascinating.
p____g9 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
la vie conjugal.. see a picture of the cover here> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195387/
movie is aka "Anatomy of a Marriage; Conjugal Life" in America "Nel bene e nel male" in Italy "VEDYBINIS GYVENIMAS" in Lithuania "Zycie malzenskie : ona" in Poland
Perhaps I saw the film in the best possible way, but nonetheless, it captured my attention and remains the best illustration of the basic human plight with regards to communication (**). Conflicts between human beings happen all the time, but the intertwining of ones ego and perceptions result in a potent and difficult to stomach soup of misinterpretation leading to misunderstanding leading to mistrust.
This movie, more simply put, shows how it is that we don't understand the same things the same way; the beautiful world of relativistic understanding.
I first saw the film in circa 1996, I was killing time before I had to go to work, surfing the teevee. I happened onto IFC and although I missed maybe the first 15min of the film, this film caught my attention and I started to watch. Anyway, I had to go to work, so I saw maybe an hour; neither the beginning nor the end.
About a week later, I noticed it was coming on again shortly and since I enjoyed what I saw the first time, I thought I would like to catch both the beginning and the end. So I get settled in and the movie begins. As I am watching, after maybe a half hour, some of the scenes start to become familiar.. but they are just simply NOT the same that I saw the first time.. I honestly thought at this point (all the way to the end) that I was losing my mind. I just kept wondering how I could have remembered scenes so differently the first time. It wasn't that it was bad, just some of the details had changed and some different scenes that gave me very different impressions. The entire experience was really quite eerie. So the movie ends. I start to get up to turn off the IL' drug-of-the-nation and I am shocked as a second part begins.. the second part.. the part I watched the first time!?
To summarize the movie, it is a single story focusing on a relationship between two people. This story is first told from one individuals perspective (the woman I believe), the second from the other's. Complete with all the misunderstandings and struggle as they dual between their and their partners' ego and perceptions. Chaos ensues.
Simply fascinating.
(*) (**) incidentally, for a wonderful explanation of the basics of communication, do not hesitate to check at the IL' Internet Archive: Eames' "Communications Primer, A" as it has passed into the public domain.
ps. I looked for hard for this a couple of years ago and have only found copies of the film in France (!) unfortunately, only on pal :(
movie is aka "Anatomy of a Marriage; Conjugal Life" in America "Nel bene e nel male" in Italy "VEDYBINIS GYVENIMAS" in Lithuania "Zycie malzenskie : ona" in Poland
Perhaps I saw the film in the best possible way, but nonetheless, it captured my attention and remains the best illustration of the basic human plight with regards to communication (**). Conflicts between human beings happen all the time, but the intertwining of ones ego and perceptions result in a potent and difficult to stomach soup of misinterpretation leading to misunderstanding leading to mistrust.
This movie, more simply put, shows how it is that we don't understand the same things the same way; the beautiful world of relativistic understanding.
I first saw the film in circa 1996, I was killing time before I had to go to work, surfing the teevee. I happened onto IFC and although I missed maybe the first 15min of the film, this film caught my attention and I started to watch. Anyway, I had to go to work, so I saw maybe an hour; neither the beginning nor the end.
About a week later, I noticed it was coming on again shortly and since I enjoyed what I saw the first time, I thought I would like to catch both the beginning and the end. So I get settled in and the movie begins. As I am watching, after maybe a half hour, some of the scenes start to become familiar.. but they are just simply NOT the same that I saw the first time.. I honestly thought at this point (all the way to the end) that I was losing my mind. I just kept wondering how I could have remembered scenes so differently the first time. It wasn't that it was bad, just some of the details had changed and some different scenes that gave me very different impressions. The entire experience was really quite eerie. So the movie ends. I start to get up to turn off the IL' drug-of-the-nation and I am shocked as a second part begins.. the second part.. the part I watched the first time!?
To summarize the movie, it is a single story focusing on a relationship between two people. This story is first told from one individuals perspective (the woman I believe), the second from the other's. Complete with all the misunderstandings and struggle as they dual between their and their partners' ego and perceptions. Chaos ensues.
Simply fascinating.
(*) (**) incidentally, for a wonderful explanation of the basics of communication, do not hesitate to check at the IL' Internet Archive: Eames' "Communications Primer, A" as it has passed into the public domain.
ps. I looked for hard for this a couple of years ago and have only found copies of the film in France (!) unfortunately, only on pal :(
The Most Effective Film I've Ever Seen!
ccapinc12 December 1999
I can vividly recall aspects of the two films which I saw 35-36 years ago. I often think of the films and the unique approach the director, André Cayatte took in showing a relationship from the viewpoint of each partner. I recall how utterly convinced I was after seeing the man's version that I knew the woman was lying as she told her story, for I had already seen what actually happened! It wasn't until I had viewed more than half the second film that I began to think that maybe I had made a miss judgment. By the end of the second film I knew that the man had totally lied throughout the first film. It would be great to see the films again, and this time I'd like to see them in reverse. If they are equally compelling, I would recommend making them required viewing before any divorce proceeding. They certainly makes you look at both sides
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
