My Night at Maud's (1969) User Reviews

Intellectual meditation of faith

[tomgillespie2002 · 8/10 · 9 May 2011]

Jean-Louis (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is a recently converted devout Catholic, who at the beginning of the film, falls in love with a beautiful blonde named Francois (Marie-Christine Barrault) in Church. He follows her, but loses her in traffic. He meets old friend Vidal (Antoine Vitez) by chance in a restaurant and the two talk about their views on philosophy, religion and mathematics. They go to the house of Maud (Francois Fabian), a flirtatious, free-spirited woman who takes an interest in Jean-Louis. When the snow falls heavier outside, Jean-Louis is forced to spend the night at Maud's, putting a strain on his new found beliefs on marriage, commitment and fidelity.

Eric Rohmer's film is full of dialogue. The characters talk and talk, often so intellectually that I had trouble keeping up. But the talk is interesting and intriguing. The main theme (it appeared to me, anyway) is the value of faith in a world where the likelihood of heaven is becoming increasingly unlikely. Jean-Louis, a former ladies man, fights his urges when Maud invites him into her bed. He eventually climbs in, feeling the cold, and begins to kiss her. He eventually pulls away, looking almost angry with himself. He obviously feels that an eternity in heaven, however unlikely the idea is, is worth more than a moment of weakness and happiness.

The dialogue-heavy scenes may not appeal to everyone, it can at times be difficult to engage with the film and bourgeois characters. But it is richly rewarding and a highly intelligent character study. The film has an almost love/hate attitude to the idea of Christianity in a similar way to many of Bergman's greatest films. One of the most intellectually stimulating films of the French New Wave movement.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

The Battlefield of Ideologies

[ilpohirvonen · 8/10 · 21 May 2010]

Ma nuit chez Maud AKA My Night at Maud's is Eric Rohmer's third Moral Tale. Eric Rohmer, together with Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol & Rivette, formed the French New Wave, which offered a new view on narrative. Rohmer's films are often seen as more mature compared to his other French New Wave companions. My Night at Maud's is a moral study, which dialog achieves to catch the viewer right from the start.

Two men, Jean-Louis and Vidal meet again after 15 years. They decide to go to visit Vidal's friend, Maud. In Maud's apartment the group of three have interesting discussions about Pascal, philosophy, moral and religion. What makes these discussions so interesting is the difference of Vidal, Jean-Louis and Maud. Jean-Louis is a catholic who believes in the holiness of man. Vidal is a Marxist who replaces God with history, he believes in history instead of God. Maud is an atheist, who believes in true short-term happiness. When Vidal leaves the apartment, Jean-Louis gets to a moral dilemma.

Jean-Louis talks a lot about a young blond woman he saw in church, Francoise. He doesn't know anything about her, but she represents religious and an ideal woman to him. Where Maud is the opposite to him. Jean-Louis doesn't believe in short-term happiness. So as he spends the night at Maud's he gets to a moral dilemma. According to his religious beliefs he should resist the temptation of Maud. Again his lie to Francoise is Christian compassion, but it's also a desire to hide his dishonesty.

My Night at Maud's goes very deep. It's not just about what's on surface: the intellectual dialogs and the moral dilemmas. The intelligence of Rohmer goes much deeper. And that is what I like in his films, even if you don't understand everything, the films have something that make you watch them again and again. I'm 17 and when I walked into a dark theater to see this fine film, I was blown away. When the film is over, you have came from a moral journey. So Eric Rohmer's film, obviously doesn't just stop at being the battlefield of ideologies.

Romer at his most conversational

[DennisLittrell · 8/10 · 16 May 2002]

"The heart has it reasons which reason knows nothing of." --Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

This is the Eric Romer film they warned you about. There is a lot of talk, talk, and more talk. But the talk is very interesting. One of the main topics of discussion is Pascal's famous wager. Pascal believed that if there is even the slightest chance of the Christian heaven being true, then as a matter of probability, one ought to be a believer. Even a minuscule chance of everlasting paradise is worth the bet because infinity (eternity) times even a very small number is infinity. And, of course, if not believing puts one in however small the danger of eternal damnation, then again one should be a believer. But, as Vidal (Antoine Vitez) sagely remarks in the movie, infinity times zero is still zero.

Jean-Louis Trintignant stars as a 34-year-old Catholic mathematician who has a way with women. He runs into his old school chum, Vidal, who introduces him to Maud (Francoise Fabian), who has a way with men. Funny but they don't quite hit it off even though she manipulates him into spending the night with her. Their conversation is witty, subliminal and revealing. Maud believes in the supremacy of love, Jean-Louis in being morally flexible. Although a believing and practicing Catholic, he tells Maud that one is not going against God's will by chasing girls anymore than one is going against God's will by doing mathematics.

The girl that Jean-Louis is currently chasing is 22-year-old Francoise (Maire-Christine Barrault) a blonde, Catholic girl that he has spied at church. At first it seems that although he is certain that she is perfect for him, she is reluctant. They too fence with words as they try to mislead and reveal at the same time, and the audience is intrigued, so much so that at times you might forget you are watching a movie. In this sense a Romer film is like a stage play. Whereas contemporary directors try to get by with as little dialogue as possible, to let the action itself reveal character, Romer is not shy about using dialogue to reveal character, plot, theme--the whole works.

The film begins with a long close shot of Francoise's profile as she listens in church, turning twice briefly to face the camera. She is pretty and intriguing. Although we won't realize it until the movie is mostly over, she is the focal point of the balance between the world views of Jean-Louis and Maud. After the night at Maud's during which Maud uses her intuition and sly intelligence to figure out Jean-Louis's character, he spends the night with Francoise. She uses her instincts to figure out not his character so much as his aptness for her. And then it is revealed how Francoise figures twice in the life of Maud. I won't anticipate the revelation, but be sure and watch for it. Suffice it to say that there are two reasons that Francoise is far from Maud's favorite person! The film ends, as French films often do, with the ironic affirmation of bourgeois values.

For today's DVD hound this movie will play slowly or not at all. The use of dialogue as something over and above the plot and action of the film will seem demanding and perhaps old fashioned. The deliberately drawn out scenes at church may cause you to yawn. But I recommend you stay with it. The movie has a quality that lingers long after the action is gone. The underlying philosophy about the nature of human love and how it conflicts or is compatible with reason and/or religion really does reflect to some extent the quotation above from Pascal, whose spirit is akin, although he denies it, to that of Jean-Louis, the careful protagonist of this very interesting film.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Unique style and rhythm

[howard.schumann · 28 October 2002]

My Night at Maud's is the third in the Six Moral tales series. In this film, an introverted Catholic engineer (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is introduced by his Marxist friend Vidal (Antoine Vitez) to Maud (Francoise Fabian), a charming and worldly divorcee and ends up staying the night in her apartment. Jean-Louis, Vidal, and Maud spend the evening talking about philosophy and religion, particularly about their differing views on Pascal and his wager. The wager goes something like this: Given overwhelming odds against the existence of God (for example, 100 to 1), we must bet on that one chance. For if God does not exist, and we lose the bet, then our loss is inconsequential. But if God does exist, then our lives gain meaning and our reward is eternal.

After Vidal leaves, Maud tells Jean-Louis about her marriage, her ex-husband's Catholic mistress, and the tragic end to her affair with the only man she truly loved. When he is persuaded to avoid a snowstorm and stay overnight, Jean-Louis has to overcome Maud's advances and his own temptations to remain faithful to his ideal mate, a blond, Catholic girl (Marie-Christine Barrault) he recently met at church.

This was the first film I'd seen by Eric Rohmer and it was a puzzle to penetrate the uniqueness of his style and rhythm. Rohmer presents his characters in very natural, almost mundane situations, and heightens the realism by using only natural sounds of the environment. On the surface, the film appears very simple but underneath there is much complexity. Jean-Louis is conflicted between his Catholic principles and his love of sensual pleasure. He lives in a world centered almost entirely on himself, engaging in much philosophizing about choice but never choosing. He operates out of how he "should" or "should not" act rather than out of his experience of what works. When life does not fit his pictures, he deceives himself with endless rationalizations. Through his experience with Maud, however, he is shaken out of need for complete self-control and discovers the epiphany of grace.

Rohmer has a light touch and employs intelligent and witty dialogue to bring his characters to life. In the process, he creates an impersonal elegance that is totally captivating. Rohmer doesn't set out to change our lives just to make us think, and in My Night at Maud's, he succeeds admirably.

The Woman Who Was Rejected

[nycritic · 10/10 · 1 September 2006]

One of the most beautiful black and white films ever made, MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD might have been filmed today as it has been restored to pristine form, supervised by Eric Rohmer himself, and that only adds to the air of seduction that is ever present between the lead character, Jean-Luis, and the woman he dodges not without engaging in some intellectual flirtation first -- the lovely Maud.

MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD starts in almost near stillness. Jean-Luis (Jean-Luis Trintingant) attends mass one day, and there he encounters a fleeting blond beauty, Francoise (Marie-Christine Barrault) who somehow keeps getting away. Later on, an encounter with an old friend, Vidal (Antoine Vitez) leads to Vidal's invite that Jean-Luis spend the night at his friend Maud's house. While the two men spar on the nature of free will and religion -- namely, Catholicism and Christianity as well as on the theories of Pascal, Maud is most definitely a whirlwind of freedom and ages ahead of her own time. Divorced, living with her young daughter, with a casual look at how unlucky she's been with men, including Vidal, with whom she had had a one-night stand that went nowhere despite his unrequited feelings for her.

Once Vidal leaves, Jean-Luis stays the night. In the course of that night, Maud effortlessly engages Jean-Luis in a game of intellectual chess, goading him with his own illusions about love and his feminine ideal. She's sharp, too, as when she continually points towards "his Catholic blonde" and the fact that she herself would never fit the bill, being neither Catholic nor blond and already divorced. When Jean-Luis asks Maud how did she come to divorce, she opens up, and reveals herself to be quite vulnerable despite her rough exterior. It seems Maud's husband was cheating on her with a pretty, blond Catholic girl whom Maud herself could not stand, and despite her efforts to drive the girl away, her marriage was destroyed. Another lover proved fruitless, as he was killed in an automobile accident.

Night becomes day, and Jean-Luis does not make a move on Maud. When Maud does, he rejects her and she tells him to leave because she wants a man who knows what he wants. Even so, they remain friends, and meet up occasionally. It's at this point where Jean-Luis reconnects with Francoise, and in a move shy of stalking, he bamboozles her into accepting him into her life, even when she lets him in on the fact that he may not like some things about her. A short meet between Jean-Luis, Francoise, and Vidal says pages about her reaction to Vidal (and what history they may have together) even when it's never revealed. Jean-Luis is so hypnotized by her cool looks he never reads her messages and apparent rejection, even when it's clear that Francoise and Maud share a little too much history for either of the two to be comfortable together.

One of Eric Rohmer's finest films, MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD presents the situation of how one man's ideal turns out to be sitting atop a rotting, hypocritical pedestal, and how a more carnal, yet intelligent, honest, and accessible woman, whom he would be happy with as she is also looking for that unattainable man for a committed relationship, is the one he lets get away. A simple movie in which action is set aside and the characters pour their thoughts out, and they themselves are the ones that dictate what is to come later on, MA NUIT CHEZ MAUD gives its performers reams of material to work on. Jean-Luis Trintingant is restrained in his staunch position to remain committed to his religion and blind to what is staring at him in the face. Francoise Fabian, with her tanned looks, deep, wide eyes and raven black hair, is an earlier version of Demi Moore, but with a razor-sharp wit and sophistication. Marie Christine Barrault has the small but crucial character that ties the quartet together.

Slow start, but a good film

[gbill-74877 · 8/10 · 30 September 2018]

I was quite bored for the first 25-30 minutes of this film, which is tedious in establishing its main character, shot in a neorealist style that overly elongates everyday activities (e.g. church services), and has dry philosophical discussions on the various opinions of Blaise Pascal. However, when a serious young Catholic named Jean-Louis (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is invited to join an old friend Vidal (Antoine Vitez) and his girlfriend Maud (Françoise Fabian) and the conversation turns to relationships, things improve, and it grew on me. It wrestles with the theme of balancing religious and moral convictions with the temptations of the flesh, as well as the decisions we make in life while selecting a partner.

There is a refreshing lightness and maturity to the way in which these characters (and perhaps the French in general) treat love affairs. They are spoken of as anything else in life, there is understanding when someone wants to move on, and when a woman says 'no', it's respected, without further pursuit. Vidal leaves Jean-Louis alone with Maud for the night, knowing there is an attraction between the two, and it's interesting to listen to them talk about their views while she lightly flirts with him. In his view, she has two strikes against her - one physical (she's not a blonde, his preference), and one spiritual (she's not a Catholic). On the other hand, it's because there seems to be no chance of a relationship that they seem so happy and natural together. Their scene later in the snow is fantastic. Unfortunately, he's already become attached to another woman he's seen in church (Marie-Christine Barrault), who, while blonde and Catholic, seems less interesting and less sensuous, setting up an interesting choice for him.

It's telling to me that despite his earnestness and apparent honesty, he tells each of them early on that he feels he's known her for ages. There is something devastatingly honest about hearing that, as we no doubt repeat ourselves in different relationships, and it can be read as being disingenuous, or as commentary that we can connect with many different people in life, and tend to do so, so that our final partner is somewhat arbitrary, even if influenced by certain principles.

While parts of the film were slow and I wish the philosophical discussions hadn't been so specific to Pascal and Jansenism, I liked the intelligent, meaningful conversations these characters have. I also liked the street footage in the wintertime, during the Christmas holidays, which is clearly real and adds to the film's aesthetic. Françoise Fabian lights up the screen in her scenes, and plays the most interesting character, one I empathized with (divorced, single mom) and related to (more down to earth, and what I would call a spiritual atheist). The ending scene makes us both wistful and accepting at the same time. It's not a perfect film, or even one I would recommend without at least some reservations, but at the end I found I had liked it.

Rohmer takes his "Moral Tales" to the Next Level

[reasonformirrors · 8/10 · 10 June 2008]

The third of Rohmer's Moral Tales, and quite unlike the previous two. The first two clocked in at approximately 23 minutes and 54 minutes, respectively. "My Night at Maud's", almost two hours. While the first two Moral Tales were basically first-person narration accompanied by visuals, which were secondary but stimulating nonetheless, "My Night at Maud's" is a dialogue-driven piece in which character's exchange personal philosophies and trade the ideas of their favorite philosophers like baseball cards. Although I'm not sure of which films are in Richard Linklater's (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset) DVD collection, it would probably be safe to assume that this is one of them.

Because it is a dialogue-driven piece, much more happens in the 54-minute-long "Suzanne's Career", Rohmer's second moral tale, than in "My Night at Maud's", which is about an hour longer. It can seem meandering at times, especially the first-half of the film, but put your trust in Rohmer. We're being bored to death for a reason. Listening to two Frenchmen discuss Pascal's Wager isn't very entertaining, but the payoff comes when, later on in the film, the characters are put into situations in which they have to make their own Pascal's wager, metaphorically speaking. The reward comes when we see these philosophies which they discussed tested in real-life situations, and we see how true, or untrue, to their ideals these characters are.

During the first fifty minutes, you may be bored out of your skull, but the way the film unfolds, you'll probably want to go back and watch the first fifty minutes again after it's over.

An Excellent Rohmer Classsic

[framptonhollis · 9/10 · 28 December 2015]

This is the third entry in Eric Rohmer's "Six Moral Tales" film series, following the charming romantic short "The Bakery Girl of Monceau" and the somewhat bland, but still well made and written, 55 minute film "Suzanne's Career". Out of the three "Moral Tales" that I've seen, "My Night at Maud's" is easily the best, and most mature. The first two, while fine films, seem more like warm ups to this film.

"My Night at Maud's" is a spectacular work of art, which mainly consists of the intelligent discussion that goes on in the apartment of a woman named Maud over the coarse of one night. Of course, plenty of other things happen as well, but most of the film takes place during this one long discussion. Joining Maud is the main character, Jean-Louis, a Catholic man who seems to be in love with a woman (named Françoise, who becomes more of a major character later in the film), but hides it from Maude and his Marxist friend Vidal.

The film is an hour and 50 minutes of watching these wonderful characters talk and talk about various things, mainly things dealing with religion, love, etc. While a film almost entirely consisted of various characters chattering away may sound boring, it really isn't, mainly because the talking is so much fun (and really interesting) to listen to!

The film is also beautiful to look at, with gorgeous, black and white cinematography that really enhances the pretty cold tone of the film.

A really great piece of filmmaking!

Talky, but engaging

[bandw · 7/10 · 2 July 2009]

This is a look at one man's working through love and lust while trying to adhere to his Catholicism. Pretty talky. The main character is an engineer and mathematician; Pascal comes into the conversations in several places, particularly in the context of "Pascal's Wager." Also, Jansenism is mentioned a couple of times (I had to look it up). This film may have the most meaning for Catholics.

The intellectualizing is presented in the context of ordinary conversations and interactions among intelligent people--I never felt that I was being preached at or assaulted with pithy comments coming from the overactive imagination of a screenwriter out to impress.

The performances are fine and the presence of the beautiful Françoise Fabian (as Maud) is a plus. There is a precision, yet poetry, in the black and white photography.

I think Rohmer took a page out of Truffaut's book for the final scene.

Too Much Religion

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 17 February 2016]

As the young protagonist, a Catholic with a precise set of morals, jousts with his friend about Pascal and his belief that we must embrace religion because it's the safest course, we see what I would call a failure to meet life head on. I never found this guy an attractive character because he was so caught up in his righteousness. When he meets Maude, who could have been a wonderful addition to his life, he is so full of "morality" that he passes her by. One can be dead without the physical act of dying. Apparently, the women he encountered in the past grew tired of his sense of perfection. Maude does everything to entice him and he ends up in an embrace that he rejects. At that moment his very sterility is exposed. He has the hots for a pretty young woman who goes to his church, Francoise, whom he pretty much stalks. She is right for him. She is pretty but also quite dull. Rohmer shows us he one can win in some respects but ultimately lose.

Lots Of Rich, Clever Conversation, But By The End My Interest In The Characters Had Begun To Wane

[ArmandoManuelPereira · 6/10 · 11 May 2020]

It started off fairly promising with lots of rich, clever conversation about God and religion, Science and Mathematics, love and relationships, etc. But somewhere around the two-thirds mark I found my interest in the characters begin to wane. Still, its mostly enjoyable and worth watching for the locations, and all the philosophical discussions that take place.

A Paradox of a Great Film

[lumper · 10/10 · 26 September 1998]

Only Rohmer could concoct a love triangle based on the age-old Pascal Paradox. To risk all for the ultimate gain. A gamble. The level of dialog is seldom equaled in other films (even his own); this one's a delight from start to finish. It is also lovingly photographed and charmingly acted. A first rate film all around, and my favorite of all time. Start with this one, then try "Chloe in the Afternoon" and "Claire's Knee". His more recent movies downplay the level of sophisticated dialog, perhaps because it is less that way itself.

overrated?

[msultan · 7/10 · 2 July 2003]

I have mixed feelings about this movie. This is my third (and earliest) Rohmer, and I liked it less than the others. The dialogue wasn't as impressive as I expected it to be. Maybe it's because the male characters (especially Vidal and the men at the cafeteria) looked like they were trying hard to remember their lines and recite them. Their conversations didn't flow, whereas Fabian's acting was great: fresh, natural and spontaneous. Overall, this movie struck me as sophisticated (précieux), but not smart .

Hard to understand without knowledge of religion

[leonevilo · 5/10 · 3 October 2020]

Tbh, i watched the movie and appreciate the esthetics, but i do not get the plot.

Roughly 80% of the movie is dialogue, most of which consists of christian (catholic) references, which apparently also result in the main characters extremely prude relationship to women. Also, there are many references to Blaise Pascal who is local to the cty the film is set in. Not being familiar with Pascal or religion, most of the talk is completely empty to me.

But what is left of the movie if you cut out the dialogue? Not much. A main character who is ashamed of anything he may like, apparently due to his catholicism? I found it impossible to relate to him in any way, and since there are only three supporting characters, of which only Maud is allowed a personality of herself, this movie is pretty bland.

Pascal's wager

[stephen-357 · 24 January 2005]

Can love be reduced to an intellectual calculation? Can faith? What role do the emotions play into this calculation? Blaise Pascal, a French scientist and philosopher, put down his thoughts regarding the Christian Religion which were published after his death and came to be known as "Pensees" or "thoughts". Here Pascal puts forth the case for belief: "Since the duration of our lives is but a moment and the state of death eternal . . . those who are guided by their own inclinations and pleasures without reflection and concern" for the reality of death eternal, are idiots and should be "condemned". He asks, "What would you wager? . . . God is, or He is not. Reason can decide nothing." And not to wager is not an option. Pascal reduces belief to a win/loss calculation with the following: "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing." MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S is a film devoid of conventional film devices to sway you one way or the other such as music, special effects, close-ups and general sentimentality. This is a film full of dialog and intellectual meanderings, but it is the emotions of the characters, those subtle distortions of the face, and the voice behind the eyes captured by a lingering camera that speak the truth. On the surface, this picture appears one dimensional and the end merely a continuation of the beginning, but under the surface, the characters have been transformed. One's actions may be controlled by intellectual pragmatism, but the emotions govern the inner world with a volotility that cannot be controlled. Single minded conformity to a religious proposition may bring security and comfort, but can love be divorced from the emotions? Can emotions be governed by the intellect? As to Pascals Wager, if one clings to this rigid proposition, despite the changing landscape of the emotions, perhaps shunning love itself, can the conclusion that "nothing is lost" still be held?

Truly great

[horus472 · 10/10 · 28 October 2009]

I saw this back in the day, and -- unlike other French New Wave films -- this film changed my view of film making. Having seen it several times recently, however, I now think it is far better than I thought although I also think that it takes repeated viewings to fully appreciate (is that so unforgivable?).

Many reviewers begin with the discourses on Pascal's wager and others refer to Rohmer's confirmation of middle class values. But I suggest that the film is really two films, both of which are fascinating, and which magnify each other. The first is the struggle between a strong woman (Maud) and a man superficially fixated on his image the woman-for-him (Jean-Louis). Here the film enjoys the happy coincidence of perfect casting and great acting. The second film is about all the talk that everyone else except Maud takes so seriously. The real drama is the first film. The second is just an ironic commentary on the first, but is crucial for revealing character, mostly Jean-Louis', but finally everyone's.

Yes, the film has ambiguity (hence the need for repeated viewings), and the ambiguity adds to the drama of Jean-Louis' confusion about his pre-fab future. But I think the moral heart of the film, and the real assessment of characters, is defined by the honesty of their speeches, which is almost impossible to track on the first viewing. (You get the underlying drama at first, but not the intricacies of character revelation.) In the end, only one character proves really honest, and I find that to be the truly poignant -- and not entirely explicit -- implication of its ending.

Some reviewers here got the point. But please ignore the griping of Franco-phobe pseudo-intellectuals who miss the point (unless of course you fit that description.) This timeless film is 10 out of 10.

Irreproachable

[flasuss · 10/10 · 4 May 2005]

The first Rohmer i saw, and justifies his reputation of slow pacing and almost non-stop dialogue, but also his fame as a great director. He does not have anything of the joviality of his Nouvelle Vague friends Truffaut and Godard, which work i know better, being more serious and mature. The picture is filmed almost as a documentary, being very realistic, and in opposite of 99% of the movies, Rohmer doesn't move the camera all around in the dialogues, abusing of shots and reverse-shots, keeping the camera in one character. The many and long conversations are very intelligent, and all the characters are complex and interesting, specially the Jean-Louis Trignant' one, which reminded me of Prince Míchkin from The Idiot, because of the Christian quietness (Dostoiveski's words) that both have in common, i don't know if it was intentional. I usually doesn't like to rate movies, because it's hard to put how much you like a film in a scale of quality, but in cases of perfect works like this one, there's no doubt: 10/10

an excellent look at morality in relationships, or what is perceived as morality

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 8 July 2007]

My Night at Maud's is a "talky" film, though like the main character of Jean-Louis in going after the woman to marry this actually is a perception that is on face-value a little demeaning. This is such a rich screenplay because it takes its characters seriously and honestly, and there's nothing cheating in dealing with characters who have problems in confronting how to approach emotional contact, of using religion as a guise, or trying to follow a 'code of conduct' (as one French critic called it on the Criterion DVD of the film) that leads into a complex and troubling end. Even more-so than Love in the Afternoon, this is a work where the male perspective must have the counterpoint of a woman who is much more vibrant and life-affirming by not being connected to a kind of constricting religious ideology that can't really lead to anywhere aside from compromise. Jean-Louis is such a man who sees blonde Francoise (Stardust Memories' Barrault) riding on a motorcycle and decides right then that she will be the one he will marry. His is an idealized love where despite saying that he's been in love and relationships before he has not had to really make a leap into a consequential decision.

The philosophical arguments involved with Jean-Louis, Francoise and even with Maud, of whom Jean-Louis has a pensive and indecisive fling over the course of 24 hours, can last for quite a while after film's end, which is a major credit to Rohmer in making these characters real within the specific contexts. They may be bourgeois, or close to it, but the concerns of the characters are universal: How does one make a leap from emotional experience to belief. Or on the flip-side how does one who probably doesn't have any belief either way (watch Francoise's eyes when she goes with Jean-Louis to church, it's an exceptionally subtly acted scene) and has to fall into a kind of false love, where because she already knows of the image that Jean-Louis already has of her before she says a word that she has to continue it, marry him, have a child, and live with his own moral insecurities? The ending may seem clean-cut, but it's a lot more complex as a sort of continuing cycle. Marriages are formed and bonds made between people all the time when there is no love, but what might be a reason? This isn't Rohmer's central point perhaps, but it's an intelligent posit that is right there in Rohmer's character study.

And all the while, through Rohmer's simple direction- the only big stylistic choice, perhaps important in the Bergman sense, is the use of the landscape of winter and the mainstream conformity of Christmas- he gets great performances from his actors, as if in a play all working towards the cores of the character in order that all of the at-times heavy dialog comes off in a fairly approachable light. Rarely will you get Pascal and romance thrown together into a conversation, but it works in this case, and for someone who's only known Pascal from a triangle it's enlightening to see how moral choice, of probability and chance, come out in ways that leap from one place to another but always coherently in the scenes at Maud's apartment. There's a good deal under the surface that comes out little by little, and if one can give in to the rhythm of Rohmer's characters the rewards are just as satisfying as with other more flamboyant works by Rohmer's contemporaries. It may not be Jules and Jim, but in its own disquieting way it's just as powerful in the implications drawn from the characters, particularly long after the film ends. A+

A personal testimony

[n-mo · 8/10 · 28 June 2010]

I imagine this film was remarkably personal. I suppose more than a few professional-aged practising Roman Catholic men have found themselves in the same position as does Jean-Louis here: among friends who do not share the same values, who seem to suppose they do you a favour by "loosening you up" a bit (i.e., by pressuring you to put yourself in an occasion of sin)...

Maud, however, does not really want to "loosen up" Jean-Louis. We get the impression that she's something of a "skank," but on the other hand she wants and expects honesty--and she teaches Jean-Louis to want and expect the same. "I like men who know what they want," she explains to him. And so Jean-Louis contemplates and decides what he wants.

Interestingly, although the freethinker Maud is the pivotal character in Jean-Louis's self-transformation, and although the philosophical conversations center around the Maud, the Catholic Françoise is unquestionably the more complex and intriguing character. Maud, though well-meaning visibly lacks emotion and soul, fault of her completely libertine upbringing; she seems, in a sense, prisoner to her nonchalant worldview. Françoise, however, radiates a vivid spectrum of feeling and life experience.

The Jansenist subtext was difficult for me to make out on the first viewing, and I may have to watch this again to really get it. My instinct is to suggest that Jean-Louis is the Jansenist and Françoise the Jesuit-dévotist, but I cannot say for sure. That I cannot immediately identify the significance of Pascal to this œuvre is rather disturbing to me, having studied a fair amount of 17th and 18th century French history and literature.

Another filmmaker could easily have turned this into a simple and boring story of abandonment of faith. But not Éric Rohmer, who was interesting among Nouvelle Vague directors for being firm in his Catholic convictions (just this year, his funeral Mass was at a church just five minutes' walk from my home). Thus, Jean-Louis does not, in the end, decide that he wants something "bad" and libertine.

Wordy

[barberoux · 6/10 · 7 April 2003]

"Ma nuit chez Maud" was, so far, my least liked of the six moral tales. I thought it too wordy with a lot of talk about Descarte and religion. The dialogue didn't advance the story for me. Maybe at some deep metaphysical level it had meaning but for me it wasn't all that interesting. I enjoyed the performance of Françoise Fabian and Jean-Louis Trintignant was convincing but I didn't particularly like his character. I felt the character Jean-Louis was too self-involved and predatory. Regardless the movie was a nice examination of relationships and is worth watching.

Ambiguity Preferable?

[jcappy · 8/10 · 7 February 2008]

8 Ambiguity Preferable?

It's hard to speak about "My Nigh at Maud's" in words other than those of praise for its filmic qualities... but how's about taking on meaning. Either this film is pretty ambiguous or I'm missing something. Whether one dissects its parts or observes it whole, it remains ambiguous. So, isn't ambiguity a good thing? Yes, if its recognition leads to meaning, action, truths. No, if it is simply escape, fence-sitting, or art-for-art's sake. But is Rohmer's masterpiece as ambiguous as it appears?

My guess is that it's not. Rohmer sets up these distinct dichotomies between religion/piety and atheism/freedom, light and dark, and men and women. He seems somewhat more sympathetic toward the latter, but a proponent of the former. Perhaps he stands with the preacher for whom Christianity is a "way of life," and "an adventure of sanctity." But isn't Rohmer left behind when his priest adds that it "takes madness to become a saint?" I say this because the film's ending casts a firm vote for form over freedom. But his move away from ambiguity in the direction of form--as opposed to freedom, seems to detract from his genuine classic.

For its Rohmer's solipsisms (sex, love, marriage) that present the problem. First, his central character's role is undermined by these. Jean-Louis is initially an absorbing character, a provincial intellectual, with an air of world travel, and independence. There is no dis-juncture between him and the incredibly effective mise en scene. He is as particular a man in a very specific place--as is his friend, Vidal, the suave philosophy professor. They breathe the air of this provincial world--and such a rare treat: intellectuals with holds on themselves occupying film space.

But Jean-Louis's distinction begins to slip early and slides (incidentally, so does Vidal's and for similar reasons) during his night at Maud's. There's something about the way he chases Francoise--it seems too mundane, too breezy and somewhat obtuse--as if he's quickly morphing into the default French male. But he does make comebacks--that is, before setting foot in Maud's apartment. The problem, however, isn't Maud's--his holy water piety or self-righteousness are not at issue--nor is Jean-Louis Trintignant's performance because he fits the original character perfectly. It's the role. He has not only made a generic male but, more specifically, a Rohmer male--one who exists to experience moral tests via a Rohmer type female who is seductive (always leggy) wily, sophisticated at least in the ways of sex/love/men, and above all, tempting.

As unsettling as Maud may be (see below) again it's the role that takes him out of character, not Maud. He loses his reserve, he becomes too confessional, too awkward--physically and emotionally. He adopts various male postures--the sexually experienced, the wit, the daringly direct, the self-satisfied and he cannot navigate Maud's rather obvious set-up. Whatever he seemed to have had initially has gone the way of passivity, uncertainty, self-absorption, and dependency. He appears a suckling lying across Maud's bed, leaning on his elbow, and gaze-talking into her eyes--then mummy wrapped next to her. And he's lost his warmth (the antithesis of Hitchcock's Father Logan in "I Confess") Yet in spite of all this he will, at times, remind of his early identity, and isn't completely overshadowed by Chermont's cityscape.

What about the title character, Maud? She's the dark-eyed, black hair, worldly (the atheist) to Francoise, the blond catholic snow queen. She too is assigned a role, but while Jean-Louis' is irreversible, hers is reversible---because it cannot contain her longings. However, her expansive identity is not a winning one because it is achieved outside Rohmer's closed box of marriage, love, and sex (her uncomfortably warm apartment, within which even the Marxist Vidal succumbs) The price of her emotional range, values, freedom, romantic leanings is depressing solitude and broken marriages. But what she gets for playing the role of game mistress, temptress, and mediator to men's moral quests, is a chance to expose in these men more than they bargain for. They have to deal with her own acute ambivalence about her roles and also with her uncontrolled consciousness--she would never be among the bevy of girls who Gandhi slept with to test his chastity. She's a witness to men's pretenses, "lack of spontaneity," "stiffness," secretiveness, clinical intelligence--and, yes, their so-called moral victories.

In other words, Maud sounds like the point of view character (and this, for me, is the chief reason for the ambiguity I first referred to). But she's not. She is simply being used as a challenging argument against freedom, and as a mediator of male form and morality. She is free at her own peril--and carries the stigma of freedom. Which she continues to bear 5 years later in terms of isolation and disappointment in love. She alone is not privy to the infinite compositional shot of Jean-Louis, his pre-selected bride Francois, and their son embracing the beachscape of salvation, their principles of faith, love, and marriage intact. For Rohmer's lens turns away from those who do not even care to wager on his fabricated, established forms.

My Night with Maud

[jboothmillard · 7/10 · 11 February 2014]

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die has been a very useful book for finding the obscure and not very well known little gems from the big screen, this French film is definitely one that I wouldn't have known about before reading it, I was hoping it was deserved placing. Basically devout Catholic Jean-Louis (Jean-Louis Trintignant) has moved to a new town and plans to marry pretty blonde Françoise (Marie-Christine Barrault) who he meets at mass, and he also runs into old childhood friend and Marxist Vidal (Antoine Vitez) in around Christmas time in Clermont-Ferrand. Vidal invites Jean-Louis to meet freethinking and recently divorced Maud (Françoise Fabian), they have interesting conversation about religion, atheism, Blaise Pascal's life and writings on philosophy, faith and mathematics, morality, and love. After a long night Jean-Louis ends up spending the night with Maud, where they end up having more philosophical discussions in her bedroom, and his beliefs on marriage, fidelity and obligation become a dilemma in this situation, although the young woman that he apparently truly loves he has never spoken to. Also starring Léonide Kogan as Concert Violinist, Anne Dubot as Blonde Friend and Guy Léger as Preacher. I admit it being in a foreign language with subtitles made it a little difficult to concentrate on everything, but it did seem a bit more dialogue based anyway, the performances were good, particular Fabian as the beautiful woman that is perhaps trying to seduce the already taken man, it did have some witty words that I read, and it certainly did have engaging moments where you wonder where it's going, it was an interesting drama. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay Based on Factual Material or Material Not Previously Published or Produced and Best Foreign Language Film. Very good!

If you could drink film - Rohmer delivers the water.

[Jkwue · 10/10 · 29 April 2005]

Just saw this movie (again) yesterday. Still fresh is a quote of an other comment here - yes that is completely right - no signs of wear in story or filming - still satisfying and essential like a cold glass of water for thirst. After seeing all "the movies" over the years this is not at least because of the black and white filming balsam for the ears and the eyes but for the smooth quiet story too. One misses nothing - no digital effects no surround sound no color no superstar actors - in this movie it seems that "fim-time" stands still. Trintignant is very good but Mme. Fabian is even better - her black eyes and face with the beautiful black hair and her body acting says even more than the words she speaks - one should send her an Oscar today. One should try to see the film without tone on - would be a nice experiment..... The end is a surprise and one has to remain concentrated to get and remember the point - then the moral message for me is clear: giving means taking and taking means giving - always - no runaway from that at any time possible......and of course surely not in love & sex.

Good movie

[alansabljakovic-39044 · 7/10 · 13 May 2020]

Another movie with pretentious people talking for hours in bed... I liked some of it (Pascal related) and some of it was too much for me. I don't particularly love this type of movies but I do appreciate them.

Well acted, but drier than dust...

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 23 January 2010]

Wow...I just don't get it. This is actually the second time I have seen MY NIGHT AT MAUD'S because after the first time, I felt as if the film was boring. Now that I've seen hundreds of other French films, I thought I'd try it again--perhaps my first impression was way off base. Well, as I sit here watching the film, I am just amazed at how dull and talky the film is once again. DSespite many very positive reviews, I just can't get into the film. The characters seem so repressed and uninteresting. Listening to Jean-Louis Trintignant talk to an old friend about philosophy and religion, I felt like screaming. It all just seemed so incredibly pretentious and you wonder if ANYONE talks like that. And later, when Jean-Louis becomes infatuated with a woman, you once again wonder if anyone actually behaves that way--at least an normal person.

The bottom line is that the film bored me to tears and I can't imagine why more don't have the same reaction. Maybe they did but just didn't want to see like a Philistine by saying they didn't have the patience for this film. Well acted, yes, but a hopelessly static script make this a film that is hard to take.