23 May 2012

really, really bad

worst movie. bad acting, bad sex, bad everything. not worth the cost of the disk. not worth a cent. offended not by nudity, but by bad acting, bad directing, bad casting. bad movie.

19 May 2012

Crude and Lewd

This review is from: Quiet Days in Clichy (Stille dage i Clichy) (DVD) When the only english language print of Quiet Days in Clichy was imported into the U.S. It was seized by customs for being obscene. It took a court ruling to allow it to be distributed here. The film is based on a book by controversial author Henry Miller, and tells of the sexual exploits of an American (probaby based on Miller himself) and a French buddy in Paris during the 1920's. The light-hearted tone of the film is accentuated by original music by Country Joe Macdonald. Shot in Black and white, the film retains the gritty style of Miller's writings. This is definitely art house stuff, not mainstream. There is considerable frontal nudity, both male and female, and a scene with unsimulated sex. The film is very definitely sexist, so if your wife is a card-carrying feminist, don't show it to her. It's the type of film that you will either love or hate. Anyone familiar with Henry Miller's writing should know what they are getting into before they purchase this film.

18 May 2012

Eros rules

I had seen this movie a year ago, and my impression was that France's air was being completely substituted with a scent of Eros, which to my personal acquaintance in situ was not so at all.Black and white picture leaves none indifferent to a screening. Surely, yes.

17 May 2012

Eros rules

I had seen this movie a year ago, and my impression was that France's air was completely being substituted with a scent of Eros, which to my personal acquaintance in situ was not so at all.Black and white picture leaves none indifferent to a screening. Surely, yes.

Ian Wright

11 May 2012

Rotten film, rubbish acting

My girlfriend said she'd never seen a porno film, so she dragged me intothecinema to see "Stille Dage i Clichy" in Copenhagen, when the film was new.To say it's a bad film is to overvalue Warhol's "Flesh." It was worse. Theonly good bit was right at the beginning, with the play on "Gray Day."Afterthat, it was downhill all the way.The acting was abysmal. The plot... well, what plot? The "Germs won'tattacka starving man" scene was memorably sickening. The bonking was overdone andhugely "in your face."For a poetic film, See "Last Year in Marienbad." Spot thedifference.IMHO, Miller wasn't a particularly good writer. His books did, however,marka turning-point in censorship. This film, though, has about the sameartistic qualities as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The ToolboxMurders."When the film ended, though, it was interesting to note that, while thewomen in the audience stood and put on their cardis and coats, the blokessat quite still for a minute or so :-) .

m-prior-1

07 May 2012

A seriously awful film

If you were there at the time the film makes sense. All of the tabooswere there to be broken and this one tried to break them all at oncejust to prove it could get away with it. So there's naked womeneverywhere (in poses 'pushing out the envelope' of the day), badlanguage and lavatorial humour in abundance. My guess is that theproducers were so fixated on pushing back the boundaries of the thenconventional taste, that even the most the most rudimentarycraftsmanship was contemptuously discarded.So it's a pity that the acting is terrible, wit is noticeable by itsabsence and the nudes aren't really all that exciting. Some gross outscan be amusing. These ones were not.With very little effort this could have been so much more fun and putone over on the wicked establishment at the same time.Watch 'I Am Curious' instead. It's (they're) no great shakes but muchbetter than this.

03 May 2012

Tansgressive cinema from 1970

Transgressive cinema from 1970, variously banned and criticised for years after initial release. The acting, staging and photography (B&W) show some age, resembling prehistoric reality TV- unsanitised, unwashed and at times just plain distasteful.The film is notable for its innovation, including the use of "speech bubbles" and a unique and often humourous score. The issue with showing generally unappealing and uninteresting people is that the film is similarly imbued with the same character. The scenes of 70's Paris are however great fun.Watching this leaves a strange taste in the mouth, like eating cake and forgetting to remove the cardboard base, or finding a hair in your mother-in-law's moussaka.

29 April 2012

Not great, but the girls are naked

Quiet Days in Clichy is based on a formerly banned Henry Miller novel. The film itself was banned at one time due to the graphic sexual content. What there is of a story involves the sexual exploits of Joey and Carl, who spend most of their time wandering around the French city of Clichy and meeting up with women. There is lots of explicit nudity, though, fortunately, all the women are fairly attractive. Joey and Carl aren't as attractive as the women they have sex with, but apparently their lustfulness and sexual candor is charming.Quiet Days in Clichy is filmed in black and white, and rather arty. There are long stretches where no dialogue is spoken and narrative duties are taken on by the music of Country Joe McDonald. I've only heard one song by Country Joe before this film, which was an anti-Vietnam song, but in Quiet Days in Clichy he sings mostly about what Joey and Carl are doing on screen. Sometimes this movie seems like a really long music video.The sex in this film isn't really arousing or anything, primarily because Joey and Carl are seen naked almost as much as the women. As I said before, neither Joey or Carl are particularly attractive. There's one scene where Joey is in the bath tub with a couple of prostitutes and decides to pee for no good reason, causing the women to leap out in disgust. I'm pretty sure this movie isn't really intended to be erotic. Or the director has a strange idea about what erotic is. Joey and Carl come across as juvenile misogynists alot of the time.There are moments of humor in the film, and there is a bohemian style about it that I liked, but it's not exactly a good movie by typical standards. If you want something a little different and aren't troubled by graphic sexuality, Quiet Days in Clichy isn't too bad. I doubt the majority of filmgoers will be able to sit through it, though.

Ladislav Volicer

27 April 2012

Interesting well made movies evocating the time before WWII

This is a poetic movie describing recollection of aging Henry Miller ofhisstay in Paris before the WWII. It follow the adventures decribed in thebookof the same title. The movie has both good humor and great bodies. I wouldlove to have a copy of this movie in any format.

daliang1

19 April 2012

totally a trash movie without any redeeming value

this is just one of those pro-tend-be "art-house" junk Euro made in70s,i do not know why blue-underground release this junk. A very boringmovie, 80% of time are silly fake love-making scenes with out anymeaning.poor plot, poor acting. silly slut and bastard(the main maleroles)There are really no likable people in the movie. If you like thiskind of movie, you should rent a real porn, just like last poster saidgive 1 vote just because no zero. I suggest no one should watch thispiece of trash. the only good thing in this movie is the music. Justforget about this movie and try your best to avoid it.

movieman_kev

18 April 2012

tedious days in Paris

Joey, a writer, and Carl, a Frenchman, are two bohemians living inParis spending all their time looking for more poon. All the women areslut and/ or mentally unstable and stupid only good for what's betweentheir legs in their world view and the film itself seems to suggestthat the idea is true. Based loosely on the Henry Miller book which wasin turn based loosely on his actual life. Made and seems to be only forthe pretentious and unbearable Art-house crowd. (hey even THEY havebase interests..I think) For the rest of you people (Ie. Normal) justgo rent some real porn instead, you'd get more out it. And likely moreof a plot to boot. I usually like the movies that Blue Undergroundchoose to release, but this one is a vast disappointment. It is howeverthe most anti-feminist movie you'll likely ever see. I guess thatdeserve something.My Grade: C- DVD Extras: "Dirty Movies, Dirty books" featurette; an 11 minute pieceon the music, Poster and stills gallery; Bios of Henrey Miller and JensThorsen DVD-ROM: Court Documents 2 Easter Eggs: highlight the word EXTRA in the extras menu, and theword CLICHY in the talent bios menu for 2 more clips of Barney Rossetinterviewed Eye Candy: Ulla Koppel. Suzanne Krage, Lisbet Lundquist, and LouiseWhite all so much flesh

Robert J. Maxwell

11 April 2012

Pretty irritating, Miller or not.

I don't know about this one. The point, if there was one, seemed to getby me. Multiple references to the film's source, Henry Miller'seponymous novel, don't help much. Much of Miller's appeal comes notjust from his go-to-hell attitude towards life and art but from the wayhe expresses his sentiments on the page. Maybe he just doesn'ttranslate well to the screen, not that Miller himself would care oneway or the other.The street words that Miller flung about so carelessly in his proseseem emphasized here, as if designed expressly to shock. Not just the Fword either. Well the street words are old and established. Shakespeareworked a terrible pun on the C word into one of his comedies, I forgetwhich. The F word goes back to the Angles and the Saxons or the Mooksand the Gripes or somebody. Wait a minute -- the C word was also workedinto a pun in "Hamlet," come to think of it."I feel like going out and getting myself a fatal dose of clap." Well,no kidding. Are we supposed to be shocked? Maybe we were, back in 1970,if we had blue hair and lived in Dogpatch, USA.If Henry Miller doesn't add much cachet, neither do Country Joe and theFish, whose music whangs away on the sound track with lyrics that areas pointlessly vulgar as the horribly dubbed dialog.Ben Webster is okay, though. And the photography, though irritatinglygrainy, is several steps removed from the billowing pastels ofsoft-core porn. It's honestly black and white, and the naked bodies, ofwhich there are plenty, aren't painted, trimmed, or shaved. If the babehas a pimple anywhere, you see the pimple. And the guys are bald on topand hairy everywhere else. A for sincerity there.The story goes no place. There is no story. People run around halfnaked on the streets of Paris, flapping their arms and panting,supposedly having a great time. Half a dozen ordinary-looking peopleslosh around in a tub pouring wine over one another and laughinggiddily because the director told them to act as if they were havingthe grandfather of all good times. (The French do this joi de vivrestuff better.) In the first scene of the film, the bespectacled hero, apallid imitation of Miller, picks up a girl in a café and, after sex,gives her all his money, can't get any more credit at the restaurants,and is forced to raid his own garbage pail for leftover nuggets. Plentyof sex but not enough food. That's how a viewer feels after watchingthis.I wish this movie had been better. It was dumped on for obscenity, butthe sexual and linguistic candor was at least an innovation in amainstream movie. It deserves dismissal, true, but only because itlacks any substance. As it is, it stands as an historical curiosity.

Brian

11 April 2012

Extremely disappointing

I am a fan of Henry Miller and have read many of his books. When I saw aDVD of "Quiet Days in Clichy" on my local video store's "Staff Pick's"shelf, I excitedly plucked it off and read the back.It sounded great, an artistic rendition of one of Miller's works. I tookithome practically rubbing my hands.As the previous reviewer commented, the acting is abysmal. Painful towatch. What a disappointment.The photography is good. There are some (filming) tricks employed, but donothing to salvage this failure.

06 April 2012

Eye opening

Free spirits, nihilists, professional nonconformists, and unabashed civilization despisers count author Henry Miller (1891-1980) as one of their patron saints. It's not hard to see why. Miller's numerous books espouse a carefree lifestyle that rejects hierarchy, embraces living in the moment, and condones a reckless lifestyle marked by free expression, drink, and experimentation of all sorts. I suspect the phrase "I'll try anything once" describes Miller's philosophy to a T. In now lionized books like "Tropic of Cancer" and "Tropic of Capricorn," Miller outlined his own outlaw lifestyle during his tenure as an American expatriate in Paris. "Quiet Days of Clichy," another book about his days in France, documents his friendship with Alfred Perles and their subsequent wild and wacky adventures. While I haven't read a word of any of Miller's books, I did recently sit down to a 1970 film version of "Clichy" directed by Jen Jorgen Thorsen. It's no mistake this film arrived in theaters--at least the ones daring enough to screen it--during the heights of the counterculture. The ideas expressed in the movie certainly fit the worldview of many American and European youths in that era. A word of warning at the outset: if you dislike racy depictions of "human interaction," avoid this film at all costs.Meet Joey (Paul Valjean) and Carl (Wayne Rodda), two devil may care miscreants roaming around the highways and byways of France picking up women, drinking, and generally having a fun time. In more ways than one, it's surprising Joey is so successful with the ladies: he's bald, thin, and wears glasses. Nonetheless, he and Carl bring back to their filthy apartment a string of young French women looking for a night of carousing. Since both men don't have stable employment, the daily struggle for existence moves to the forefront whenever the ladies disappear. For example, finding enough money for food is always a problem. Joey spends the better part of an evening roaming the streets of Paris looking for handouts. When that fails, he launches into a thorough scouring of the apartment's kitchen before finding something in the trash on which he may dine. Fun, eh? Expect to see many seemingly mundane scenes like this one stretched out for minutes at a time. I say "seemingly" because there is a philosophy behind the characters' day to day activities. Whether it is a philosophy either realistic or worth engaging in is an interesting question, but it strikes at the heart of Miller's worldview.Most of "Quiet Days of Clichy" deals with the women. We see Carl bring a young, mentally challenged girl back to the apartment amidst much consternation from Joey. A minor engaging in the sorts of activities these two take part in every day could cause problems with the authorities. One day the two men follow this girl around the city watching what she does from afar. Why? Because they have nothing better to do, of course! Since many of the women Carl and Joey bring back to the apartment are harridans, most of these encounters deteriorate into arguments about fiscal matters. Even a fun evening that involves a bathtub, wine, and a lot of laughter eventually turns ugly when discussions of payment enter the picture. The relationships between these two guys and the women they seek to spend time with often contain an ugly, misogynistic tone. Whether that tone finds expression in Miller's books or not I don't know, but that sort of behavior shouldn't fly at all in the nice, shiny modern age. Feminists will sputter in rage over the activities of these two cads.Good grief, it's difficult to write a summary of this film! Primarily because nothing much happens beyond two guys out and about looking for a good time. Even the trip they take to Luxembourg doesn't show us all that much. But as I wrote earlier, that's the point. It's the idea of living from moment to moment, never planning anything and never reducing oneself to another person's whims that fuels the activities in this movie. When viewing the picture through this lens, "Quiet Days in Clichy" succeeds wildly. Another factor that makes this film worth viewing is Thorsen's direction and editing techniques. He occasionally uses cartoon dialogue bubbles to express the characters' inner thoughts, and his reliance on rapid-fire cuts give the film an amazingly modern feel. This is the sort of MTV style editing techniques adopted by nearly every television show and blockbuster type film since 1985, but Thorsen did it first. The black and white film stock doesn't prohibit us in any way from enjoying the city and country scenery that forms the backdrop for much of the movie's action. An unforgettable score from none other than Country Joe MacDonald will keep you humming--I'm humming the title track now, in fact--for ages after the film ends.I'm not surprised at all to learn Blue Underground transferred this film to DVD. As usual, they did an excellent job. The extras alone will keep you busy: a trailer, two easter eggs, stills, cast and crew biographies, an eleven minute interview with Country Joe MacDonald, and an extensive interview with Grove Press's Barney Rosset, Miller's American publisher who led the fight to lift the numerous bans on the writer's books, provide more than enough background on the film. While I think many of the situations in the film are silly, if not downright eye rollingly ridiculous, I have to give Thorsen's picture and the DVD high marks.

GComstock

05 April 2012

Bad (mmm, awful?) but still better than the 1990 version

I'm reviewing this from the perspective of myself as a fan of Miller ..Though this is a poorly-done piece of amateur cinema, there is at leastenough curiosity in seeing the presentation of the characters and otherelements of the book, though you will likely be horribly disappointed witheverything. "Quiet Days" is certainly one of Miller's crudest books, interms of him coming off like a real jerk, albeit a smart and charming one(which the actor playing Miller totally lacks). In that sense, the filmcaptures the baseness in the fact that it's as if the novel has beeninterpreted by tittering frat boys who pick out the most basic "shock"elements and run with them with anti-authoritarian glee. The previousreviewof this film mentions plot points which make no sense. This is because thedirector showed his obvious carelessness and sloppiness by not attachinglogic to actions which are clear in the book. A curiosity of the late 60's(including footage of Paris in 69/70; also notable for the use of textwithin image which I actually quite liked), but a real disappointment forMiller fans, and a pretty bad movie overall.

MARIO GAUCI

03 April 2012

QUIET DAYS IN CLICHY (Jens Jorgen Thorsen, 1970)

I only heard about this when the Blue Underground DVD first came out;of course, I was aware of controversial author Henry Miller, on whosenovel the film was based - whose work, incidentally, wascontemporaneously being transposed to celluloid for the first time viathe late Joseph Strick's TROPIC OF CANCER (1970). Anyway, it was merely a coincidence that I ended up acquiring the twofilm versions of the book (the other being the 1990 adaptation byClaude Chabrol) virtually simultaneously! Since I was going through aretrospective of that director's work anyway, I decided to check thisone beforehand; well, I am glad that my generally negative reaction toit did not give me second thoughts about passing on the remake (as thelatter was a more rewarding, and altogether different, experience – butmore on that in its own review)! Anyway, I have never been fond ofErotica per se and this is pretty much what one got here: some criticspraised the kaleidoscopic style adopted here (actually borrowed fromRichard Lester) but this particular approach dates the film more thananything else. Besides, it is further bogged down by the lack of aproper plot (a fault which is much better disguised in the laterversion), revolting detail (the graphic sexuality on display got itbanned in the U.S. on original release – atypically, this is a Danishpicture shot in the English language and black-and-white) andcharacters who seem to have crawled from under rocks (especially thetwo leads)! In essence, we follow the dreary and over-sexed exploits of twopenniless bohemians (the more studious-looking of whom is supposed tobe an alter-ego for the author himself); they become involved withseveral women, of various ages and nationalities, and not even thatgood-looking in many cases. Eventually, they both become attached tosomeone in particular but, with respect to the protagonist's companion,the girl in question is a 14-year old half-wit!; in the end, the filmjust ends abruptly as if its makers had suddenly run out of moneythemselves…or film stock or, quite simply, ideas! However, the eclecticscore is a big plus – some of it typically French and the restcomprised of numerous conceptual songs by Country Joe (McDonald) of thepsychedelic and radical "Country Joe & The Fish" band fame.

hippiedj

31 March 2012

Silly Naked People Laughing A Lot

*Contains Possible Spoilers* I consider myself quite well connected with the late 1960s, even beingquite a Joan Baez fan in kindergarten! In the mid-seventies a relativegave me a big stack of old Evergreen Review magazines, and I started aninterest in more counter-culture things from the '60s because of that,since I was just a child when much of it took place. One of the filmsEvergreen released in 1970 that they gave a lot of coverage to wasQuiet Days In Clichy, showing tantalizing pics of the cast in nakedmoments. And in 2004 I finally got to see what the hubbub was about...Mainly a curiosity of the late '60s and of interest mainly for thoseinterested in the "art" cinema of that time, this film is reallyanother of those where philosophy and intellectual conversations arepadded with people having sex, showing even the intellectuals have abase interest just like everyone else. But since it centers aroundsomeone like Henry Miller, it's high art apparently. Certainly off toan interesting start, the film immediately gets one to think thoughthat there is a promise of more like the hardcore footage shown rightafter the strange credit sequence. That might have been betteractually, because instead we then mainly get characters meanderingaround Paris and Luxembourg, laughing a lot and wondering why they arenever satisfied.Here are some of the perplexing things for me:--Joey complains that Nys could have left him a few francs after hefirst met her and gave her his money, but Joey actually INSISTED shetake all of it to begin with. --The guys keep yakking about how Colette's brains are in her genitalsand that she just wants to have sex (a feeling they seem to have aboutwomen in general), but by watching this whole film it seems Joey andCarl spend all their time trying to get laid as well.--The women are portrayed as a bit mentally off, except for Colette'smother (upon which Carl then just says how hot she was, which seemedlike belittling her after she was kind to them).--Joey is a writer, but we rarely see him even doing that, he justcomplains how he has no money and has nothing to eat, but can spend alot of time walking around town and looking for sex.--Suddenly while in Luxembourg, and somehow with money, they wind uppouring bottles of wine all over prostitutes and letting the bread theyhave to just wind up in the tub and going down the drain with the wine.If we're supposed to appreciate Joey and Carl's "bohemian lifestyle,"it doesn't help that they just waste food and drink after always sayingthey never have it.--Hoping there would be a resolve to the story, instead after a nakedwoman can't have sex with them because she was crying over the memoryof her late husband, the others just sit there naked and laugh whilethe camera zooms in on their genitals. Huhhhh??? That's it?I don't regret seeing this film after wondering for so many years whatit was all about, and discovering more curiosities from that era. It'sjust that I think some people will find any reason to say it's poeticmainly because Henry Miller is involved -- if this were not based onhim and just a film of its own, I doubt as many folks would beworshiping it. Had a film been made of a character based on HenryMiller washing dishes for an hour and a half, I'm sure these peoplewould somehow come up with many a thesis on the amazing meanings of it.But it all just comes down to silly naked people laughing, in myeyes...

tedg

27 March 2012

Sweet Life

Context is everything. If you come to this cold, you will think it anamateurish production of an artless man and his life.Miller's reason to be in our life was his place in moving a barrier ofsexual prudishness to a more defensible location. Thus for a decade orso, the arbiters of art celebrated his boldness and the marketplace ofprurience sprinkled him about, ensuring that he is "read." Now, hislife seems merely feckless and his art artless.So if you accept this as it was intended and received when new, you'llbe disappointed. All the gas has gone out of that excuse for our time.But I saw this together with "La Dolce Vita." That film is sublimelycompetent, a beautiful receptacle whose beauty amplifies its emptiness.So too is the story, about beautiful people with empty lives, people wewould just as soon never existed.So take this as a beat version of that film. Accept its provenance, asa film by a hippie painter, and its proximity to the actual Miller andhis actual, now completely worthless life. Take it that way and itworks.If you take out the sex scenes, the actual humping, you get a ratherwell conceived portrait. Its a collection of sequences, each sequencedefined by the woman or women who were the target of that sexualencounter. Each woman exists only as a receptacle.One involves a runaway retarded girl of fifteen who provides a specifictype of sexual availability. I suppose all the events in this filmactually happened, but the way she is depicted surely references"Lolita," a sort of 800 pound gorilla or sexual literature. The pointwith Lolita was the untrusted narrator. Here, its more like "Withnail,"an untrusted life.The other notable woman is the last one. She really is lovely, almostprecisely a cross between Anita Ekberg and Nico, both of "la Dolce."This woman has two children. Her husband is dead. She comes home withMiller and lays down nude with him to have sex, then balks. He pursuesher, almost raping, but she escapes. Its the perfect end, as far fromerotic as one can get. Has very much a Fellini manner, that sequence,allowing for the music.So the striking thing about this is the same as in Fellini's film.There's a fantasy involved, but it is not the romantic fantasy thatfilm usually supports and perhaps invented. Its the opposite of thatfantasy: a life without a happy ever after.As with Fellini, some of the compositions are superb.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

25 March 2012

Silly Naked People Laughing A Lot

I consider myself quite well connected with the late 1960s, even being quite a Joan Baez fan in kindergarten! In the mid-seventies a relative gave me a big stack of old Evergreen Review magazines, and I started an interest in more counter-culture things from the '60s because of that, since I was just a child when much of it took place. One of the films Evergreen released in 1970 that they gave a lot of coverage to was Quiet Days In Clichy, showing tantalizing pics of the cast in naked moments. And in 2004 I finally got to see what the hubbub was about...Mainly a curiosity of the late '60s and of interest mainly for those interested in the "art" cinema of that time, this film is really another of those where philosophy and intellectual conversations are padded with people having sex, showing even the intellectuals have a base interest just like everyone else. But since it centers around someone like Henry Miller, it's high art apparently. Certainly off to an interesting start, the film immediately gets one to think though that there is a promise of more like the hardcore footage shown right after the strange credit sequence. That might have been better actually, because instead we then mainly get characters meandering around Paris and Luxembourg, laughing a lot and wondering why they are never satisfied.Here are some of the perplexing things for me:--Joey complains that Nys could have left him a few francs after he first met her and gave her his money, but Joey actually INSISTED she take all of it to begin with. --The guys keep yakking about how Colette's brains are in her genitals and that she just wants to have sex (a feeling they seem to have about women in general), but by watching this whole film it seems Joey and Carl spend all their time trying to get laid as well.--The women are portrayed as a bit mentally off, except for Colette's mother (upon which Carl then just says how hot she was, which seemed like belittling her after she was kind to them).--Joey is a writer, but we rarely see him even doing that, he just complains how he has no money and has nothing to eat, but can spend a lot of time walking around town and looking for sex.--Suddenly while in Luxembourg, and somehow with money, they wind up pouring bottles of wine all over prostitutes and letting the bread they have to just wind up in the tub and going down the drain with the wine. If we're supposed to appreciate Joey and Carl's "bohemian lifestyle," it doesn't help that they just waste food and drink after always saying they never have it.--Hoping there would be a resolve to the story, instead, after a naked woman can't have sex with them because she was crying over the memory of her late husband, the others just sit there naked and laugh while the camera zooms in on their genitals. Huhhhh??? That's it?I don't regret seeing this film after wondering for so many years what it was all about, and discovering more curiosities from that era. It's just that I think some people will find any reason to say it's poetic mainly because Henry Miller is involved -- if this were not based on him and just a film of its own, I doubt as many folks would be worshiping it. Had a film been made of a character based on Henry Miller washing dishes for an hour and a half, I'm sure these people would somehow come up with many a thesis on the amazing meanings of it.But it all just comes down to silly naked people laughing, in my eyes...

20 March 2012

Wonderful!

Quiet Days in Clichy was the first Henry Miller book I read, at the impressionable age of 17. While traveling through Europe, I bought the Grove Press movie tie-in edition, featuring numerous stills from this picture. I read the book several dozen times, and as a result the images from the movie formed part of my memory along with Miller's words.Now, more than 31 years later, the film is available at last, and I finally got to see those pictures come to life. For me, watching this was a wonderful experience. It was one of those rare films that transported me completely to another time and place. For a brief 90+ minutes, I was my younger self again.The story hasn't changed, but I have. I no longer find Miller's caustic sexism charming; in fact it seems childish to me. The explicit sex in the movie (there are a few bits that could be considered hard-core porn) is no longer shocking, and the freewheeling lifestyle depicted is, I now understand, something that was, and is, almost wholly imaginary. For all the sexist attitudes of the two male leads, the female characters are brilliantly portrayed. Country Joe McDonald's brilliant music brings more surrealistic magic out of the picture, giving it not only a contemporary feel (the original story was set in the 1930s) but an atmosphere that helps it transcend the limitations of its low budget. This is a faithful adaptation of Miller's book, which is good news for Miller's fans. If graphic sex makes you at all uncomfortable, by all means avoid this film. But if Miller's erotic work appeals to you at all, you owe it to yourself to give this one a chance.