Asides

Image of the day, 2/3/10

By February 3, 2010No Comments

Lola

Just one of the many trenchant, multi-layered, alto­geth­er sub­lime images from the divine Max Ophuls’ 1955 Lola Montes, an oft-mutilated and mis­rep­res­en­ted mas­ter­piece that’s soon to come in a beau­ti­fully restored edi­tion from The Criterion Collection. Andrew Sarris has called this the greatest film ever made, and it is only lately that this view­er begins to appre­hend why. I’ll be grap­pling with the ques­tion in a future post, near­er the dis­c’s February 16 release date. Film lov­ers really need to make them­selves a Valentine’s Day gift of this one… 

No Comments

  • Yuval says:

    Didn’t Sarris call Madam de… the greatest?

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    Sarris, after the 1963 NYFF screen­ing: ” ‘Lola Montes’ is, in my unhumble opin­ion, the greatest film of all time, and I am will­ing to stake my crit­ic­al repu­ta­tion, such as it is, on this one pro­pos­i­tion above all others.”

  • bill says:

    I’d always had the idea that some­where or anoth­er Paul Schrader said that MADAME DE… was the greatest film of all time, but since see­ing the film, I haven’t been able to find the quote, and, in fact, I believe I found some Schrader quote where he said SANSHO THE BAILIFF, or some or Mizoguchi film (or was it Ozu?) was the greatest film of all time.
    Clearly, some­body has said that MADAME DE… is the greatest film of all time, but now they are try­ing to sup­press that opinion.

  • Yuval says:

    Sarris def­in­itely thinks Madam de… is the greatest as he stated in the link above. But I guess he felt dif­fer­ently in 63.

  • Stephanie says:

    Sarris was giv­en to over­state­ment in his salad days. The cast­ing of Martine Carol alone would deny Lola Montes a place on the top­most tier, but I look for­ward to read­ing argu­ments to the contrary.

  • Paul Johnson says:

    In the very good antho­logy Favorite Movies: Critics’ Choices edited by Philip Nobile, Sarris’ wife, Molly Haskell, has an essay on Madame de… Sarris writes about Ugetsu.

  • Brian says:

    My heart lit­er­ally skipped a beat when I saw this post. I love LOLA, and only have the mediocre DVD copy that’s been in cir­cu­la­tion for the last few years, so this Criterion disc is great, great news. The extras sound won­der­ful, too.

  • Asher says:

    Sarris has said that both are the greatest, actu­ally. He said Lola was the greatest when it came out, and he says Earrings is the greatest today. There are those that think Letter From an Unknown Woman is the greatest. The oth­er day I read that when La Signora Di Tutti came out people said it was the greatest. The first time I saw The Reckless Moment I thought it was the greatest. I think some people have even said Liebelei is the greatest movie ever. Obviously some­thing about Ophuls inspires this kind of over­powered enthu­si­asm, as com­pared to a John Ford, who every­one seems to love these days but who rarely gets greatest film ever plaudits (except for The Searchers). I have to say though that Ophuls’s movies rarely impress me nearly as much a second time through as they do the first time I see them – and I think that’s per­haps because Ophuls, like Hitchcock, though in very dif­fer­ent ways, is a mas­ter of audi­ence manip­u­la­tion, such that when you see Letter or Earrings or Lola or The Reckless Moment for the first time, you think, “this is the saddest/most moving/most tra­gic thing I’ve ever seen,” a response which a second view­ing can­’t help but fail to eli­cit. Whereas Ford, for example, does not manip­u­late the view­er in the same way; his greatest films are great pre­cisely because they aren’t designed to eli­cit any one response, but rather, are craf­ted, if you’ll for­give the banal­ity, to make you think, debate, ask ques­tions. Which is why I can go back to Liberty Valence fifty or a hun­dred times, because my enjoy­ment of the movie does­n’t at all depend on any unex­pec­ted dir­ect­ori­al tricks, but on the oppos­ite, on the movie’s unsettled­ness. For the same reas­on, though, few people say of any Ford that it’s the greatest film ever made, because his movies are too open-ended to reduce you to a puddle of tears (or of ter­ror, or any­thing) the way Ophuls can. The more of Ophuls I see, the more I think that Le Plaisir might be the best thing he ever did. There he’s not put­ting his immense skills in the ser­vice of some big crash­ing melo­dra­mat­ic finale; he simply stands back and observes, and there’s no one who can observe like he can. Who else could take five men sit­ting togeth­er by a pier because the town brothel’s closed and make it some­thing so magical?

  • partisan says:

    Wouldn’t it be cool (or just nice) if there was a blog post or some­thing where you could see what major crit­ics thought were their favor­ite film of all time. I believe Jim Hoberman’s was “The Man with a Movie Camera,” and Jonathan Rosenbaum’s is either “Playtime” or the last Dreyer movie he saw.

  • S. Porath says:

    I was lucky enouh to see a pristine print of this at a loc­al film fest­iv­al last summer…positivly stun­ning. Carol was good enough in it, Ustinov was great as usu­al, and Anton Walbrook is just bril­liant. It was fas­cin­at­ing to see it around the same time as I first saw Demy’s film- where Lola her­self is a stronger force in the film (And I love Anouk Aimee).

  • The Siren says:

    @Asher: “a response which a second view­ing can­’t help but fail to elicit…”
    Well, no. I get that feel­ing again and again from Ophuls. And while I have pro­claimed my deep and abid­ing love and admir­a­tion for Ford many times here and else­where, I think he’s an odd counter­example to set against Ophuls’ alleged pre­dilec­tion for “crash­ing melo­dra­mat­ic finales.” Liberty Valance (a great film) in par­tic­u­lar ends on a emo­tion­al and iron­ic note that is not too far off from Letter from an Unknown Woman.
    Also, re: Martine Carol – I think she is more than adequate to the part. Lola is a woman to whom his­tory just hap­pens, and Carol’s rather opaque, mari­on­ette qual­ity emphas­izes that.
    I can­’t wait to see this again.

  • jbryant says:

    I just saw MADAME DE… for the first time a few days ago, and while I sup­pose any­thing’s pos­sible, at the moment I can­’t ima­gine my esteem for it dimin­ish­ing upon fur­ther view­ings. At least I haven’t felt that with LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN or the oth­er Ophuls I’ve seen (haven’t caught LOLA MONTES yet).
    Seeing SANSHO tonight for the first time, and hop­ing to do a Rossellini double fea­ture, with FLOWERS OF ST. FRANCIS and VOYAGE TO ITALY, the lat­ter of which has been in my DVR for over a year.