Not for, or Against (Quite the Contrary)

The golden age of the film noir in French cinema was in the forties and fifties with two unforgettable names: Julien Duvivier and Henri-Georges Clouzot who have left films noir of first quality. Then, the high level persisted with Claude Chabrol in the late sixties. But nowadays, this cinematographic genre survives mainly by ripping off the models of American cinema. Here, with Cédric Klapisch in charge of this "ni pour ni contre (bien au contraire)" (2003), we can expect to a glimmer of hope to lend the film noir its credibility again.

We are a little surprised to find this terrific film-maker, a specialist of social comedies, trying his hand at a genre he has never broached. I'm a huge fan of his cinema, but here I can't make up my mind whether this first foray into an unknown domain was beneficial for him. It left me an impression of mixed although Klapisch's cinematographic writing is as good as usual. I will try to develop my own point of view about this film.

Firstly, Klapisch has always been fond of films noir and "ni pour ni contre (bien au contraire)" was a project which was close to his heart and it nearly never saw the light of day (he had written the first part of the film and then left it high and dry because he had difficulties to write the sequel. In the meantime, not to stay inactive, he decided to make "l'auberge espagnole" (2002) and after that took back "ni pour ni contre..." and managed to finish it). It is quite easy to detect Klapisch's major influences in his work: "Goodfellas" (1990) by Martin Scorsese, "Asphalt Jungle" (1949) by John Huston and Jean Pierre Melville's cinema.

Cédric Klapisch's film is divided in two quite patchy parts. Let's begin with the first part: it is quite decent although it is not free from shortcomings. One one hand, there's humor which enables to make less alarming the seriousness of certain situations and on the other hand, the film gets off to a good start with a conclusive introduction about the main characters in their respective social backgrounds. It's also a pleasure to see the director taking out again weapons he wonderfully masters such as the suggestion and what is left unsaid (concerning the character Katy, we can feel that she's quite unhappy in her life just by looking her dull face and by the way, Marie Gillain has never been so beautiful in this film). Then, Klapisch still handles in a clever way his camera: to emphasize on the fact that Katy feels very lonely in her life, the camera leaves from her face and stops in front of the building in which she lives. As for the gang, it avoids as much as possible caricature. The director makes a both funny and dangerous portrait. Of all the members, Zinedine Soualem plays best his game. You have to see him giving lessons of dancing. Nevertheless, the gang's life is partly based on stereotypes, notably when they wallow in money and easy life.

But things go wrong in the second part when the movie tells the careful preparations of the stickup and the quite violent consequences of the operation. From here onwards, the director wants to be more serious, more suspenseful and it brings about both a quite rough changing of tone, a serious lack of cohesion with the rest and it harms the unity of the film as a whole. Let's also regret an alternate editing of quite bad taste. It's a shame because it is in this second part that the most representative elements of the film noir are exploited: nocturnal scenes, disturbing scenery, sticky atmosphere. And the end is successful because it is immoral. It also echoes one sequence of the beginning of the film when Katy scratches a "Banco" card.

In the end, we've got a courageous but rather failed attempt from Klapisch to renew the film noir. That said, if take on account the fact that the real good French films noir become very rare, "ni pour ni contre (bien au contraire)" deserves indulgence in spite of the slight disappointment we can feel at the end the projection. As for Cédric Klapisch, let's hope he will make up for it with the sequel of "l'auberge espagnole", "les poupées russes" which will be released in June 2005.

This is the story of an ordinary young camerawoman who lives a boring life in Paris. She happens to meet a band of gangsters she becomes friend with and starts living their life between hold-ups, sex and money. Marie Gillain is very touching in that role where she managed to be thrilled by this exciting and dangerous life and at the same time not affected at all by the criminal nature of her acts. This movie could have just been another gangster story and this is exactly where you're being tricked into a totally different outcome. Very simple and even maybe a little bit silly, her role as a gangster is interesting and well played. The more you watch the more you start wondering why she is doing all that for and who she truly is. A stunning movie on a subject difficult to deal with if you don't want to be too cliché. A must see

Bit of a disappointment really - after a good start in Goodfellas mode (where the anti-hero's life of crime is linked to his love of good shoes) and an initially mildly intriguing set-up that never pays off, the film just gradually flat lines. It isn't terrible, but it isn't particularly good. Performances are fine but not outstanding and the plot ticks along on the usual robbery goes wrong lines without ever threatening any surprises. The biggest surprise is a bit part for Diane Kruger as a hooker, much more attractive here than in Troy.

The one thing which does impress is Klapisch's Scope framing. This is a man who really knows how to fill the wide, wide screen, and he throws in the greatest shot of Cannes' Carlton Hotel ever. It's just a shame that the script never rises to the level of visual invention.

Not at all a film noir, Klapisch's "Ni pour ni contre" is a run off-the-mill "heist", "coup du siècle" movie, with no original standpoint. The story is a poor justification for a series of beautifully filmed, very bright, colorful and sunny photographic scenes that parallel the aesthetics of this "more than perfect" gang, their associates and their "Appat" film heroine.

There is no justification for the use of a camera in the first "coup" scène, other than the set up of how this very particular innocent girl is being recruited by this band of criminals. Other incoherent sequences appear through the movie that one doesn't get to criticize for fear of sounding too realistic nowadays. Contrarily to other heist movies, nothing goes unusually wrong after the robbery to justify the mess up that ensues.

The attempts at building a camaraderie between the gangsters also falls short and shows clearly that too many people were involved writing this movie.

All and all, this movie is Klepisch's take at a genre he never tried before (american crime movies, not film noirs by any means, and surely not thrillers or polars), and he succeeds less-than-averagely.

Cédric Klapish is one of my favorite director. I like when he writes about the themes he is the best at such as individual vs. Group identity, family stories, etc.

I am not sure what he tried to do here. A bad comedy or a botched thriller. Either way the characters are shallow and disoriented. Still some good acting (M Gillain, Z Soualem).