Watch My Night at Maud's For Free

Strong and Moving!

Load of rubbish!!

Fantastic!

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

As the young protagonist, a Catholic with a precise set of morals, jousts with his friend about Pascal and his belief that we must embrace religion because it's the safest course, we see what I would call a failure to meet life head on. I never found this guy an attractive character because he was so caught up in his righteousness. When he meets Maude, who could have been a wonderful addition to his life, he is so full of "morality" that he passes her by. One can be dead without the physical act of dying. Apparently, the women he encountered in the past grew tired of his sense of perfection. Maude does everything to entice him and he ends up in an embrace that he rejects. At that moment his very sterility is exposed. He has the hots for a pretty young woman who goes to his church, Francoise, whom he pretty much stalks. She is right for him. She is pretty but also quite dull. Rohmer shows us he one can win in some respects but ultimately lose.

Jean-Louis (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is a recently converted devout Catholic, who at the beginning of the film, falls in love with a beautiful blonde named Francois (Marie-Christine Barrault) in Church. He follows her, but loses her in traffic. He meets old friend Vidal (Antoine Vitez) by chance in a restaurant and the two talk about their views on philosophy, religion and mathematics. They go to the house of Maud (Francois Fabian), a flirtatious, free-spirited woman who takes an interest in Jean-Louis. When the snow falls heavier outside, Jean-Louis is forced to spend the night at Maud's, putting a strain on his new found beliefs on marriage, commitment and fidelity.Eric Rohmer's film is full of dialogue. The characters talk and talk, often so intellectually that I had trouble keeping up. But the talk is interesting and intriguing. The main theme (it appeared to me, anyway) is the value of faith in a world where the likelihood of heaven is becoming increasingly unlikely. Jean-Louis, a former ladies man, fights his urges when Maud invites him into her bed. He eventually climbs in, feeling the cold, and begins to kiss her. He eventually pulls away, looking almost angry with himself. He obviously feels that an eternity in heaven, however unlikely the idea is, is worth more than a moment of weakness and happiness.The dialogue-heavy scenes may not appeal to everyone, it can at times be difficult to engage with the film and bourgeois characters. But it is richly rewarding and a highly intelligent character study. The film has an almost love/hate attitude to the idea of Christianity in a similar way to many of Bergman's greatest films. One of the most intellectually stimulating films of the French New Wave movement.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

I saw this back in the day, and -- unlike other French New Wave films -- this film changed my view of film making. Having seen it several times recently, however, I now think it is far better than I thought although I also think that it takes repeated viewings to fully appreciate (is that so unforgivable?). Many reviewers begin with the discourses on Pascal's wager and others refer to Rohmer's confirmation of middle class values. But I suggest that the film is really two films, both of which are fascinating, and which magnify each other. The first is the struggle between a strong woman (Maud) and a man superficially fixated on his image the woman-for-him (Jean-Louis). Here the film enjoys the happy coincidence of perfect casting and great acting. The second film is about all the talk that everyone else except Maud takes so seriously. The real drama is the first film. The second is just an ironic commentary on the first, but is crucial for revealing character, mostly Jean-Louis', but finally everyone's. Yes, the film has ambiguity (hence the need for repeated viewings), and the ambiguity adds to the drama of Jean-Louis' confusion about his pre-fab future. But I think the moral heart of the film, and the real assessment of characters, is defined by the honesty of their speeches, which is almost impossible to track on the first viewing. (You get the underlying drama at first, but not the intricacies of character revelation.) In the end, only one character proves really honest, and I find that to be the truly poignant -- and not entirely explicit -- implication of its ending. Some reviewers here got the point. But please ignore the griping of Franco-phobe pseudo-intellectuals who miss the point (unless of course you fit that description.) This timeless film is 10 out of 10.

The third of Rohmer's Moral Tales, and quite unlike the previous two. The first two clocked in at approximately 23 minutes and 54 minutes, respectively. "My Night at Maud's", almost two hours. While the first two Moral Tales were basically first-person narration accompanied by visuals, which were secondary but stimulating nonetheless, "My Night at Maud's" is a dialogue-driven piece in which character's exchange personal philosophies and trade the ideas of their favorite philosophers like baseball cards. Although I'm not sure of which films are in Richard Linklater's (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset) DVD collection, it would probably be safe to assume that this is one of them.Because it is a dialogue-driven piece, much more happens in the 54-minute-long "Suzanne's Career", Rohmer's second moral tale, than in "My Night at Maud's", which is about an hour longer. It can seem meandering at times, especially the first-half of the film, but put your trust in Rohmer. We're being bored to death for a reason. Listening to two Frenchmen discuss Pascal's Wager isn't very entertaining, but the payoff comes when, later on in the film, the characters are put into situations in which they have to make their own Pascal's wager, metaphorically speaking. The reward comes when we see these philosophies which they discussed tested in real-life situations, and we see how true, or untrue, to their ideals these characters are.During the first fifty minutes, you may be bored out of your skull, but the way the film unfolds, you'll probably want to go back and watch the first fifty minutes again after it's over.