User Reviews

For the first hour or more you keep stumbling - the movie s surface looks like a period romp, helped by Sondheim s elegantly quizzical score, but the narrative is fragmented and frustratingly hard to follow. But as it takes shape (with Resnais pulling a Vertigo by tipping us off on Stavisky s fall about two thirds of the way in) you realize the subtlety of his design - his earlier formal and temporal experiments are incorporated almost seamlessly here into a lush cinematic package. Resnais spends little time on the usual raw material of the genre: the fragility of Stavisky s position becomes apparent almost immediately, and Resnais shows how the myth of the gentleman thief always had to be a sham - emotionally, sociologically and politically. Power is always contingent on the cooperation of others, and thus always endangered. As endangered, indeed, as our confidence in our sense of time and space - in the closing stretch Resnais moves superbly between events before and after Stavisky s death: the man (a spectre; a figure of several manufactured identities) recedes as the overall design takes precedence. The final image though is purely elegiac and nostalgic; perhaps for the art as well as for the man.

Irresistible charm and talent helps Serge Alexandre alias Stavisky, small-time swindler, to make friends with even most influential members of French industrial and political elite during the early 30s.

The film began as a commission by Jean-Paul Belmondo to the screenwriter Jorge Semprún to develop a scenario about Stavisky. Resnais, who had previously worked with Semprún on "La Guerre est finie", expressed his interest in the project (after a gap of six years since his previous film); he recalled seeing as a child the waxwork figure of Stavisky in the Musée Grevin, and immediately saw the potential of Belmondo to portray him as a mysterious, charming and elegant fraudster.

It seems like most historical French films either take place during World War II (focusing on the occupation) or are in some way related to Algeria. This one really has neither, because it is set between the two world wars, with some interesting supporting characters (Leon Trotsky!). I had never heard of Stavisky, but now I'd be curious to know more (despite having no real passion for French history).

Unusually for Alain Resnais he has opted for the superficial here and by his own admission has gone for 'theatricality'. It cannot fail to look good with Sacha Vierny behind the camera and Jacques Saulnier as designer but beneath the glitz, the glamour and Stephen Sondheim's trite score, we are left with a vapid and empty exercise. Should 'style over substance' appeal then this is definitely your tasse de thé.

The director was reluctant to entitle this piece 'The Stavisky Affair' as this would presumably have obliged him to show the far-reaching consequences, both political and economic, that resulted from Stavisky's massive stock swindle. He has however chosen to insert a bizarre sub-plot involving the exiled Leon Trotsky which contributes nothing whatsoever dramatically and merely serves to advertise Monsieur Resnais' leftist credentials.

Stavisky himself was a sociopathic, narcissistic con-man, the type that proliferates in the murky world of Finance, but is here played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, always mindful of his image, as a gentleman thief. He is very, very good in the role but Jorge Semprún's script renders him little more than a cipher. The same might apply to the other insubstantial and shadowy characters, played by Francois Périer, Michel Lonsdale, a beautifully costumed Anny Duperey and a singularly creepy Claude Rich.

The most fully drawn character is Baron Jean Raoul, not least because he is portrayed by the splendid Charles Boyer who simply saunters away with the film. This represesents a dawn in the careers of Gérard Depardieu and Nils Arestrup but alas a sunset in that of Monsieur Boyer. The passing of this immaculate, consummate artiste marked the end of an era.

Belmondo plays a swindler in early thirties France... His greatest creation is a new identity for himself. Completely amoral/immoral, he plays all ends against the middle.... in fact he is a Jew in France in order to swindle... and his existence is contrasted with (the Jewish) Trotsky who comes to France for political asylum... and a young Jewish actress in France to escape the Nazis.

In the end, everyone is betrayed, but the complicated story makes it extremely difficult to follow.

While it was going on, however, it was beautiful to watch and listen to.

I didn't realize, until I went to Saulnier's page, just how much my experience of French film of the 1960's and 70's was shaped by this man's vision. He was production designer or art designer for Les Cousins and A double tour (Chabrol); Les Amants and Le Voleur (Malle); Marienbad, Muriel, La Guerre est finie, Providence as well as Stavisky... (Resnais); Le Chat and La veuve Couderc (Granier-Deferre). As well as his tremendous work on these art-house films, he worked on box-office successes like French Connection II, What's New, Pussycat and Le Clan des Siciliens.

I am discussing the art direction and the lovely costumes by Jacqueline Moreau (Anny Duperey looks ravishing in those gowns--and that jewelry!) because I find little else to talk about in this glacial exercise in political cinema. Characters mutter about bringing down the left-wing Daladier government and effecting a fascist takeover of power; it's as though Stavisky's fiscal film-flammery is just a side show, when in fact it's the central story. Why do we see Trotsky in two scenes, and why does he never speak? The idea of Trotsky remaining silent as his future is being discussed--that's startling. A simple check of the history of the time will tell you that the Front populaire triumphed in the June 1936 election, so there was no fascist takeover.

Happily, there is fine acting from Charles Boyer (it's one of his finest roles) and Francois Perier as Stavisky's adviser--one of the toughest jobs anybody could have, as it involves giving sage advice to a wild-eyed dreamer. Silvia Badescu has an impressive scene as a young Communist actress who rehearses a scene with Belmondo.

"Whew..." If you liked "Enchanted April" or "Harold and Maude" "To Kill a Mocking Bird"...."Stavisky" rates amount them, as an old time Impressionistic work of film Art.

Stephen Sondheim, liked the movie, enough, to write the music for the picture. Rarely, does Sondheim write for film. "Reds" and one other perhaps.

The soundtrack is available with the Lincoln Center's concert performance of "Follies". I am so grateful they have kept this music alive for us.

Takes place in the 20's, mysterious gangsters, French, Monte Carlo, and a charming love story. Casting is perfect. Cinephotography is hazy like an impressionistic painting, texture, faded color, but warm in tone. The Art Direction is breathtaking, with vintage clothes, automobiles, airplanes, white roses, fragrances, smooth satin movements,with that the "haunting music" which enriches each shot. BRAVO

I haven't enjoyed all of Alain Resnais' films, but he's always been interesting in his ambitious experimental approach to cinema.

But Stavisky is just a dull period piece about a charming fraud. It has none of Resnais typical oddness, but at the same time, it shows off his weakness as a conventional director. It fails to create context, there's a lack of dramatic tension, and it just feels like it's going on and on. I made it maybe a third of the way through before giving up out of sheer boredom.

The acting is pretty good but the script is poor. It's filmed decently and the soundtrack is at least sort of interesting, but I can't figure out why this was something Resnais wanted to do. He neither goes for something new nor just tries to make something conventionally great.

To be fair, there are a lot of dull French films in this world. The French have probably made more boring films than anyone. So arguably this is simply Resnais' most French movie.

Not worth watching.

If it were not for the stylistic excesses of Resnais, the epitome of auteur directors, this movie would rank with Citizen Kane and The Godfather. Too often, the cinematic tricks interfere with a powerful narrative, and distract from otherwise magnificent qualities of Stavisky, the movie. Seldom, has an acting ensemble delivered such consistent excellence. Belmondo, in the key leading role, delivers his character's development with perfection in every scene. Boyer's performance meets and surpasses all the great roles of his career. This is a movie that can only grow in importance with time.

Viewed during the financial crises of 2009, created with stunning derivative manipulations that parallel the voucher schemes of Stavisky, one sees history repeated. It is depressing to be reminded how we have ignored the lesson of history, and now we must live through the aftermath of financial corruption on a world wide scale that makes Stavisky's crimes pale in comparison.

story is entertaining but almost action-free, characters are a drag, no actor emerges from this period piece, the 30's, which is lavishly filmed, but we've seen it elsewhere already... Belmondo is a lovable crook, but he's done it before...

To see a good print of this film in a proper movie theatre (as we were finally able to do last year at the all-too-rare Resnais retorspective at the Egyptian in Hollywood) is like ascending to friggin heaven for the true film fan. With the myriad of attention that's been paid over the years to 'gangster/conman' flicks, how many people know that the most modern and technically advanced of all 'narrative' film directors had already made in 1974 the greatest and most transcendently poetic masterpiece connected with that 'establishment flouting' genre? Not that many, and none of the Resnais screenings at the Cinemateque were even remotely the sell-outs they should've been.

Resnais makes films that stand up to and get better with countless repeat viewings but filmgoers for some reason have decided that any film that they don't fully 'get' in one friggin viewing is somehow flawed or lacking in composition! It never occurs to them to say that about a piece of music or even a silly pop song; they will listen to that over and over again--but a movie? Hell no! One pop-corn chomping two hour span is all their precious attentions can be taxed to give, and any film that doesn't seek to manipulate them is quickly dismissed as 'difficult' or 'art-school' cinema. That's too bad, because Resnais' films are only difficult for those not accustomed to deconditioning themselves from the manipulative commercial cinema around them; they are meant to be slightly imperfect on purpose, so that audiences can participate and complete the picture to a certain degree subjectively. Once you realize that these films are labyrinths of wonder and beauty that more than repay any amount of attention you put into them, watching a Resnais film becomes a thoroughly natural process, nothing 'difficult' about it. But you have to take that step out of passivity and readjust your perspective a bit (reading Kreidle's excellent book on Resnais is a great place to start readjusting your perspective).

Belmondo must be commended for putting his star power and his own money into financing this film with Resnais as his chosen director. He sure made the right choice! Much more than "Breathless" and even "Pierrot Le Fou", "Stavisky" is a timeless and absolutely exquisite film that basically hasn't aged one bit, and it serves as probably the ultimate display piece for Belmondo's superb gift and magnetic personality. It's the best 'F.Scott Fitzgerald''1920s' type looking film ever made. It blows away any other film in the beauty and shading of its shots, the lushness of muted, shadowy colors in its look, and along with Storaro's work in the "The Conformist" (which is a shallower film than it in the narrative sense), Vierny's cinematography is the most awe-inspiringly authentic and yet transcendently romantic looking 'period' look ever achieved on film. In addition to Belmondo, "Stavisky" features the great Charles Boyer in one of his greatest performances ever, forever immortalized in a work of cinematic art as truly deserving of his talents as "The Earrings of Madame de..." or "Algiers." The only complaint I have about this film is with regards to Sondheim's score. It's good when it stays in the background, but unfortunately it often becomes intrusive and in a 'cheap modern', second-hand-Stravinsky-meets-broadway way that's really annoying. Resnais would've been better off, even with a restrained Ennio Morricone score than this type of bogus music. Other than that one minor tolerable annoyance "Stavisky" is an awe-inspiring masterpiece.

....problem was there was not enough groundwork laid per how Stavisky came to wield such influence. Sasha Stavisky was nothing more than an elevated 'Ponzi' - buying influence and stealing millions.

There were riots, as noted by another reviewer after Stavisky's death, in Paris, that did result in deaths. I wish the film had gone deeper in showing the horrific impact of what the First World War did to Europe - Trotsky was sanitized in this film - yes he had arrived from the Prinkipo Islands (Turkey) and yes he was hounded by Stalin until he was murdered in 1940 in Mexico. But the problem was the script - they include Trostky but they make no mention of who he was - the former COC of the Red Army and a cold blooded murderer - (Kronstadt, Tsaritsyn, Ekaterinberg...). I will say they at least showed the usual addiction young people have to leftists but there is never an older person aware of the fraud the young adore.

France has a well deserved reputation of offering asylum even with strings attached i.e. Trotsky and Stavisky. The killings Jan. 2014 in Paris by the Muslim terrorists is proof why it is wise to be armed.

I found the acting adequate but the script was weak - it reminded me of a 'watchable' version of Bobby Dangerfield. No real analysis of Stavisky's moves but a constant sub rosa message for how cruelly a bolshevik was forced to leave France.

While this is far from my favorite French film, I did enjoy it--particularly as it did a good job of both including the historical aspects of 1933 with an in-depth portrait of a charming sociopath who had a touch of madness. The main character, Stavisky, was ably portrayed by Jean Paul Belmondo and it was very interesting to see the supporting work done by Charles Boyer (in one of his last films). However, I think the best work was done by the writers as they did an accurate job of showing a certain type of sociopath--the anti-social personality with some evidence of a thought disorder. The main character, though completely amoral and conniving, truly seemed to believe he was special and "moral" and that his illegal schemes would somehow magically work out fine. He stole and lied and cheated but somehow felt that society's laws were not intended for someone like him. In some ways, it makes you wonder if some of our most famous and successful moguls and politicians have a touch of Stavisky inside of them!

This film is individual enough that it's easy to overlook it's being one of a series of similar stories: The Way We Live Now (based on a real figure), The Great Gatsby, Madoff. Unlike the first and last, but somewhat like Gatsby, this film makes the central character likeable, largely by emphasizing the ambiant anti-Semitism that surrounds him (and of course by casting Belmondo in the role). This theme gives more meaning to the curious character of a German Jewish woman, who plays no obvious role in Stavisky's life, but who might be viewed as his direct opposite in a number of ways, not least her proudly proclaiming her origins. The story itself is fairly episodic, showing specific situations and outcomes, but without really making them interact in a way that drives them forward. They just take their expected place in the sequence. The main reasons to watch this film are the actors, including not only an aging Charles Boyer and a young Depardieu, but a host of actors whose careers only grew from there. Certainly, if you're a fan of beautiful cars and beautiful women in beautiful clothes, especially in the Thirties, the visual beauty of this film is also a major reason to watch it.

Not least of the selling points for this movie is the chance to see Charles Boyer back on his own turf after making a fortune and a reputation in Hollywood. Perhaps best known for his refusal to 'speak' to a cockroach in Mitchell Liesen's 'Hold Back The Dawn', following which screenwriters Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett truncated his part and 'threw' the movie to Olivia de Havilland, Boyer was nevertheless a sensitive man, as well he might be with a philosophical degree from the Sorbonne who, rather than go on living without his wife, committed suicide two days after her death. With 20-20 hindsight it's tempting to look for parallels here - Stavisky was made four years prior to Boyer's suicide and he made only a further two on-screen appearances - in respect of Stavisky topping himself in the 12th reel but speculation aside Boyer does score heavily as what might be described as a thoroughbred who's been nobbled. He cheerfully pisses away his 'old money' in pursuit of the good life but when the chips are down he remains resolutely loyal to the lovable rogue who has lied to him blatantly.

Any film that features Francois Perier can't be all bad and here again he lends gravitas to an essentially lightweight project. All the production values are out of the right bottle and nostalgists will have a field day. The jury's still out on Belmondo but the film itself is well worth seeing. 6/10

Based on a true story, this French period piece chronicles Alexandre Stavisky, financier of the 1930s. Starring Jean-Paul Belmondo as the slick charmer, and costarring Charles Boyer as his pal, the movie takes the audience through a fun, excessive ride with authentic looking hairstyles, clothing, automobiles, and interior design. Even if you're not paying attention to the subtitles, you'll probably enjoy this movie because of the visuals. I was paying attention to the subtitles, but I got a little lost sometimes keeping track of the shady business deals and Jean-Paul's double-crosses.

I've never seen Charles Boyer in a French movie before, so even though he had white hair and a beard, it was so much fun for me to see him in this movie. I don't know why he wasn't cast as Honoré Lachaille in Gigi, but in this movie, he's just as jolly and exuberant as he could have been in the grand musical. Ladies, if you prefer to remember him young, you might not want to watch this one, but you can try and find some French movies he made in the early 1930s. With a fun, lively score from Stephen Sondheim, and a three-minute cameo from future superstar Gérard Depardieu, you'll be entertained by Stavisky, even if you don't know what's going on.

This story of a conman is elevated by Resnais direction and the writing from the late Jorge Semprun. The narrative structure takes a couple minutes to get into, and I'm still not entirely sure what Trotsky (yes, the one and only) is doing in the plot entirely except as a backdrop of the period and how Stavisky, I think, ultimately ties in with him being deported from the country to get out of his already asylyumed state. But the two main characters here are Belmondo, super charming as always but here his bs-artiste type from Breathless is given more of a dose of reality and even psychological realism, and Stephen Sondheim's score, which comes in from time to time almost too insistently, like a melodramatic friend asking to amp up a walk down a hallway or a tracking shot (though, damn, don't those tracking shots get lovelier with Sondheim's strings and horns backing things up). We want to see where this guy will go and how far he can take his schemes because we know there is ruin lying ahead.

I think there was a point about midway through where I was getting somewhat restless, as to the thought 'Resnais and Semprun and company have shown us this character, his very sleazy yet undoubtedly charming way of being around people, but where will it go now, what will the movie do to keep things interesting'. And in its own way it becomes more interesting than just being a series of 'how will he get out of this' as it is 'it's time for the downfall, let's hear what his associates, doctor, lawyer, the love he didn't really have - that was the one thing in the film that, while nice and had certain, brief sensual mood, was underdeveloped - had to say ala Citizen Kane. And another fascination comes with bringing the theater itself into it. Stavisky/Alex could have made just a wonderful actor, maybe a protégé of Stanislavski, but he decided to take it into the real world as opposed to just the stage, where he could read lines next to other actors but not as confidently as in a fine suit and cigar giving our fake money.

Maybe that explains, in a metaphorical part, the Trotsky thing, since Stavisky himself was from Russia too: the best way to subvert Capitalism, perhaps, is to just make a mockery of it, f**k the system and get away with millions and millions, always with a smile and courtesy. It's a moody, entertaining ride, the French-socio-historical- political flip-side of something like The Sting, also from the same time.

Alain Resnais is a sort of a movie God in this era that whatever be the film he makes it becomes a classic and a sort of avant-garde cult favorite: my expectations of this movie where exactly as high as they could have been given for any other one like Spielberg today -even more than that because Spielberg is too much Hollywood for me-. The questions in theorizes that we ask ourselves what could possibly have been happening inside of the head of the master director of the French cinema named Alain Resnais while he was making this terrible monster of a movie?! Possibly he wouldn't know him selves and that is all the sad thing about it.

'Stavisky' (1974) is Alain Resnais' most successful film with the public, which may be partly due to the fact that it's one of his most accessible films, but mostly to the exceptional cast led including Jean-Paul Belmondo. For him, the role of Serge Alexandre Stavisky is one of the most complex and serious of his career, a role in which he is brilliant without abandoning the personal charm that built his fame. It was also one of the cases where the critics did not quite agree with the audience, as Resnais's elegant and colorful vision did not match the political approach and social criticism that they expected from a film that recreated one of the famous cases of French history, a time when the Third Republic was closer than ever to an economic catastrophe and a coup d'état. In the perspective of the 50 years that will soon be celebrated since the release of the film, we can appreciate that Resnais' bet on the complexity of the character and his relations with the surrounding society was won, at least from an artistic point of view.

As this is a film by Alain Resnais, we are not surprised if the story is not told linearly. The narrative structure seemed very modern to me, and then I realized that it is almost identical to that of 'Oppenheimer', one of the blockbusters of 2023, with three narrative planes: the testimonies from the Stavisky Case investigation that generate flashbacks related to the events set in the final months of the hero's career and life, which are in turn interrupted by flashbacks to the period of the 1920s in which his first adventures and encounters with the law had taken place. The portrait of Stavisky is drawn gradually and it is a complex portrait. Apparently in 1933 he was at the peak of his glory, living an exuberant lifestyle together with his beautiful wife, Arlette, surrounded by politicians, bankers, nobility and men of the law, some of whom were his cronies or bought by him, and at the same time he was known in artistic circles as a patron of the arts and especially of the theater. But everything was based on a series of scams, pyramid schemes facilitated by the years of inflation due to the great global economic crisis. His social position means that he is surrounded by friends, false friends, but also enemies waiting for the moment to destroy him. There is a scene in 'Stavisky' where the hero reveals his vulnerability. Without ever telling him directly, his political and business enemies spread rumors about his ethnic origin - he was second generation in France and son of Jewish immigrants from early 20th century Tsarist Russia. Citizen Stavisky throws in the face of the interlocutor his identity card, his voter card and his invalid card, a proof that he had fought at the front in the Great War and had been wounded for France. In the eyes of many of those around him and part of the press, however, he remained a 'meteque'.

Jean-Paul Belmondo is terrific as Stavisky. Nonchalance and bravado characterized him until the last moments of his life. The mystery of his death is not resolved in the film. Suicide or assassination? We'll probably never know. His wife is played by Anny Duperey, and his friend Baron Jean Raoul is played by Charles Boyer in the penultimate role of a formidable career. In parallel with the main plot, a secondary plot follows the period of Leon Trotzky's stay in France as a political refugee after fleeing Stalin's Soviet Union. Stavisky and Trotzky never met, and their destinies represent two poles of the possible destinies of Jewish émigrés from what had been the tsarist empire, two men who choose opposite paths: one takes advantage of the system and climbs the capitalist social and economic hierarchy, the other plans and acts to destroy it. I also noticed in the cast Silvia Badescu, a beautiful and talented actress born in Romania who had a surprisingly short career, Michael Lonsdale, an actor I love who never disappointed and Gérard Depardieu at the beginning of his career, proving in just one scene his huge talent. The film's score is composed by Stephen Sondheim, one of only two films for which he composed an entire soundtrack (the other being Warren Beatty's 'Reds') and it contributes, along with Sacha Vierny's cinematography and Jacqueline Moreau's costume design, to the sophisticated and sumptuous look of the film. Befitting the hero and befitting the ambitions of Alain Resnais.