Movie #25: Released in 1953, directed by Max Ophuls, 105 minutes. New to me!

LetterBoxd score: 4 stars

This was one of those watches that, at the end, I couldn’t quite see why the movie was so highly regarded. I could see the plot was quite clever, with the titular earrings serving as both a funny plot point and taking on the role of avatar of affection. Baron Donati is all charm. The count seems like a real, three-dimensional person. The cinematography has notable moments: I especially liked the Count’s imposing painting looming over the action, and the sequence when fragments of torn up love letters in the wind transitions to snowfall. The ending is great, though perhaps slightly abrupt.

So all in all, maybe I am talking myself into thinking it actually is a perfectly made little movie. So why do I keep thinking of it as “very good” but not necessarily great?

Maybe it’s simply a matter of not empathizing enough with the characters, so that their struggles elicited a lot of emotion in me. This isn’t the first time I’ve failed to connect with adulterous rich French people. Maybe it’s that their love seems sort of empty and hollow, without substance. The substance of their love is that they love each other. They don’t talk about much else, if I recall. The Baron seems to be interpreted as a potential means of escape for Madame, but from what into what?

Why would someone think it’s one of the ten greatest movies ever made?

Well, as noted above, there is a sense in which it’s perfect at what it’s trying to do. I can see how someone on another wavelength might connect more deeply with what it is trying to do. Moreover, after watching some of the commentary features on Criterion Channel, I can see now that really does have innovative camera work.

At the same time, one of the commentary tracks seems to ascribe a bit too much significance to everything. Indeed, I wonder if this is a more general tendency. Some (very good) films, for idiosyncratic reasons, become paragons of greatness. They attract critical interpretation and commentary. And before long there is a gigantic superstructure of meaning and interpretation build upon the foundation of what is, in the end, only a very good movie. Now, when you watch the movie, you are really interacting with the layers and layers of critical interpretation and allegory. It’s about much more than it began. But much of that meaning is extra textual, and could well have agglomerated on another candidate film, in another universe where, for idiosyncratic reasons, another film became the focal point.

Next: Tokyo Story