Thursday, March 11, 2010

#41: Le Doulos (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1962)

Released: December 13, 1962

a.k.a.: The Finger Man

Director: Jean-Pierre Melville; Screenplay: Jean-Pierre Melville based on a novel by Pierre Lesou; Cinematography: Nicolas Hayer; Music: Jacques Loussier and Paul Misraki; Producers: Carlo Ponti and Georges de Beauregard; Studio: Pathé Contemporary Pictures

Cast: Jean-Paul Belmondo (Silien), Serge Reggiani (Maurice Faugel), Monique Hennessy (Thérese), Jean Desailly (Superintendant Clain), René Lefevre (Gilbert Varnove), Phillipe March (Jean)

I have really gone back and forth with how to approach this one for the countdown. The French origin has never been a concern, as I’ve already established that non-English films certainly qualify in my book. The main thing was deciding whether to go ahead and include it in this series or hold it out until I decide to do something devoted to neo-noir. It’s not that I’m necessarily a stickler for the traditional time frame of film noir, but once you start getting into the 60s, I tend to unconsciously start lumping most movies into the “neo” category. Melville made a number of films that have to figure prominently in any sort of neo-noir series, so I was torn on whether to rank this one here or wait and address it alongside other Melville films like Le Samourai and Le Cercle Rouge. After watching it again, what ultimately convinced me to go ahead and include it here is that it achieves a look and feel that captures the atmosphere of 40s and 50s Hollywood crime films. It plays like a highly stylized take on Melville’s favorite movies.

At the same time, as a result of this indecisiveness, I have no doubt that I’ve penalized the film in terms of placement. If the only criterion was a simple “10-point scale” ranking, Le Doulos would probably be higher than other films that will place ahead of it in the countdown. But in a countdown devoted exclusively to film noir – film noir, as I define it – I can’t place it ahead of some classics of the style/genre that I think deserve a high placement. Hopefully this makes sense, because that is the best that I can explain it!


I’ve seen the narrative described as confusing, but I think the better label would be tricky. It’s not that it’s hard to follow, but the jumping back and forth between the points of view of Maurice (Serge Reggiani) and Silien (Jean-Paul Belmondo) can certainly be complicated. By the time the film ends, though, this narrative structure works quite well, as the main focus of the entire story is a kind of “honor among thieves” as Melville examines the loyalty and bond of two lifelong criminal partners. Maurice, recently released from prison, begins planning a number of jewel heists, but as police show up to foil a lucrative heist of a French estate, Maurice begins to suspect that an informer is tipping off the authorities. The obvious suspect is Silien, a man long suspected of being a professional informant. But as the details of his post-prison life are examined from different angles, Maurice begins to doubt even this obvious assumption. To go too far into detail about the nuanced, twist-laden plot would spoil things for those that haven’t seen it.

The first thing a viewer will notice is the black-and-white cinematography, which is at times almost unbearably dark. Melville and cinematographer Nicolas Hayer incorporate dark, dark blacks with bright lights to create incredibly harsh shadows. The opening scene, when Maurice enters the home of a former friend and partner, is one best opening scenes I've ever seen, ranking near something as impressive as the diner scene in The Killers. The entire upstairs room is pitch black, save for one hanging light bulb that somehow manages to create gargantuan shadows at impossible angles onto the back wall and staircase. It might not look natural, but it is certainly intentional – the impossible angles and massive shadows are intimidating. It’s an incredibly well constructed scene and Melville builds it to a perfect crescendo.


Besides Melville and Hayer behind the camera, Belmondo and Reggiani are strong enough to carry sections of the film on their own. As Silien, Belmondo comes across as likably sleazy and it’s impossible to get an accurate read on the character until things are revealed at the very end. Reggiani, on the other hand, plays a grim, resolute man. This is a world-weary thief, who seems to recognize that his way of life will likely lead to ruin, but is determined to see it through to the end. Like a great silent actor, much can be read just in the facial expressions and actions of Reggiani.

Jean-Pierre Melville is one of my favorite directors and is without question my most preferred in the storied history of French cinema. On the strength of this alone, I’m happy to be able to include him in this countdown. He certainly made better films than Le Doulos, but this one is not as well known as other efforts like Le Samourai and Army of Shadows. It should be, it is almost as good as those two recognized masterpieces.

12 comments:

  1. Well this is more of a neo-noir to me. I would say the same about Underworld USA. My own definition of noir is between 1941-58 and made in the states. I make two exceptions for Night and the City and The Third Man which use loads of american talent and I find utterly essential to any understanding of noir. I've seen this movie once and found it weaker than 2 or 3 other Melville's I have viewed. A second screening may change that opinion though since it is the kind of film that would probably reward multiple viewings. I know everyone has their own opinions on what noir is so there can never be any definitive consensus. A good review and I'm pleased that you seem to be hinting at tackling neo-noir when this list ends. I don't envy you though because it has to be the vaguest genre ever!! .....M.Roca

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dave, you know from last year that I'm another Melville fan, so I'm glad to see the man arrive in your countdown. Given your ambivalent enforcement of the chronological border between noir and neo-noir, I wonder where you stand on Le Deuxieme Souffle, which comes later than Doulos but is still in black-and-white, and Bob le Flambeur, which fits within the canonical period. I'd be inclined to cut the French some slack, since they obviously know what "noir" is as well as anybody.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And my love for Melville is also on the highest level, hence I applaud this selection here, which is richly deserved! My favorite Melville is LE CIRCLE ROUGE, followed by LE SAMAURAI, ARMY OF SHADOWS, LE DOULOS and LE SILENCE DE LA MAR, but LE DOULOS does seem like a natural choice, in large measure what you acutely observe there--that's it's a highly stylized 6take on Melville's favorite movies, and on 40's and 50's Hollywood. No matter how many times ones sees this, it holds up marvelously, and much has to do with the visual design which you address magnificently in this exceedingly fine review here:

    "The first thing a viewer will notice is the black-and-white cinematography, which is at times almost unbearably dark. Melville and cinematographer Nicolas Hayer incorporate dark, dark blacks with bright lights to create incredibly harsh shadows. The opening scene, when Maurice enters the home of a former friend and partner, is one best opening scenes I've ever seen, ranking near something as impressive as the diner scene in The Killers. The entire upstairs room is pitch black, save for one hanging light bulb that somehow manages to create gargantuan shadows at impossible angles onto the back wall and staircase. It might not look natural, but it is certainly intentional – the impossible angles and massive shadows are intimidating. It’s an incredibly well constructed scene and Melville builds it to a perfect crescendo."

    LE DOULOS poses an "existential twist" to the essence of American film noirs, which of course takes th efilm to lofty philosophical levels, while still examining typical noir elements like revenge, paranoia, loyalty, betrayal and deceit.

    Jean-Paul Belmondo is superlative as the inscrutable main character, and the Paris suburbs look more like New York City with its noirish underpinnings.

    A tremendous choice for this countdown.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave, have not seen this one but it seems like a natural. Hope to see it. I have watched two Melville's (Army of Shadows and Le Circle Rouge) both excellent though I favor "Shadows." Le Samarai I own and plan to watch soon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well I'm really glad you're including Melville Dave. I find it really hard to separate individual Melvilles and rank them simply because they all seem to be part of an extraordinary but whole body of work (excluding oddities like Bob le flambeur). That's something I could say of very few directors (Bresson and Boetticher, maybe).

    ReplyDelete
  6. M.Roca - We'll have to disagree on this one... I think it's great and has a feel similar to how I described Scorsese's Shutter Island in the sense that it is a director making a movie that combines the elements of his favorite films.

    Samuel - You'll see that my dealing with films like those from Melville will be on a case-to-case basis... some I'll include, others just won't feel right in this countdown.

    Sam - Melville really is a master. I've always thought it helps too that being in France he was able to arguably be even more brutal and fatalistic than American contemporaries or influences.

    John - This one is right up your alley, as is Le Samourai for that matter.

    Doniphon - Yes, I went back and forth on how to handle Melville and just decided to look at each film individually. I definitely think Le Doulos is one of his best, even if it is obviously below masterworks like Le Samourai and Army of Shadows.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dave, I'm a big fan of all things noir and all things French, so naturally I love Melville. But I have to say that I consider this the weakest of his noirs. If Melville had a fault, it was the tendency to overelaboration and loose ends in his plots. Nowhere is this more obvious than in this film, with its long explanation by Belmondo at the end of what really happened. This is the same quality that kept me from liking "Le Cercle Rouge" as much as some, although I did prefer it to this film. After I began to recognize this tendency, I upgraded my appreciation of "Le Samourai," which seems admirably straightforward and linear in comparison. An interesting comment by Doniphon about the continuity of style and theme in Melville's films. I see this too, but for me the oddities are "Le Samourai" because of its simplicity and "Army of Shadows" because of its setting (although as David Thomson observed, it simply replaces the cops/betrayers and criminals with Nazis/collaborators and the Resistance). You talk about "noir" and "neo-noir" but I'm not sure what your definition of these terms is. Can you clarify what your criteria for inclusion in the countdown are? We know its not nationality, but what other things did you consider when deciding whether an individual movie was appropriate for inclusion in the countdown? You also mentioned something else in this review that I've been wondering about. When you rank these movies, are you evaluating them as movies or as exemplars of film noir? I'm getting the impression that you're giving a lot of weight to the latter, probably more than I would be inclined to.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that the explanation at the end of this one is completely unnecessary, but the rest of the elements work so well for me that I'm able to overcome that.

    When I rank these movies, both of those factors are included. In general, I'm ranking them as flat out movies. But in some cases - as Samuel Wilson and I have touched on a number of times - I sometimes lean toward more "exemplars of noir" if it's a toss up between films.

    I can't really give a better definition of what I'm using for what is noir and what is not than Potter Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it." I'm not ignoring your question for a definition, but I don't necessarily have one completely written out to post for you. My definition includes traditional elements - cynical attitudes, low-key expressionistic lighting, fatalistic, pessimistic, ambiguous characters. They don't have to have all of these, but something along these lines. But more than any particular element, it's more about a general feeling I get from a film. Some movies feel noir to me, others don't. There are movies that others probably consider noir that I won't include in the countdown and vice-versa. That's the beauty of being the one making the definition and the list... I can choose things on my own terms! :)

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this film and Melville in general. I think the man is one of the greatest to ever work in film and Le Samourai and Army of Shadows two of the best movies I've ever seen.

    Distinguishing noir from neo-noir gets even trickier and I don't have the time or energy to work my way through that debate just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dave, thanks for responding to my questions--things I've been wondering about for a while but never got around to asking. Your explanation of what noir means to you is familiar because it pretty much corresponds to my own. I know some people have very precise definitions of the term and wondered if you were one of them. Like you, certain specific things--but most of all the overall feeling--tell me if what I'm watching is noir or not. I didn't mean to imply that I don't like Melville. I do like him very much. I agree that "Le Samourai" and "Army of Shadows" are masterpieces (as is "Bob le Flambeur," for me the best of them all). I only meant that those two don't seem to fit so easily into the pattern of the rest of his films I've seen. As for the noir/neo-noir distinction, it's something I think about and haven't really defined for myself. It probably has to do with chronology and the question of at what point the genre became aware of itself and therefore self-referential, but I haven't really thought it out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. R.D. - Wow... we seem to actually be in completely agreement, although it didn't look that way at first! (LOL) Glad to hear that I just misunderstood the feelings about Melville. I understand where you're coming from in framing Le Doulos though.

    And I'm also very glad to see that others define something as vacuous as "noir" by a feeling rather than strict criteria. For me, there can even be degrees of noir, if that makes sense. Out of the Past is pure noir. Raw Deal is pure noir. Double Indemnity is pure noir. A Place in the Sun is a drama with some noirish characteristics. Hopefully that makes sense.

    Like you, the noir/neo-noir distinction is one that I'm not certain I have completely fleshed out in my own mind. It's pretty arbitrary... in general, but the time we're in the mid-60s, I'd definitely say neo-noir. I think a case can be made for anything in the 60s, but I felt like I needed to include movies like this and Underworld U.S.A.

    Great discussion here, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dave, I like that observation about degrees of noir--and great examples, too. I often use the term noirish. The (visual) style was so prevalent in the late 40s-early 50s that it often bled over into other types of movies, especially before color became standard. As for the neo-noir business, I was just curious if you were contemplating a cut-off date for inclusion in the countdown, which you pretty much answered. As always, I'm trying to predict to myself what to expect to see here in the future and wondered if pictures like "Point Blank," "Chinatown" and "L.A.Confidential," which I love because of their noirishness, would be likely to appear in the countdown. Given your answer that seems unlikely. Thanks again for your ideas on one of my pet genres.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ah, at last a film that I've seen! Top review, Dave. It certainly is one of Melville's best with an unforgettable ending...

    ReplyDelete