User reviews

The show must go on, even under occupation, to entertain subdued, and sober populations, while all the world's a stage, all around a war is waged, there's a place to find a soupçon of distraction. Behind the scenes, so many subplots are relayed, the lives of people and their characters portrayed, how their worlds are interwoven, with the threads that they've all chosen, of their conduct, how they operate, behave.

It's an extremely engaging story of survival and opportunity that's centred around a theatre in Paris during WWII. Focusing primarily on Marion Steiner, the owner of the establishment who also acts on stage, performed as elegantly as ever by Catherine Deneuve, we observe her interactions with the players and the crew as she conceals her Jewish husband, and notable director, in the bowels of the playhouse bellow. Unlike many films from the time, and on similar subjects, it still holds up to scrutiny today, and it's well worth finding the best seat in your place of residence for a matinee viewing or screening, if the possibility arises.

Francois Truffaut follows in the tradition of Jean-Pierre Melville by adapting a popular genre as a serious allegory for the darkest period in French history: the Nazi Occupation. Just as Melville used the gangster film to examine notions of legality, legitimacy, authority and criminality in a period when the Resistance were outlaws and the police rounding up Jews for the death camps, so Truffaut takes the beloved putting-on-a-show warhorse, and uses it as a metaphor for the conditions of life in Occupied France: the need to act, adapt and continually discard roles. When Depardieu's character leaves to fight for the Resistance, he puns about exchanging his make-up (maquillage) for the maquis.

What Truffaut is most interested in, as in all his films, is the effect this need for constant dissembling has on individual identity and relationships. This wonderful romantic comedy plays like a mature update of 'Casablanca', richly stylised, bravely open-ended, with Truffaut's moving camera wrenching spirit from the claustrophobic confines.

An almost banal story about normal people which by its naturalness attains a truly remarkable human greatness. Against the background of nazi occupation of Paris with its whole train of treasons, pusillanimities, courage, resistance, collusions and collaboration with the enemy, indignities and oppression, a theatrical company staged underground by its director who is secretly hidden because he's Jewish, puts on the stage a play about love also repressed, a play however which resounds as a freedom although smothered shout in the darkness enveloping France and Europe by then. The acting performance of Depardieu and Deneuve is brilliant as usual although very simple and natural. Besides that, Deneuve is indeed one of the most beautiful movie stars we have ever seen. This movie is also a hymn to the theatre as free expression since ancient Greece, living through the love of those who devote themselves to it, very often with abnegation and in adverse conditions. It must by all means be seen because, in spite of all, it makes us believe in human virtues which keep pace here with the theatrical actors' talent.

While it's always lovely to see Catherine Deneuve on the big screen, and always nice to hear the lyrical beauty of French in a film, a lazy Sunday afternoon might not have been the best time to have to focus on subtitles. The movie, though heartfelt and lovingly rendered, slowly meandered and wondered in the typical French way of searching for a higher truth about humanity, all of which made for a more sedate movie-going experience than we had hoped.

This is a very well made movie. In particular, acting, writing and direction are superb and it just goes to show you that you don't need car chases and explosions to make a good film.

The movie is set in a theater in occupied France. The main concern through most of the movie is that they will come to take the Jewish husband of Catherine Deneuve who is hiding in the basement.

Gerard Depardieu provides excellent support as well and his decision at the end of the movie caught me a little off guard.

So, for those NOT familiar with the work of Truffault, it is an easy to watch starter--easier to take than some of his earlier work for the uninitiated.

this film is excellent. it's a quiet film where the plot moves slowly, but it doesn't matter. it takes place during the occupation of france of world war II. i don't know how truffaut can do this, he makes films that on paper sound melodramatic and silly, but are feel truly real and sincere without being overly depressing. and this is one of them. i don't know a lot about the german occupation of france during WWII, but its presence is certainly in the film you marion buying an expensive ham under the black market, the blackouts, the talks of hiding in subways and the oppressive and communual presence of the germans. but it's not the focal point of the film. it's about people trying to live normally under stressful situations. their lives are not centered around the war, but around surviving with what they value (their theatre) intact.

it's thoughtful enough to not type-cast its characters based on how they feel about the war and their political positions. a lot of the characters are pragmatic about their situation, such as the director of the play (jean-loup is his name i think) who opposes the germans, but is willing to consider selling the theatre to Daxiat (a powerful pro-german journalist)to save it. all of the crew dislike Daxiat, but treat him with relative respect so that they can keep their theatre running. Daxiat isn't painted as a completely horrible enemy, but was a man who really looked out for the best interests of the theatre company despite the fact that his political views were opposite of those he admired in the theatre company. the people in this film felt real, cuz ideally, we'd all like to think that when faced with oppression from an outside force, we'd be kicking and screaming all the way until we're free of oppression. but in reality, most of us would probably make compromises and do things against our principles to keep what is most important to us (in this case, it's the theatre and its company for the characters here)

in a way, the film reminded me of wong kar wai's in the mood for love in terms of what it does with its characters. it progresses steadily without a lot of major plot points, and it lets you get to know the characters and let them be real, so you never feel bored at how slow things progress. the characters are well written and well acted so that you care deeply about them.

*comments on the ending up ahead*

there is very little that feels staged and over dramatic, and the outcome seems to progress beautifully and quietly. and i don't know what it is about the ending, but i felt strangely uplifted when the credits rolled.

Unfortunately i've seen only a couple of Truffaut's films but nevertheless i think i understand why is he so legendary. And i also understand why this film won 10 Cesars when it was released in 1980.

First of all - the actors. Catherine Deneuve is really great here and plus her role is very challenging because as Bernard says there are two women hiding inside Marion. At times she is so gentle and loving, especially towards her husband Lucas, and sometimes she's really arrogant and cold. In general her Marion is a very confused and stressed and in love at the same time, which makes her very her very hard to play but i think Catherine Deneuve did a magnificent job. The same can be said about Heinz Bennent in the role of Lucas but i don't think Depardieu is on the same level although there are several scenes where he's really great (at the rehearsal of the shouting scene and in the nightclub). At the same time i don't think it's his fault. I think that he actually has too little screen time and his character is not so fully developed.

The cinematography is great and the script too although i have some criticism (or maybe i just misunderstood some points). First of all i didn't understand how does Lucas realise that Marion is in love with Bernard. OK she kisses him after the premiere but even i didn't realise it was this kind of kiss and Lucas doesn't even see it 'cause he's in the basement. And there's one scene where she asks Bernard to sit next to her but Lucas is not there too. So how does he know? Am i missing something because it's not just a small detail, it's a major point. Nevermind, the film still has more meaning then a great deal of American nonsense.

And what i liked about it the most is the overall "in the time of war" atmosphere. During the whole film we can feel the tension, we can hear the radio broadcasts, we can see how the people are forced to hide whenever they hear the alarm and the electricity often goes out. Truffaut makes sure that whenever we start to feel safe, watching the rehearsals and observing the relationships inside the theater, something interrupts the relatively calm existence and reminds us that there's war outside. His direction is superb here as it was in "La peau Douce" - the other film i saw made by him. I of course i know these are not even among his best. But i can't really know that. All i know is that this film is really great and i enjoyed it very much.

Truffaut does a better job of drawing the torn loyalties of a woman in love than any other film-maker I know, including women. Both "Jules et Jim" feature love triangles between a woman and two men. While Catherine in the more famous earlier work is a wildly bewitching girl, Deneuve's Marion is a beautifully mature stoic, even when her Jewish husband Lucas, hiding out in the cellar, vents his understandable spleen about his isolation on her, driving her into the arms of Bernard, her young leading actor. I cannot understand what another commentator said about the movie not letting the viewer in. It does - and how much more than anything from Hollywood! It's just that it's a film made for audiences with a modicum of experience in life and love. But for those, it's got it all. A plot that literally kept me on the edge of my seat for the last half-hour; splendid performances not only from Deneuve and young Depardieu but also from the craggily handsome German actor Heinz Bennent as Lucas, and the supporting cast; laugh-out-loud funny moments, gooily romantic moments, spine-chilling moments of fright. A declaration of love to women and the theatre. I give it a ten.

In 1942, in a Paris occupied by the Nazis, Marion Steiner (Catherine Deneuve) is a former cinema and presently theater actress, who has also to manage the Montmartre Theater and its company. Her Jewish husband Lucas Steiner (Heinz Bennent), the writer, director and owner of the theater, has officially moved to South America, escaping from the Germans. Indeed he is hidden in the basement of the building. Bernard Granger (Gérard Depardieu) is a promising actor hired to act with Marion in a new play. The survival of the theater depends on the success of this play. Marion falls in love with Bernard, but hides her feelings due to her respect for her husband. Although having a very simple story, this movie is marvelous. The story is a great homage to theatrics, where not only the persons wants to survive, but also desire to save what they love: the theater. I recalled the movie `Il Viaggio di Capitan Fracassa', where theatrics is also honored. It is a love story in times of war. It is a human story, where citizens are presented trying to have a normal life, even having to share their sovereignty and culture with the invaders. It is not corny in any moment. The direction is from one of my favorites directors, François Truffault, who was born in 1932, therefore, he was a ten years old boy when this story begins. Certainly he has had a great experience of life in an occupied country and how life goes on. The beauty and the performance of Catherine Deneuve are astonishing. Gérard Depardieu is in an excellent shape and has also a wonderful performance. Although having 133 min. running time, the film is not long, since the story hooks the attention of the viewer. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): `O Último Metrô' (`The Last Subway Train')

The acting was good, not only by the two main leads, but by the supporting cast as well. The atmosphere is also done well. Except... so why is the film named "The Last Metro?" Except for the voice-over explanation at the beginning of the film about Paris under occupation, curfews, and the last metro, etc. what was the significance of the last metro exactly for the plot of the film? And the two main characters, they fell in love? Really? When? How? There didn't seem to be anything between the two, until they had to say, actually say, that they were in love. Clearly, acting wasn't bringing it out... What's more confusing is that Mrs. Steiner seems in love, utterly in love, with her husband. Well, she is a rather "cold" woman, the implication being that she is repressing her feelings (which is supposed to make it OK later when she declares love for Gerard D.), but in her coldness scale she is very very warm to her husband, and her husband alone. And then she is in love with someone else?

Well, I think I missed something. All in all, I am glad I saw the film for the atmosphere and the acting, but I can't say that I got it.

A wonderful movie with a good story and actors, but François Truffaut this time wasn't able to adapt his tone to the story, it is filmed like a fairy tale for children.

To begin with, I have a lot of praise for the amazing performances. Especially Gérard Depardieu, this movie is really representative of his talent and his range of interpretations if you want to look at other movies with similar performances, I recommend Germinal and La Femme d'à côté.

The directing is fun to watch and lighthearted, but this tone didn't feel appropriate to the movie, he uses the same trademarks and gimmick, but one can't simply make a pure lighthearted movie about the WWI. I have nothing against satire, but this movie wasn't a satire, and the tone that Truffaut used to depict the events doesn't pay homage to the tragedy.

Add to the previous argument, that the storytelling is full of plot holes, that the pay-offs are poorly introduced and that the beginning of the story is very slow, not much is happening.

For all those reasons, this movie is worth a 7/10, it is an enjoyable movie with extraordinary performances, but not more.

One often sees the criticism of Francois Truffaut"s "Le Dernier Metro" ( "The Last Metro") that he had turned to making films in the tradition of the films that he had scorned as a young critic in the 1950s. Of course, most of these writers are not familiar with the films that he had scorned. I would say "yes" he was working in a tradition. He could almosthave titles the film "Si Paris occupeé nous était conté". Sacha Guitrywas one of his heroes. But he did call the film "Le Dernier Metro" and that title points to the tradition of the film and explains its style.It is true that the early scene where Bernard tries to pick up Arlette bears some resemblance to the scene at the beginning of "Les Enfants des Paradis" in which Frederick attempts to pick up Garance. It must be remembered though that the young critics of the 50s had no ax to grind with the Prevert-Carne films of the late 30s and the first half of the 40s. Anyone who watches the clip of Godard from 1963 on the "Bande a Part" will hear him praise the Carne of "Quai des Brumes" before deprecating the Carne of "Les Tricheurs". Even their criticism of Carne that merely photograph his screenwriters scenario, that he was more a "metteur en image" than a "metteur en scene", had started in the mid-40s by Henri Jeanson, Carne's one-time collaborator. But getting back to my point that scene occurring in the midst of the crowd on the Boulevard des Crime in the Carne film explains its title and theme.Carne's film is about theater-goers, even his four theatricalprotagonists all attend plays. Truffaut's film though is not so muchabout the audience as it is about the theater world and hence its title" Le Dernier Metro". Before I get back to my point I believe I should note here that "Le Dernier Metro" was meant to be one panel in a trilogy on the entertainment world. "La Nuit Americaine" ("Day for Night") was of course the film panel. And "L'Agence Magique" a film about Music Hall was never made. In the late 70s Truffaut had a screenplay for this film ready to shoot and had begun pre-production but the failure of "The Green Room" caused him to alter his plans and to film "L'Amour en Fuite".

The voice-over prologue describes an occupied Paris where night workers have to scurry to make the last metro in order to beat the curfew. What is left to our imaginations is to realize that many of these workers are theater people. Jean Marais whose real-life thrashing of the Je Suis Partout drama critic Alain Laubreaux provided the inspiration for one of the key scenes in the film described the last metro thusly in his autobiography "Histoires de ma Vie" (page 159)

"The last metro was marvelous. As packed as the others. It carried all of the theater world of Paris. Everyone knew everyone else. We spoke of the latest concert, of the ballet, of the theater. Outside, it was the blackout, the militias, German patrols, hostages if one was out past curfew." NOTE: "Tout-Paris" usually means " Paris high society" but Marais in the book frequently uses in a narrower sense of "the theater world".

In other words "Les Films de Carosse" had produced a film that represented "the last metro" as the golden coach of occupied Paris. Some quarter of a century earlier before Truffaut made "Le Dernier Metro" he with Jacques Rivette had interviewed Jean Renoir and Renoir told them that in order to do his film on the world of theater "The Golden Coach" he had found it necessary to subordinate his style to a theatrical style. Could it be that there is one explanation of the style of the film? So now Truffaut was returning to the style of "The Golden Coach".

Some other ideas gleaned from Nestor Almendros' "A Man With A Camera". Remember the scene from the beginning of the film that I spoke about earlier, the one were Bernard accosts Arlette. I can still remember the feeling of claustrophobia that I felt the first time I saw "Le Dernier Metro". And of course I was going to soon discover that one of the main characters in the film was hiding in a small room in the basement of his theater. Almendros speaks of using the camera to create a feeling of claustrophobia in this film. He also reveals that it was normal for Truffaut to keep his windows open. But in this film because of its theme and its time period, windows remained shut. Also, he and Truffaut wanted the look of early Agfacolor of films like "Munchhaussen" and "Die Goldene Stadt". A look that was gentler and softer than the vivid Technicolor films of the same period. Thus the set designer were asked for ocher-colored sets and the props and costumes were chosen in subdued colors. Also they changed their film stock to Fuji because it was closer to this look they were cultivating. As long as we are discussing Almendros I think it might be appropriate to end with a quote from his chapter on the film "The Green Room".

"As expected, "The Green Room" was not very well received. The theme of death rarely attracts crowds. This is almost an axiom in the cinema, and by producing so difficult and personal a work, risking almost certain economic failure, Truffaut showed once again that after sixteen films he was still the uncompromising artist he was as a young man." Nestor Almendros, "A Man With A Camera" page 220.

Interesting, thought-provoking story of civilian life in wartime.

Paris, 1942. With the Germans in control and her Jewish theatre producer-director husband on the run from them, an actress, Marion Steiner (played by Catherine Deneuve) is left with the task of running his theatre. She starts rehearsals for a new play, written by her husband, and hires a new director and a leading man, Bernard Granger (Gerard Depardieu). It's make or break, as a flop will see the theatre go bankrupt. This, with the Germans clamping down on everything and the city's biggest drama critic an anti-semite and Nazi pawn, means it's going to be tough. Meanwhile, (known to her) her husband is hiding in the cellar, and he can't help but offer suggestions on the finer details of the play...

On the face of it, this sounds like the makings of a decent comedy, a farce parodying Nazism and the theatre. While it has its comical moments, The Last Metro is most definitely a drama, and a good one. Quite claustrophobic in the way the French people are forced to live their lives, but that would be accurate for a civilian population in wartime, especially in an occupied country.

Has some interesting themes too, not least being the inanity of bigotry. There is a strong sense of perseverance, survival and "the show must go on".

Catherine Deneuve sparkles in the lead role. Good work too from Gerard Depardieu as Bernard Granger. Solid supporting cast.

On the negative side, is quite slow moving at times and there are some detours which didn't add anything to the plot. The conclusion feels quite rushed and there isn't a great profundity about it - it's more a wrap-up than anything else. The movie is more about the journey than the destination.

Set in occupied Paris, 1980's "The Last Metro" is about a theater trying to survive in wartime Paris. Lucas Steiner, the German manager and director of the theater, is said to have fled Paris and left his beautiful movie star wife (Deneuve) to run the place in his absence. What no one knows is that Steiner never left - he's hiding in the basement of the theater until Marion can arrange a safe passage for him to the free zone.

Marion is unable to hire Jews in her theater and unbeknownst to her hires a very political man, Bernard Granger (Depardieu) as her leading man. The two fall for one another, but Marion doesn't act on her feelings because of her husband. Marion must put up with the anti-Semite critic Daxiat (Jean-Louis Richard), and when Bernard comes down on him for an insulting review, Marion is afraid the theater will be closed and washes her hands of him.

This is a film about people living in trying times and attempting to survive and do the work they love while danger lurks everywhere. The photography is beautiful, and the film is done with great style and captures the '40s atmosphere beautifully. Deneueve is breathtakingly beautiful, but all of the faces are so much more interesting than one finds in an American film. A captivating movie - I loved every minute of it.

Somewhat contrived and conventional yet always entertaining and noteworthy, Francois Truffaut's The Last Metro is one of those great period pieces that transports you to a particular era so beautifully that after awhile you lose the thought of watching a film and feel as if you are inhabiting this world with the characters. This is thanks in no small part to Truffaut, who directs with beautiful restraint, but also to his two lead actors who happen to be two of the most accomplished in French history. Gerard Depardieu and Catherine Deneuve have tremendous chemistry together but also create two sympathetic and interesting characters who together and separately have specific reasons for acting the way they do, which is not always apparent to the audience.

Like any great director, Truffaut unfolds this story slowly and paces it well enough that we understand the gist of what he is trying to say without bludgeoning us over the head with his message. Clearly, the message has to do with the importance of art and how it is able to transform and prolong our happiness and understanding in times of great trouble. Using such a well-known period like World War II can be troublesome, but Truffaut underplays the Nazi element of the story, utilizing it more as a backdrop than a necessary part of the film. In short, this is a very entertaining and worthwhile film that celebrates art, particularly the positive effects it is capable of, which I'm sure we all would love to see more of.

In occupied Paris, an actress (Catherine Deneuve) married to a Jewish theater owner (Heinz Bennent) must keep him hidden from the Nazis while doing both of their jobs.

Truffaut commented "this film is not concerned merely with anti-semitism but intolerance in general" and a tolerance is shown through the characters of Jean Poiret playing a homosexual director and Andrea Ferreol plays a lesbian designer. As in Truffaut's earlier film Jules et Jim, there is a love triangle between the three principal characters: Marion Steiner (Deneuve), her husband Lucas (Heinz Bennent) and Bernard Granger (Depardieu), an actor in the theatre's latest production.

Although I was not terribly impressed by this movie, I did appreciate that it had both Deneuve and Depardieu. Deneuve is arguably the greatest French actress of the 1960s-1980s. Depardieu is rather young here and did not really become internationally famous or another decade, thanks to such fluff as "My Father the Hero". Seeing both together in one film is great.

François Truffaut's homage to the theater was an Oscar and Golden Globe nominee and won a basketful of César Awards. It takes place in Nazi occupied Paris in 1942 and shows how the French coped with that tragedy. The anti-Jewish propaganda is continual throughout.

Catherine Deneuve is magnificent as the wife of a theater owner (Heinz Bennent), who now runs it while keeping her Jewish husband hidden in the basement.

Gérard Depardieu is her new leading man. He is stunningly suave and comedic as a womanizer, who also happens to be part of the Resistance. His repartee with Arnette (Andréa Ferréol) is hilarious.

Bennent was excellent as the husband and director in the basement. Seeing him just before the play opened was just as I imagine it is for all directors.

The music and cinematography were excellent also, and Truffaut's direction was flawless.

A superb ending!

It's 1942 in the occupied city of Paris. Life is hard. People go to theater for the heat and rush to catch the last metro before curfew. Jews are being marginalized and hunted. Marion Steiner (Catherine Deneuve) runs the Théâtre Montmartre. She's mounting a new production as the lead actress and Bernard Granger (Gérard Depardieu) is the new leading man. She's also hiding her Jewish husband in the theater attic who is able to hear the rehearsals and give directing advice. Bernard is secretly a Resistance member.

This is part theater appreciation and part war occupation drama. I'm less enthralled with the theater appreciation. All of that stuff goes over my head. I would like to have the war insinuate more into the theater in the first half. It wouldn't kill the movie to have a Nazi French squad uncover hidden Jewish families at the beginning to pump up the tension. It would up the intensity if they're hiding more Jewish people. It would also up the moral imperative to save the theater and the danger from losing the place. The whole movie could use some upping of intensity.

As a sketch of an era, this affectionate story of the plain and symbolic parable of the stage is a tenderly staged and skillfully shot bit, and it substantiates Truffaut's passion for art and its power to endure even throughout the most turbulent of times. The story is set in 1942 and orbits mainly around the people working within the Théâtre Montmatre, a renowned Parisian theater that, like all theaters during the Occupation, is in perpetual peril of being shut down by the collaborationist Vichy government. The theater is run by its star Catherine Deneuve, the wife of the theater's Jewish director, Heinz Bennent, who has fled the country, or so he's thought to have. The theater has recently gotten an shot of fresh life in the form of Gérard Depardieu, a committed rising actor who made his bones at the Grand Guignol and has been hired to play the lead role in a Scandinavian play called Disappearance that Bennent chose right before his own vanishing act. Unbeknownst to the rest of the ensemble, Depardieu plots numerous feats of sabotage when he's not in rehearsal.

The screenplay by Truffaut and Suzanne Schiffman builds drama along various interconnected threads. First is the future of the theater. Its unceasing threat owes to pervasive censorship, which is personified by the utterly vile, anti-Semitic theater critic Jean-Louis Richard, whose harsh reviews bear much more than just critical import. For Truffaut, who began as a film critic with a repute for being hardnosed and sometimes brutal, Richard's is a genuinely dismal individual as he has warped the critic's duty of promoting art into a poisonous mishmash of biased persecution and explicit prejudice. This links to a succeeding strand of conflict in the film, which is the problem of whether Bennent will be exposed. Deneuve is the only person who's aware of his location, and when she visits him it is both an effort to maintain their marriage and an occasion for him to give her notes on the direction of the play. Consequently, the director prolongs his creative undertakings clandestinely, using his wife as his puppet.

There is also romantic friction in the film, as Deneuve and Depardieu cultivate an implicit attraction that, rather than drawing them together, deters them like divergent ends of a magnet. Both actors were foremost stars of the French cinema, and Truffaut uses their luminous screen presence to distinguished effect, protracting their attraction to one another like a piano wire that ultimately breaks when Depardieu goes off on Richard's behavior toward Deneuve in one of his reviews and thus puts the whole theater in jeopardy. Deneuve and Depardieu make an absorbing screen pair merely since they're so completely disparate, she being the elegant French beauty, composed and sophisticated, while he is an uncharacteristic French leading man, with his hulky body, odd looks, and coarse disposition. Early in the film Deneuve likens his character to Jean Gabin in La Bête Humaine, which lets Truffaut self-consciously associate his leading man to one of the French cinema's screen idols and also to allude to Renoir, one of his favorite directors.

While there are countless characters in the film whose intermingling story lines compel its energy, the real hero is the Théâtre Montmartre itself, which becomes a badge of the strength of art and the spirit of resistance, both of which Truffaut idealizes almost to a blemish. We can see this in celebrated cinematographer Nestor Almendros's use of color, which is largely hues of amber and brown that are counterbalanced by the arresting use of red within the theater, portentous of the fervor of artistic triumph just within its otherwise measly frontage. It's for sure that this most clever of love stories is a crowd-pleasing movie that commemorates its characters' determination during a bleak time that many viewers at the time could still readily recall. And, while it is not one of Truffaut's most brilliant works, it is all the same a remarkable and appealing film, one that echoes the great filmmaker's affection fir inventive concept and its part in sustaining civilization.