This Man Must Die (1969) User Reviews

the French bourgeoisie at their worst

[christopher-underwood · 8/10 · 28 August 2006]

A particularly difficult film to comment upon without giving away vital plot elements but it has to be one of the director's finest. It has the suspense he can work so well, it has the the French bourgeoisie at their worst, it has gentle eroticism and sudden brutality.

We also have here superb story telling combined with high emotional content and a continuous switchback ride of twist and turns, even though we, seemingly,have the whole plot of the film placed openly before us within minutes of the opening credits.

Meticulously directed, there is not a superfluous scene, nor even a superfluous gesture. It is pure riveting cinema from start to finish

Great performances, great camera-work, great Chabrol.

A dour naturalistic thriller, a moving film about grief, a Bunuellian social comedy, or a playful analysis of stories and storytellers?(possible spoilers)

[the red duchess · 8/10 · 21 December 2000]

'Que la bete meure' seems to diverge from Chabrol's characteristic methods in some ways. it begins with a death, as well as inexorably leading up to one. It does not directly concern the murderousness of bourgeois marriage, although it deals with that too. Most radically, we gain access to the main character's emotions and motivations, revealed through diary entries - usually Chabrol's characters reveal themselves through action or reaction, and then, motives are often obscure.

These are only really differences if we read Chabrol's film literally, superficially, which it is always fatal to do. The status of this diary must be questioned, especially when it moves outside the narrative, explaining Charles's motives, into it, as it becomes a barrier to his achieving a revenge, and is the only piece of evidence against him. We remember that he is a writer; in a sense, he creates the narrative, the film we are watching - he lives his life like a plot, with heroes, villains, romance and catharsis.

In this way, like so many Chabrol heroes and villains, he is linked to the director (at one point he stands by his home-movie camera), a voyeur, an intruder, while his lover is an actress. He writes childrens' books - as in many Chabrol films, 'Bete' is about the death of innocence: the film opens with the killing of a child; a second child is abused by his father to the point of contemplating murder. And yet, even when his son is killed, Charles wants to make believe it didn't happen, wants to live a different story.

So the film is full of stories, centred on, brought together and interpreted by Charles. In another 'story' concluding the film, his letter to Helen, he explains these stories, their purpose, even the meaning of the title; as he does so he is effacing himself, escaping France, the past, his identity. The Greek and religious elements structuring so many Chabrol films are made overt here, the equation complete in this most mathematical of films that began with such a terrifying sum, or a law of physics, with two contrary principles colliding.

And yet the last third is a babble of so many conflicting stories we don't know who or what to believe, how to filter lies from truths. This centres on the diary, its status as personal testimony, confession, cold-blooded plan, or an author's fiction. The neatness with which Charles' plot is tied up, as much as how it is engendered (the 'coincidence' of Paul's car getting stuck on a country lane), defies credibility, and the move from grim revenge thriller to hilarious bourgeois-baiting cartoon comedy is disarming to say the least. Is this simply a moving film about grief, about the patterns and fictions we create to help cope with what is essentially meaningless and horrifying? After all, if the beast must die, so must the man - and Chabrol, like his hero Hitchcock, is obsessed with doubles.

This narrative duplicity is matched in a rare Chabrol film of this period by a dour naturalism verging on ugliness, with deep, muddy colours, and harsh landscapes as pitiless as the revenger's quest. Yet another endlessly fascinating enigma from Chabrol.

A striking film, with a Highsmith flavor, and vintage Chabrol

[Chris Knipp · 9/10 · 12 June 2006]

This is one of the best Chabrol films I have seen. It's interesting to note that it's based upon a novel by Nicolas Blake, pen name of C. Day Lewis, at one time Poet Laureate of England and father of Daniel Day Lewis. From the movie, it seems Blake/Lewis was writing very much in the spirit of the great, and very cinematic, mistress of psychological crime writing, Patricia Highsmith. Though she never wrote anything exactly like this, the similarity is in the first-person narrative of a potential murderer, and in the way the story approaches an utterly evil person in an everyday upper-bourgeois setting; even the account of a man having an 'affair' with a woman he isn't necessarily attracted to is typically Highsmith; and there's attempted murder on a sailboat, and a man is almost bludgeoned on the head with a rock – Highsmith devices. The journal of the man contemplating murder, which is then found out, is something Highsmith might have liked.

Though as some have noted the narrator finds his way to the hit and run killer of his son a little too easily, the movie by allowing that is able to take us headlong into an astonishing, almost shocking situation. To get so close to evil -- this man who everybody hates, who would kill and cover it up and make his sister collaborate, who is abusive to everybody and everything, yet lives in bourgeois splendor, is so unusual it takes a while to realize how hair-raising it is.

Events move quickly after that. This is more understated than most of Chabrol and the greatest violence consists of a few slaps on the face of a lover or a boy, and words of abuse hurled by a boorish man and his nasty mother, but those moments are all the more disturbing for coming in such a buttoned-up world, and the action is very fast and economical compared to some of Chabrol's films. The scenes between the narrator and the boy Philippe where the boy says he wants his father dead and wishes Mark/Charles were his father, are very touching. The references to the rich variety of death descriptions in the Iliad are particularly resonant, as is the one at the end to Brahms quoting Hebrew scriptures, with the Brahms song sung by the great Kathleen Ferrier. The style may be neutral but the film is elegant and its look has not dated. The repugnant family scenes and the nightmarish dinners are typically Chabrol. The simplicity of the style is the more impressive seen in terms of possible followers like Ozon. They don't make them like this any more; they can't.

Michel Duchaussoy makes a good contrast to Yanne because he is so bland. He's an intentionally neutral figure whose moral status is meant to be ambiguous. Is he a hero out of Greek tragedy or is he just an escaping villain? Has he brought about justice -- has he even done it, since the son claims responsibility -- or has he merely been sucked into a whirlpool of evil? In the detective's office he finally begins to look for the first time like a sensitive writer. Before that he looked like a bland actor, but his opacity is just what Chabrol wants. Maybe he's one of Chabrol's most appealing heroes, but in the end what are we admiring?

The ogre.

[dbdumonteil · 9/10 · 13 August 2001]

"Que la bête meure " belongs to Chabrol's golden era.This is one of his most brilliant achievements,and,nevertheless,he would do even better with the next one"le boucher",with,again,Jean Yanne,an actor,who,before ,was featured in generally mediocre commercial movies.In his two films with Chabrol ,Yanne will show skills we would never thought of.Both characters,in "que la bete..." and "le boucher" are monsters;but monsters of different kinds:in "le boucher",Yanne is pitiful,moving,a product of the war (in Algeria?)On the other hand,in "Que la bête...",he's a hateful vulgar petit bourgeois brute.Compare the way Chabrol introduces his characters:in "le boucher",Popaul appears in the first scene,the wedding banquet,and he seems a good guy.In "Que la bête...",Chabrol does not show his face during Duchaussoy's son death on the road.When finally,the father discovers the reckless driver's house,we meet first his scared family circle.Then we hear his formidable voice.All happens like in a fairy tale:Tom Thumb entering the ogre's den.Perhaps Chabrol's most terrifying character, he holds up to ridicule his wife's attempt at poetry and he cannot understand his son ,a frail,sensitive,and clever teenager. The plot will take shape quickly,and after this story of sound and fury,the last pictures brings the audience some relief.Note,in both films,"le boucher" and "Que la bête.." ,the presence of water in these last pictures.

A fine movie by Chabrol filled with revenge, tension and even a kind of morality

[Terrell-4 · 8/10 · 27 January 2008]

"It may take six months," writes Charles Thenier in a diary he has begun, "or one or two years, but I'll find him. I'll make friends with him. I'll wait patiently. When he's trapped, I'll look at him with a smile, directly in the eye. And I'll make him deserve his death."

Thenier, a widower, has just seen his young son killed by a hit-and-run driver. The car was speeding through the narrow streets, struck the boy and didn't pause. When the police cannot find the driver, Thenier (Michel Duchaussey) is determined to do so himself. Then he'll kill the driver. This Man Must Die is one of Claude Chabrol's most elegant and tensest thrillers, with a conclusion that some might find ambiguous but which I found sad but emotionally satisfying. Thenier begins his search with a description of the car. He visits every garage he can think of. Almost by chance he learns of a car that had a fender repaired by the man who most likely was driving the car, the man who owns a repair garage. Thenier arranges a chance meeting with the other person in the car, the actress Helen Lanson (Caroline Celler), whose brother-in-law he finally learns was the driver. He seduces her and then arranges to accompany her for a few days visit to the man's home in Brittany near the coast. Paul Decourt (Jean Yanne) is the man, and his wife is Helen's sister. Decourt and his wife have a teen-aged son, Phillippe (Marc Di Napoli). Paul Decourt is a loathsome bully. If anyone should believe in evil, Decourt would be an example. He's not just loud, coarse and contemptuous of others. He amuses himself by humiliating his wife in public and dominating his son. He beds the maid and his partner's wife openly. He ignores anyone's feelings and opinion's but his own. His wife is intimidated...and his son wants him dead. During the time Thenier spends in Decourt's home he comes to know Phillippe, and the boy can sense that Thenier wants to kill Decourt, too.

"Lovers often hesitate," Thenier writes in the diary, "not out of shyness but to prolong their awaiting happiness. I, full of hatred, am savoring what awaits me. His killing will only be a gesture of a man throwing away the used peel of a fruit slowly enjoyed to the pit." Ah, yes...the diary. Decourt discovers it and keeps it, and a crucial question is whether or not Thenier set him up to find it. What at first was an obsessed and understandable pursuit of revenge and murder on the part of Charles Thenier now also is complicated by Phillippe's own determination. The diary may be Thenier's outlet for his thoughts, but it also could be a clever tool of self-protection. What we know for sure is that Decourt shortly after dies in agony. The police investigate and decide Thenier is probably the number one suspect. Yet when Phillippe intervenes we're not so sure. We're left with a satisfying tale of revenge and retribution, but also of sacrifice and of a kind of morality. After all, once a person has exacted his revenge, what's left?

The title of the movie comes from Ecclesiastes by way of Brahms, titled "Vier Ernste Gesange." Here's a part worth thinking about...

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts, as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust and all turn to dust again.

Multi-layered and intelligent revenge drama

[ametaphysicalshark · 12 August 2008]

Following a number of fairly mediocre efforts from the early to late sixties, Chabrol got right back on track with the excellent "Le Biches", and followed that film with "Que la bête meure", an intensely involving revenge drama with the emphasis on psychology and character over action and violence.

The film opens like any revenge thriller would (albeit probably better-shot and acted than most of them), with a child being killed in a hit and run and his father vowing to track down and kill the perpetrator. The tale slowly becomes more and more psychological, however, and ends up being a variation on a Greek tragedy, as others have noted. Chabrol is rarely content with following the expected routine (when he is his films can be dismal), and "Que la bête meure" is far from routine, as we end up spending more than an hour with the all the main characters in place and even together most of the time. The script is carefully written to avoid plot issues (outside of the contrived and silly first clue the main character gets, I can't think of any major issues I had with the script), and the dialogue is as deliberately orchestrated as Chabrol's direction is, building the suspense and drama gradually.

After the nearly continuous camera motion in "Les Biches", Chabrol takes a different approach to this film. It's less stylized and more natural, with the shot composition never feeling contrived as it sometimes did in Chabrol's immediately preceding effort, although there is some very good and very deliberate work around when we first meet the villain. Chabrol also uses close-ups to great effect, particularly in the scene late in the film with Paul and Charles on a sail boat.

What is striking about "Que la bête meure" is that while it deliberately builds suspense it also refuses to work as a thriller, and this is most clearly seen towards the end of the film when we get the standard twists but they're so subtle and low-key that one barely pays attention to them. The plot doesn't really matter here, the film is about much more, about the moral implications of revenge, about the nature of man, and it does well to apply these preoccupations to its characters so that we are never far removed from the emotions they are going through, in particular the main character Charles, played by Michel Duchaussoy.

After a string of disappointing features the last two years of the sixties saw two strong efforts from Claude Chabrol which helped keep him as relevant to cinema as he is. "Que la bête meure" is not a perfect film, and it may not even necessarily be a great film (although I think it qualifies), but it is engaging and enjoyable and far from empty. It leaves one thinking about it well after it has finished playing.

8.5/10

Chilling and absorbing revenge tale

[gridoon2024 · 7/10 · 11 December 2010]

On my first viewing of "This Man Must Die", I thought this could perhaps have been Claude Chabrol's best movie until the last 20 minutes, which I found kind of disappointing. After a second viewing, I changed my opinion somewhat: yes, the last 20 minutes are anticlimactic from a "thriller"'s point of view (the true climax occurs earlier, on the yacht), but on the other hand they present us with one of the few successful ambiguous endings I can remember: the truth about the second murder is never explicitly stated, and the viewer is left to draw his own conclusions, but the possibilities are not limitless - they are only two. Up until that point, "This Man Must Die" has the slow pacing, beautiful music & cinematography, scientifically masterful camera work, and superb acting in each and every role that we've come to expect from Chabrol; he gave the main female role to Caroline Cellier instead of Stephane Audran this time, and Cellier, being a warmer, more accessible actress than Audran, creates one of the most human characters ever in a Chabrol film. Definitely one of his best films. *** out of 4.

Clouzot-esque - which is all to the good

[Spleen · 8/10 · 1 December 2001]

With the best will in the world you couldn't call Claude Chabrol and exciting film maker, but he can be interesting, and here he is at his most interesting. Made at a time when he (and many other directors) had for some reason forsworn visual beauty (look at "Les Biches" and you'll see a film that OUGHT to be gorgeous, and is instead rather dingy), beauty manages to sneak in anyway; besides which, all the images have a quiet, sombre grace which neatly suggests how the world would actually look to the central character.

The film contains a rare successful use of first person narration. We hear extracts from the hero's diary, which at first appear to be no more than an expository device; later they turn out to be an important part of the narrative (that is to say, the diary, as a physical object, has an important role to play in the story because of what it contains).

Possible spoiler ahead (although I'll try to be vague in case someone reads it by accident; it's worthwhile coming to this film cold).

Towards the end Chabrol raises the possibility that the diary is not what it appears to be. There's no doubt that what the hero writes in his diary is true, and in a sense we know that it's not even misleading - but it could be there's something crucial left unsaid; the diary may be one of those books in which, in Brian Aldiss's words, "everything is clear except the author's purpose in writing it". Yes, it IS maddening when Chabrol suggests two interpretations without making one seem even the slightest bit more likely than the other, but I didn't mind being maddened. Chabrol's even-handedness works for two seemingly incompatible reasons: (1) the emotional truth of the story is much the same either way, yet (2) each possible interpretation is so intriguing it would be a shame to lose the other one.

Stylish and intelligent existential revenge drama from Chabrol

[tomgillespie2002 · 7/10 · 10 July 2011]

After a speeding car kills his young son, Charles Thenier (Michel Duchaussoy) vows there and then that he will kill the man responsible. The police begin a frantic hunt for the killer, but Charles has little confidence in them and starts an investigation of his own. In a chance encounter, he discovers that the brother-in-law of actress Helen Lanson (Caroline Cellier) is the man he is looking for, and sets about seducing Helen under a false name. He eventually gets to meet Paul Decourt (Jean Yanne, who also stars in Godard's Weekend - one of my all-time favourite films), who is such a repulsive human being that even his own son also wants him dead. As Charles' struggles with the idea of killing him, he must deal with the fact that he may be falling in love with Helen.

The revenge film is a sub-genre that has been done to death. Lazy film- makers and the generally uninspired can see it as a relatively simplistic premise that can be tampered with and altered to an endless degree. They range from the genuinely brilliant (Memento, Oldboy, The Virgin Spring) to the genuinely horrific (Taken, Death Wish), and the exploitation genre made very grisly use of it (The Last House On The Left, Thriller - A Cruel Picture). The fact is that it's starting to get a bit boring. Which makes it all the more refreshing when you stumble upon a gem from the past that takes the idea and spins out something fresh. Que La Bete Meure (The Beast Must Die, or This Man Must Die to give it its US title) is one of these.

Claude Chabrol's existential drama plays out like a Greek tragedy. We are with Charles all the time and we are made to suffer like our protagonist, and suffer he does. When he finally meets Paul, he realises that he is the monster he hoped him to be, which fuels his determination. Paul is grotesque - his voice spews out loutish insults before we even see him, and then we join him at dinner where he sadistically humilities his own kin. But does this mean that he truly deserves to die? As Charles sets in motion his plan of murder, he becomes noticeably uncomfortable yet fiercely determined.

Chabrol's film-making style comes across as mixing the tension-building thrills of Alfred Hitchcock, with the philosophical ponderings of Ingmar Bergman, and the result is often astonishing. Charles almost mirrors the doomed film noir detective, with Duchaussoy putting in a fantastic performance. From this to La Femme Infidele, the other Chabrol film I've had the fortune to see, it seems that he is relatively uncelebrated compared to his French associates Godard, Truffaut, Renoir and Cocteau (amongst many others) which, on the basis of this film alone, is wholly unfair.

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

Brooding and interesting revenge movie from the great Claude Chabrol!

[The_Void · 9/10 · 19 February 2008]

Claude Chabrol made a lot of films during his career, and while I've only really scratched the surface so far - I have to say that this one is right up there with his very best! Chabrol's films aren't thrillers in the same vein as those made by the likes of Alfred Hitchcock (in spite of the fact that he is often known as 'The French Hitchcock'); with Chabrol the thrills don't come from moments of suspense or tension, but from the interest generated in the lead characters and the situation put forward, and that was never truer than with this film - perhaps the most sombre revenge movie ever made! The film starts off with a young boy returning home from the beach. However, his stroll is interrupted when a car comes out of nowhere and runs him down. The boy's father, a man named Charles Thenier, is distraught following the accident and vows to track down the man who did it. His thirst for revenge is great, but his hatred towards the murderer is so immense that he decides, one he finds him, to befriend and lure him into a false sense of security before killing him...

Since there's not a great deal of excitement in the visceral sense, it may seem on the surface that This Man Must Die does not do its job as a thriller. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. Chabrol's film is brooding and intriguing throughout and has a great sense of realism in the way that the wronged father goes after the man who killed his son. It has to be said that the film somewhat hinges on coincidence, but this is actually addressed within the film itself and the events that take place are largely logical. Once again, Chabrol's production values are high and the film is incredibly beautiful and it bodes well with the sober tone of the movie. The acting is fantastic, with Michel Duchaussoy doing well in the lead role and receiving excellent feedback from the lovely Caroline Cellier and the brilliant Jean Yanne who steals every scene he's in as the villain of the piece. The film boils down to an excellent conclusion that both comes as something of a surprise and adds some Greek tragedy into the mix. Overall, this is another big success for the great French director and comes highly recommended!

Tight and well executed thriller; a quite stupendous character study effective in its carving through of some pretty raw territory.

[johnnyboyz · 7/10 · 22 January 2011]

When we head into Claude Chabrol's 1969 French revenge thriller The Beast Must Die and observe, within the opening scene, the young son of man Charles Thenier tragically struck down by a driver going far too fast in his sports car; we assume the labelling of the titular 'beast' to be of the sort that sees the film's lead attribute the particular tag to him because of what he's done. In a blind rage, this mysterious and unknown killer whom is not brought to justice has, we presume, to have been formulated as a kind of deathly; monstrous and animal-like persona by that of the grieving Charles as he embarks on his quest for revenge. What later transpires is, in fact, that the titular beast is close to all but as literal to the title and was not merely a representative word for the sort of mythical image the lead had formulated within his own mind. This, in itself, brings about further complications and more studious nuances the film might not have had when it comes to resonate later in the story. It is one of a number of clever twists and engaging turns director Chabrol implants onto us throughout his mediation on vengeance and the grieving process, Que la Bête Meure coming to represent a really finely crafted thriller-come-mediative piece on the thirst for blood in order to bring about parity.

Michel Duchaussoy plays Charles, the film beginning on his small boy playing alone on an empty beach before leaving for some stone steps which lead up to ground level. Tragically, ground level is public road level and a sports car harbouring the titular beast, as well as a young woman later transpiring to be Caroline Cellier's actress named Helene Lanson, knocks Master Thenier down to the tune of a funeral-like orchestral score amidst an empty street and a pretty desolate looking coastal town. Nobody saw the act, nobody can help and the police seem disinterested at the best of times; all the ingredients Charles needs to move off into an incarnate scociopathic rage leading to the taking of the law into his own hands. The first half of brooding menace as Charles struggles with the reality of the situation is really well captured by Chabrol, grief and anger combining into a dangerous cocktail as our lead narrates to us what it is he'll do if he comes face to face with the killer by making notes in a diary providing us with a measure of the hatred and resentment. On another occasion, small nuances such as the entering of a room and recognising that a glass cabinet needs repairing and it's probably the first time he's noticed this since 'the event' offer simplistic but stark insights into a frustrated and grieving mind as he little things just seem to resonate more and bother him.

Charles' operating outside of the law leads him to solve things and deduce things the police otherwise do not, a journeying through the countryside leads to the getting stuck in a patch of mud on the road which, in turn, propels him towards the woman whom was in the car that fateful day. When he eventually catches up with Helene, the thrill of the chase beginning to mutate into the joy of the kill appearing to rear itself within Charles as that promise seemingly nears; something Chabrol catches with a certain amount of guile during Charles' use of a faked name and his narration highlighting to us how much he detests Helene despite the on screen action being of a polar opposite in its politeness and friendliness. Chabrol places a chess set within Helene's place of dwelling after Charles has effectively enough seduced her into thinking he's rather-a fan of her work; drinks and socialising lead on to certain bonds, the waking up in the morning after a night together seeing the chess pieces in this indelible game of cat-and-mouse the lead has going on with everyone now scattered and confused, nicely echoing the overall situation regarding Charles' stance as a scattered new order makes itself known, and the love-making to the woman beside the driver of the car which killed his son causing this.

The new order sees Charles garner further access to the prospect of carrying out his mouth-watering denouement; the titular beast none other than a certain Paul Decourt, played by Jean Yanne, a man with a large family and stately house on the coast in which he rules with rather-a hateful fist of iron. The building up to Decourt's big reveal sees Charles first having to interact with his extensive family, the destroying of one man seemingly the symptomatic destroying of all of this large-scale family unit consisting of rather nice and rather intelligent people. Chabrol dangerously, even agonisingly, tempts us to side with the lead and will him on to kill Decourt; his attitudes and the way he treats these people sitting around the table positively shocking, the sense that they themselves have wished for some while that harm might come to him clearly present.

The film is sharp enough to refrain from rendering Decourt the greater extent or larger representation of anything more sordid; it is not as if the lead is suddenly fighting a extensive portrayal of evil in the form of child pornography rings; corrupt police officials or domestic abusers as seen in other such revenge thrillers including 1971's Get Carter or 1999's Payback. Rather, Decourt remains grounded; the biggest crime he is guilty of outside of the hit-and-run is oafishness, but that is never a crime punishable by death. Instead, Chabrol's film darts along at its own studious pace, a later study in duality between Dacourt's son Phillippe (Di Napoli) as the male child Charles no longer has and Charles as the father Phillippe should have had growing up given ample attention. The film is a rather unnerving, but humanely played, revenge thriller rich in substance and certainly worth checking out.

Hit and run

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 1 December 2006]

The serenity we watch at the beginning of the story, a boy at a beach, is shattered as he is hit by a speeding car near his home. We know something bad was about to happen as Claude Chabrol, the director, sits us, his audience, in the back seat of the car, but he only lets us see the backs of the killer and the woman in the passenger's seat. The impact jolts the woman, who lets out a horrible scream, but the man couldn't care less about what he has done.

Charles Thenier, the father of the dead boy, Michel, is shattered by the discovery of his dead son. He goes into a deep grief, ordering to get rid of the boy's possessions. On a visit to the house in Brittany, he questions the old servant if she discarded everything, but she breaks down and tells him she couldn't part with Michel's toys. Charles vows to avenge Michel's death. He will not stop before he finds, and kills the person who caused the tragedy. Charles begins to write all his findings in a diary that he fills with details about the murder.

Just by accident, Charles learns about the woman who was a passenger in the car. She happens to be an actress and he follows her. It's easy for him to fake he is in love with her. Charles, who has begun a diary about his findings is interested in knowing all about this beautiful woman. Helen tells Charles, about a sister that lives in Brittany. As it turned out, her sister lives not far from his own town. As Helen thinks her involvement with Charles is getting serious, she invites him to go with her to visit her sister and her family.

Helen's sister is married to Paul Decourt, a boorish man who makes fun of his wife's artistic temperament. Paul, who owns a large garage, fits the description of the killer of Michel. Charles finds an ally in Phillippe Decourt, the son of Paul, an intense young man who is ridiculed by his own father. Charles, who has planned to take Paul for a boat ride in order to kill him, but he finds a formidable foe. Decourt tells him he has given the diary, in which Charles has written his feelings about Paul Decourt. As Helen and Charles are driving back to Paris, they are surprised to learn about Paul's death by poisoning and they go back.

When confronted by the police inspector, Charles, tells all he knows, but his interrogator doesn't believe in what he has to say, or his alibi. It seems that Charles contributed to the suspicion that now falls on him as the possible murderer when he had nothing to do with it. When Phillippe confesses about doing his father in, it appears he is covering for Charles. The last scenes of the film have a calming effect as we see Charles in his boat in the middle of the sea sailing to an unknown destination.

Claude Chabrol is an excellent adapter of other people's material. This film is based on a Nicholas Blake novel we read some time ago. As he did with Ruth Rendell's "A Judgment in Stone", he wrote a magnificent screen treatment of this complex novel. Chabrol is not interested in keeping the killer's identity from his audience. We know throughout the narrative who was the one responsible for young Michel's death, yet, there is suspense in watching Charles preparing for his revenge carefully.

Jean Yanne, who was seen in Chabrol's "Le Boucher", returns as Paul Decourt, a far more colorful character without any redeeming qualities. Michel Dushaussoy who plays Charles goes from the despair at the start of the film into a quiet man who is biding his time to do the right thing to avenge his son. Mark DiNapoli, is another asset to the film. He is a calculating young man who hates his father and sees in Charles a kind soul that shows him the attention he never got from his old man. Caroline Cellier appears as Helen Lanson, a beautiful woman who falls in love with Charles. Raymone, who plays Paul Decourt's mother has two great scenes in which she reveals her true nature; she is just the female version of her son. Maurice Pialat, the director, is seen as a police inspector.

The musical score is by Dominique Zardi, who also has a small part in the film. Brittany's landscape is captured by Jean Rabier. The film is one of Claude Chabrol's best directorial efforts.

Low on substance

[Jerry-Kurjian · 6/10 · 28 March 2006]

First of all, let me say that I respect the views of those reviewers who have liked Que la bete Meure. I write this to folks who may share my taste in film.

Que la bete Meure, while not a bad film, is like many French films - more concerned with style and *appearing* thoughtful than with plot or production values. I would charge that Les Diabolique, Alphaville, and Les Revenants, to name but three movies, all suffer from this malaise. If you are expecting a gripping story, twists which don't seem contrived, or characters who are not stock, this may not be the film for you.

Begs for a remake

[crossfiberfriction · 3/10 · 30 November 2012]

I remember liking this movie when I first saw it some 35 years ago. But I remember thinking I'd like to do a remake to do it "right." Seeing it again, I can't help but wonder what it was I ever liked about the production. It seems Chabrol misses every opportunity to turn this terrific story, full of cinematic potential, into a memorable movie thriller. The biggest failure is to invest the viewer into the emotional torment that the characters should be going through. Then there is the American translation of the title. The quote is from antiquity, and it should be, "The Beast Must Die"-- and it has significance. I don't know what "This man must die" means, unless the director means to give away the ending in the title of the movie.

One of the best from director Chabrol

[MarioB · 8/10 · 6 November 2000]

This is a very fine psychologic thriller in some mellow tones. The story is simple : a boy gets killed by a mad car driver and his father wants to find the man to kill him. We know, from the start, that there can be two finale : the father kills the man, or he changes his mind. But Chabrol makes us think that it can have another finale... Or another? Or perhaps this one? Not at all! We never thought of the real finale. This is brillant, well written and directed movie. Very fine acting by Duchaussoy and Yanne.

Claude Chabrol shows us the true meaning of death,life and revenge

[FilmCriticLalitRao · 10/10 · 24 September 2008]

If there is a Gallic director who likes to surprise his admirers with new tricks,unexpected methods and iconoclastic stance,it is new wave master Claude Chabrol.There have been many bright moments in his illustrious career when he has made films for them which could only be appreciated by a sharp brain and attentive eyes.Que la bête meure is a hard to classify film which is neither a thriller nor a run of the mill revenge drama.It is a film which plays with all leading conventions of these two genres.This man must die starts well with the depiction of a reckless accident.It is quite possible that this might induce inattentive viewers to regard it as a revenge drama.This is not the case as viewers are quickly caught in a maze of crucial dramatic scenes that have direct bearing on film's progress.Caroline Cellier and Michel Duchaussoy perform well as lovers whose relationship has a lot of bearing on this film's progress.Chabrol is known for avoiding a not so happy end for his film.This is the reason why "This man must die" will prepare you to imagine your own type of end in order to do injustice to the concept of happy end of this film.

The Beast Must Die

[MogwaiMovieReviews · 6/10 · 7 September 2020]

It's a good story, with a couple of engaging twists, but a little stodgy and dull in the delivery. I can't help but think how much more gripping and entertaining it would have been had perhaps Hitchcock gotten to it first. The romance aspect and final confession are particularly unconvincing and anticlimactic. Chabrol's "La femme infidèle" is a better film of his to try.

The House of Hatred and Revenge

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 4 February 2011]

A car runs over the boy Michel Thenier while he is crossing the street in his calm village in Bretane, and the hit and run driver flees without any witness. His grieving father Charles Thenier (Michel Duchaussoy) becomes obsessed to find the reckless driver that murdered his only son to kill him and spends his time writing his diary and running his own investigation in garages and junkyards. One day, he learns by chance that the actress Helene Lanson (Caroline Cellier) might be the responsible for the death of Michel. Charles travels to Paris posing as screenplay writer, introduces himself using his pseudonym of Marc Andrieux and seduces Helene with the intention of killing her. However, Helene tells that her family is from Brittany and her brother-in-law Paul Decourt (Jean Yanne) owns a garage in Quimper. When Helene invites Charles to travel to her sister's house to know her family, Charles finds that Paul is a despicable man with a disease in the intestine, hated by his family and his own son Phillippe Decourt (Marc Di Napoli) wants to kill him.

"Que la Bête Meure" a.k.a. "This Man Must Die" is an ambiguous story of hatred and revenge with an open conclusion where it is not clear who really killed the detestable Paul Decourt. The odyssey of Charles to find the killer proves that he is a manipulative and Machiavellian man; therefore it is impossible to conclude what is his final destination. One point that intrigues me and may be a clue to the truth is when Paul calls Marc by Charles, when they are preparing to sail. Neither Claude Chabrol nor Charles Thenier would be capable to commit such mistake and then in the boat Charles tells to Paul that the entertaining is just beginning. This sequence corroborates with the deduction of the detective and associated to the profile of Charles that should be incapable to neglect his journal may indicate that Phillippe is really innocent, but I can not assure that my interpretation is correct. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

I'm not quite sure Chabrol convinces me

[greenfelttip · 16 April 2002]

Que La Bete Meure is sensitive and intense. Chabrol shows us Thenier's justified rage towards his son's killer in an intelligent and engaged way. Duchaussoy plays the role wonderfully, he is reserved and calm and this shows that it is vengeance he is after and not senseless lashing out. Yanne is also excellent creating a frightening, overbearing character, making Decourt very much alive. However although the story is woven well and the suspense is captivating, the inevitable twist is unconvincing and I personally preferred to make up my own ending.

"The fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both:"

[JuguAbraham · 6/10 · 18 April 2020]

The title "This man must die" and the original French title "The Beast must die" are interrelated with a Biblical verse: Ecclesiastes 3:19. It reads thus "Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless." The book was written by poet author Cecil Day Lewis under a pen name Nicholas Blake. In the book, there is a major detective. Chabrol deletes that figure. The closest equivalent in the film is a Police Commissioner played by the major French director Maurice Piaiat (without his beard.)

The film is not Chabrol's best but is filled with ironies--e.g. the beast kills a boy, whose real-life brother plays the character who turns into a killer. Is everything meaningless?

almost perfect,....

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 29 January 2006]

I loved this film and would have given it a 10 had it not had a major problem with the plot towards the beginning of the film. Michel Duchaussoy is looking to find the hit and run driver who killed his son and has almost no clues to assist him. However, after a little searching, the first important clue is almost magically given to him! Now if you ignore this inconsistency, the rest of the film is great. This silly clue leads him to the passenger in the car--who turns out to be a rather decent person (though you must admit she is very weak because she let the driver bully her into silence). Duchaussoy initially fakes interest in this woman to find out if SHE was the driver or if she would reveal who it was, though along the way is seems he really does being to fall for her. VERY slowly he is able to gather that the driver was her brother-in-law. A little bit later, they get an invitation to stay at the sister and brother-in-law's home and he is eager to go and confront the murderer.

Fortunately for Duchaussoy, the man is completely horrid in almost every way (unlike the sweet girlfriend). It's easy to hate him and want revenge--heck, almost everyone around this "man" wanted him dead, it seems. However, revenge isn't something rushed and along the way he gets to know the family--particularly the decent but woefully abused son of the murderer. One of the most poignant scenes in the film is when this boy comments that he wishes his father was dead and would like to have Duchaussoy for a dad, instead.

Finally, the hero plans to drown the evil murderer, since the villain hates water and apparently can't swim. However, when they are out on the rough seas, the jerk informs him that he found and read Duchaussoy's diary and KNOWS he's planning on killing him, so he gave the book to his lawyer JUST IN CASE! Well, the plot is over and Duchaussoy and his girlfriend are thrown out of the house. BUT, Duchaussoy is happy and goes out to celebrate--presumably because he can now prove who the murderer is. At the restaurant where he is celebrating, the TV news reports that the killer was himself poisoned and the police were looking for Duchaussoy. Duchaussoy returns and is the prime suspect. BUT, considering that there is the diary that discusses his plans to kill the man, police are unwilling to arrest him because the diary was now known to all--plus nearly everyone had a motive for killing him! Well, at the very end the police inspector reasons that Duchaussoy STILL is the murderer. However, the dead man's son then admits to killing his father with rat poison. However, in the next scene, he leaves his lady friend a note admitting he REALLY was the man who was the killer. HOWEVER, the way this was done (where it appears Duchaussoy is about to kill himself) and the strong possibility that he only finally admitted to the killing because he cared for the boy and wanted to provide him with an alibi are brilliant. This uncertainty and the plot twists really made the film.

Little Boy Lost

[writers_reign · 7/10 · 3 November 2012]

In this entry Chabrol seems to be less interested in constructing a plausible framework than in the cat-and-mouse aspects of the psychological warfare of hunter and hunted. The facts are bald to say the least: a small boy is killed in broad daylight by a hit-and-run driver who doesn't even contemplate stopping. The boy's father then turns narrator and tells us of his intention to track down and murder the unknown driver. There is no mention of the boy's mother although we do see a woman of the right age in a home movie reel the father runs shortly after the incident. This man appears to be highly affluent - at one point he buys a sailing boat simply in order to murder the hit-and- run driver (who he has located ridiculously easily) and he is able to dine in expensive restaurants with no visible means of support - he SAYS he writes children's books but again there is no tangible evidence of this. If we pretend that this doesn't matter and accept that he is able to indulge his desire for vengeance, to the extent that he can put his normal life and whatever routine he has for earning a living on Hold to live as a guest indefinitely in the home of the hit-and-run driver then it is possible to enjoy the psychological warfare. Chabrol's usual suspects are all in evidence, the bourgeoisie setting, the muted, pastel photography, the 'cool' acting styles and Caroline Cellier - who was a brilliant Blanche du Bois on the Paris stage lends some gravitas to what is essentially a thankless role. This is one of Chabrol's Filming-By- Numbers movies and no better or worse for that.

The makings of Greek tragedy, but Chabrol has more up his sleeve in revenge flick

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 18 February 2008]

In taking a slight cue from Alfred Hitchcock (one of Chabrol's heroes), but going another step further, This Man Must Die follows a logical turn of events for a single father who's son is run over in a hit and run by some cruel man in a fast car. In Hitchcock's hands this might be led by elegant stars, have even moments of scathing wit. But Chabrol's vision is a little darker, more that is seething under this surface, with the bourgeois as much of the commonplace as just the backdrop for the theater of revenge about to take place. But like the old master, Chabrol takes a twist with the material: as the father, Charles Thenier, going by an alias as a writer of children's books, gets more than acquainted with a woman who is the sister-in-law of the killer, gets to know the family more, and gets to know slimy, shrewd businessman and big-time garage owner Paul Decourt more, he's not really the only one out for his head.

As Chabrol goes further, it becomes a tale of Greek tragedy, or some variation on it. Paul's son, Philippe (a character as played by jean Yanne as if almost out of Bresson), hates his father with a passion, as his father has no respect for or tries to encourage his son with what he's got going on at school (perhaps conventionally, every scene with the father and son is a tense and violent outburst from father towards innocent son). One might think a collaboration might happen between the secretive, diary-writing Charles and the kind but frustrated kid, but this too isn't that simple. Chabrol also takes a smart tactic with that diary of Charles's; it could be just a narrative gimmick, and at times it feels as just that (maybe one of the film's only drawbacks, if only only on), but it does start to probe into a mindset that is one-track, and not without some reason in the genre sense. We're pitted on Charles's side, as he sneaks his way into Helen's heart, and then through her sometimes nice and other times (i.e. Paul's mother) savage in their verbal brutality.

But this same diary works as a something of a step-up from a psychological MacGuffin. Chabrol twists around with plot into motivation, and he pulls it off with his shooting and editing style, which applies just small, precise touches of the good old French New Wave into the proceedings (the occasional jump-cut, as any filmmaker knows, can't hurt under the right circumstances). What Chabrol's brilliant achievement is to transcend the trappings of a revenge film and to explore what the nature of malevolence brings past a simple crime- certainly these bastards have families, if they have the capacity to clear up their crimes with such skill like an owner of a hugely profitable auto-body/garage- and at the same time put a human angle into a plot that requires it. The actors do what they can (the man playing Charles, who I have not seen in other films, is very good in the lead, as is in his own right the man playing Paul Decourt, adding some layers to this rotten being), and despite some clunky scenes that do have to deal with the plot, there's some wit thrown in under the surface ("It's not a needle in a haystack, more like a needle in a box of needles,").

If This Man Must Die isn't a great film, and I'm not sure it is, it is at least a very successful example of finding some of the cracks in a revenge mystery, of adding that superlative mix of character into plot, and seeing what makes things like a diary, or a slip off a cliff, or an ambiguous ending, tick.

still waters running deep

[myriamlenys · 7/10 · 7 July 2019]

A widowed father has but one treasure remaining : his adorable little boy. One day the boy gets killed in an accident, with the driver fleeing the scene. Devastated, the father vows to bring the car driver down, and not necessarily in a nicely legal way. As a quiet, unassuming writer of children's books he does not seem like an unstoppable revenge machine - and yet hard work, patience and imagination can achieve a lot...

Now I can state honestly that this is a memorable film. I watched it for the first time more than three decades ago ; a few weeks ago, I watched it again. To my surprise, I was fully capable of remembering whole scenes and whole lines of dialogue. So the movie does inscribe itself on the memory.

It's certainly an accomplished and well-made thriller. The translation to France and French society works very well. However, watching the movie the second time I got the impression that the protagonist (Michel Duchaussoy / Charles Thénier) spent a lot of time looking medicated or bored out of his mind. Now I realize that the protagonist was supposed to be a silent and brooding introvert, but still, there's a difference between plotting murder and looking as though you've emptied a medicine drawer...

Anyway, "Que la bête meure" does a fine job of showing the unending sorrow of citizens who lose a loved one and then cannot obtain solace or justice. As a result it should be made into required viewing for all judges judging serious traffic crimes.

Stupendous Cinematic Treasure

[robbybonfire-02816 · 1/10 · 17 August 2021]

This may be the most emotionally-captivating film I have ever seen. I love a film where the man and the woman are ideal for each other, but circumstances interfere with their realizing the gift of complete union life is offering them.

For me, this is Chabrol's finest film and one of my top-10 favorite films of all time. Other Chabrol masterpieces include La Femme Infidele; Les Femmes; Le Boucher; and Les Biches.

It bothers me that Michel and Caroline are now gone from our world. They mesmerize me with their sensitive portrayal of the character each depicted, and rarely have I seen two people on screen with such a compelling chemistry as these two had in spades.

A great film-watching experience stays with you for YEARS after you have seen it, albeit many times in the case of this film.

The sad ending bothers me no end, but this film is akin to the reality of an imperfect world, not diversion from the real world into cinematic fantasy.

Thank you Mon. Chabrol, for all the joy and heartache you shared with your public.