In general the Criterion Collection has been pretty reliable for me, and while I'm glad I came across this film, I see it as a somewhat ambitious failure. I have not read the Thompson novel from which it was drawn, but transplanting a story from the American South to crumbling colonial West Africa alone is inspired.
If the film is a comedy, then it did not work me. The melding of slapstick with social commentary ran thin for me, but again it could just be that I lack le bone funny. At least I recognized parts here that likely were intended to be ribald (as opposed to some Japanese humor, where I'm often completely lost).
Perhaps it is not that the humor is stupid (although the recurring dimwit incest interlude and the outhouse surprise...surely push it), but that the characters are stupid. That being said, the lead character it is of course crucial that you see him as a bozo of sorts, but behind his broad caricature of indolence, is there some intuition or even initiative stashed away? Again, an ambitious choice to have an apparent laggard as your lead character. He's seen as perpetually exhausted and at the same time amazingly lazy. An inept if not corrupt sheriff, but potentially very fair-minded. A slothful yet irresistible sex machine? That character alone was worth the watch for me, especially a couple of more serious discussions he has.
But ultimately what does the film do? Take us from the joys of a meaningless existence to the tragedy of a meaningless existence. The directors sets up some of the early kills as somewhat justified, only to move through less and less "necessary" slaughter ending abruptly with the image of innocence being as wantonly wasted? And that image is meant to tie back visually to the films start, as if to imply this is just the way of the world. A cycle of violence.
Does this excuse our pot-bellied peculiar policeman? Do his messianic delusions even make sense, as he plots to seduce the "pure" schoolteacher? And do the three women intentionally seem to similar, as if they are plots along the same curve and that curve is a circle.
I don't know, and regrettably I did not care as much as I should have. Perhaps the clumsiness of the film that might pass as charm for other viewers? Perhaps the predictable randiness, that even a few decades ago felt like a use of sex as cheap titillation.
Is it just a parable of despair? Is it just a jokey eulogy for the colonial ways, saying adieu to its greed, stupidity and savagery? I don't know, that's why it gets a 5/10 for me... I do know that it makes me want to read the Thompson novel to see what inspired Tavernier to take on this.
See what you think, but if you think I'm too harsh on the stupidity of the film, I hope you get the DVD that offers the proposed alternate ending with two monkeys... Ugh...that would have got a 3/10.
If the film is a comedy, then it did not work me. The melding of slapstick with social commentary ran thin for me, but again it could just be that I lack le bone funny. At least I recognized parts here that likely were intended to be ribald (as opposed to some Japanese humor, where I'm often completely lost).
Perhaps it is not that the humor is stupid (although the recurring dimwit incest interlude and the outhouse surprise...surely push it), but that the characters are stupid. That being said, the lead character it is of course crucial that you see him as a bozo of sorts, but behind his broad caricature of indolence, is there some intuition or even initiative stashed away? Again, an ambitious choice to have an apparent laggard as your lead character. He's seen as perpetually exhausted and at the same time amazingly lazy. An inept if not corrupt sheriff, but potentially very fair-minded. A slothful yet irresistible sex machine? That character alone was worth the watch for me, especially a couple of more serious discussions he has.
But ultimately what does the film do? Take us from the joys of a meaningless existence to the tragedy of a meaningless existence. The directors sets up some of the early kills as somewhat justified, only to move through less and less "necessary" slaughter ending abruptly with the image of innocence being as wantonly wasted? And that image is meant to tie back visually to the films start, as if to imply this is just the way of the world. A cycle of violence.
Does this excuse our pot-bellied peculiar policeman? Do his messianic delusions even make sense, as he plots to seduce the "pure" schoolteacher? And do the three women intentionally seem to similar, as if they are plots along the same curve and that curve is a circle.
I don't know, and regrettably I did not care as much as I should have. Perhaps the clumsiness of the film that might pass as charm for other viewers? Perhaps the predictable randiness, that even a few decades ago felt like a use of sex as cheap titillation.
Is it just a parable of despair? Is it just a jokey eulogy for the colonial ways, saying adieu to its greed, stupidity and savagery? I don't know, that's why it gets a 5/10 for me... I do know that it makes me want to read the Thompson novel to see what inspired Tavernier to take on this.
See what you think, but if you think I'm too harsh on the stupidity of the film, I hope you get the DVD that offers the proposed alternate ending with two monkeys... Ugh...that would have got a 3/10.