…for reasons inaccessible to my conscious mind (maybe I was spurred on by Millie Perkins telling me in an interview that she was a fan of Jean Cocteau, or maybe, alas, I’m merely nostalgic*), I was seized by a desire to watch Cocteau’s Orpheus again.
Goddamn, it really is a magnificent piece of work.
Thanks be to God for the ability to actually have a DVD library, to the Criterion Collection, to Jean Cocteau, and all others involved. And if you are a stranger to this film, well, don’t be.
*Nostalgic not just for cinema past, but for The Smiths, even:
When I visited London with my girlfriend one spring break as an undergraduate, I insisted on visiting the BFI Southbank and seeing a film there. This was the film that we saw. It was absolutely appropriate for the “temple of cinema” sort of place that that theater is, and this screening remains one of the great moments in my moviegoing life. A “magnificent piece of work,” indeed!
Cocteau is always in the back of my mind – as are 100 other directors. I too own this and haven’t seen it since it came to DVD. Maybe it’s time to dust it off and experience his magic once again. Thanks for the reminder.
A master artist who was able to create masterworks in many forms. His book of essays on filmmaking are wonderful.
Thanks for the gorgeous Cocteau images, and especially for the Smiths cover art. This Charming Man, indeed.
So, does this film stand well enough on its own, or do you have to watch the two films that surround it in the trilogy to fully “get” it?
Because, somehow, I haven’t gotten around (as far as I can recall) to any of Cocteau’s films, and I added “Orpheus” to my Netflix (well, Rogers Video Direct, as I live in Canada) queue yesterday.
@ JC: By all means you may see this without seeing the other two. The “Orphic Trilogy” is so named because of a thematic affinity, not because the pictures are intredependent on each other. In fact “Orphee” is the best-realized and most artistically successful (and accessible) of the three. In other words, go for it!
Ah, good. Because I thought, at the very least, that this might be similar, in structure, to the Three Colours Trilogy by Kieslowski (sp?). Not that you can’t watch those films separately, but I think you get more from them when watched together over a few days.
So are these films different on the level of, say, Fassbinder’s BRD Trilogy? And speaking of Fassbinder, are you going to get back to Berlin Alexanderplatz any time soon, Glenn? I can assure you that the main character is at his most grating (self-pitying, whatever) in the first few episodes, and that it gets more engrossing as it goes along.
While the great Orpheus can certainly be enjoyed on its own, I’m not sure that’s fully true of The Testament of Orpheus. There are a number of references in it that probably can’t be appreciated without seeing the earlier film, including the roles played by Maria Casares, Francois Perier, and Edouard Dermithe. But you may also find that there’s something about Cocteau’s art that can bypass the intellect and delight even those who don’t completely understand what the hell is going on.
I have never seen the film in question, but that may change soon. I am familiar with Beauty and the Beast, and wonder if I am imagining a Peggy Lee film of her doing Fever with finger snapping arms coming out of glory holes, à la the torches in the beast’s palace?
Black Orpheus, another classic retelling of the Orpheus myth.
I didn’t know that The Smiths used a photo from Orpheus for their album cover. Thank you for revealing their source. I have a question, Glenn. If you post images from films on your blog, is that an infringement of copyright? Do you need permission, or is the permission implied? What if you used a photo of a celebrity as the basis for a work of art, like a painting? Is the image still covered by copyright? Like, Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe pictures? Jeff Koons used a postcard of puppies once and directed his assistants to make a ceramic of it. He was sued successfully by the photographer. But maybe that is because judge and jury alike found him to be a pompous and pretentious artist, and they didn’t appreciate the added value irony he brought to the table.
@ Hugh: What I do on this blog, image-wise, is I think pretty well covered under Fair Use rights. If I tried to sell t‑shirts with one of my screen caps from a movie on the front, things would be different, but as my images are for illustrative purposes (and are potentially promoting the films I’m writing about). Sometimes if I use a photo not from a film that I just got off a search, I may hear from the actual photographer requesting a credit, but I’ve never been asked to remove an image.