Jean-Louis, un ingénieur de trente-quatre ans est embauché chez Michelin à Clermont-Ferrand, après avoir bourlingué pour son boulot en Amérique du Sud et au Canada. Il fera la rencontre de Françoise, une jeune étudiante et de Maud, la maîtresse d'un ami d'enfance. Choix et scrupules religieux, moraux mèneront l'hésitation de Jean-Louis ..... www.cinefiches.com
Without seemingly lifting a finger, this film covers a whole gamut of life: faith, sex, contradictions, lies and so on - and yet the power lies in the rapier precise script so ably performed by this quartet around the square of four partly interconnected lives. You need to catch it in the right (receptive) mood but it's a gem of human truths underlined by Rohmer's understated wisdom.
less unsteady, more moralistically pointed than the first two moral tales. there might be a little less moving room in terms of interpretation of the grey areas in a certain christian morality that jean-louis espouses but all the players are more roundly characterized. rohmer's deeply humanistic/reasonable approach to the confrontation of individual belief and non-binary morality is wonderful.
Few directors consistently made/make genuinely good films about human relationships throughout their careers, but Eric Rohmer is the king of those few masters that rarely failed to craft great works of art just by putting a few characters discussing their ideas from start to finish. My Night at Maud's, a gem about the everlasting contradictions between beliefs and actions, remains one of his most well-realized films.
The apex of ethical filmmaking in the moral tales so far. Unlike previous entries Rohmer's gaze is less scathing - though we might read 'Maud' as the instability of ethics in the face of a beautiful woman. Rather I see it as the cost of transgression on the lives of people who try to live by a code; the spiritual and moral ramifications for betraying your ethics, even briefly. Great but less vibrant.
As a cinematic experience, a lot less interesting than Godard, Antonioni and others of the same vein. Emotionally dry, which for me is a turn-off, and although in some cases philosophical ponderings are great, Rohmer's approach created a distance, which left me unable to connect with the film. The focus on the reaction of the recipient instead of the speaker was great, though, and overall still a definite classic.