Scarecrow-88 During the Christmas Holidays, a Catholic (Jean-Louis Trintignant) is eyeing to romance a lovely young blonde (Marie-Christine Berrault), but a chance meeting with an old Marxist friend (Antoine Vitez) leads to his pleasant and enlightening visit with Maud (Françoise Fabian), resulting in possible fireworks.I could provide florid descriptions of the film, but I will get to the brass tacks…this is about people discussing Christianity/Catholicism during a holiday where its presence is most felt (except Easter). This is my first Rohmer film, but I think I get an idea of what his work aims towards: adults discussing themes that are important to him, using characters in a particular setting(s), at particular times, to advance their beliefs, philosophies, interpretations, outlooks, and overall views on love, life, the past, present, and future. What do they hope to find? What is their hearts set on? Why are they who they are? What brought them to where they are and what do they hope is waiting on them? In the case of "…Maud's", Trintignant's Jean-Louis is lonely, does engineering work that doesn't necessarily fill the void in his life so desired, and devoutly declares his reasons for being Catholic but doesn't necessarily disavow the lives and beliefs of others; in this film's case, Fabian's Maud, and her soon-to-be-ditched boyfriend, Vidal (Vitez). A running, driving force in the conversations between Jean-Louis and Vidal is Pascal, his views on mathematics and philosophy. Jean-Louis reads from Pascal's work from the perspective of a Catholic while Vidal sees other sides considering he's a "lapsed Catholic" who doesn't adhere to the moral/religious principles so discerned from this form of faith. At any rate, Maud is non-Catholic, too, and her liberality is rather seductive to Jean-Louis. I see Maud as someone perhaps very seductive to any form of religion that requires the sacrifice of sexual freedom. She isn't a harpy, but a woman unbound to following a code of ethics important in the case of Jean-Louis. He's looking for a particular character-type, a certain kind of woman to marry, and while Maud is an attractive, captivating, alluring, aggressive, challenging, care-free alternative to what Jean-Louis desires, she simply doesn't model after what he sees as his potential mate.Look, this is dialogue heavy and concerns itself with people talking a lot. I just want to clear that up right away. Stay far away from this as possible if you don't want to watch a Catholic stick up for why he is devout, but credit to Rohmer for allowing him to not be so staunch and abrasively card-carrying that Jean-Louis becomes too distanced from the intellectual, atheistic part of the audience certain to be bothered and uncomfortable with a film that is Pro-Catholic. Setting the film around Christmas gives the film a nice backdrop (cold, gray in the film's whiter than white B&W photography in Clermont) even if two of the four main characters aren't conducive to its general direction towards celebrating the recognition of Christ in the holiday. Maud is refreshing as is Jean-Louis, because their conversations are civil, engaging, intelligent, and non-combative. Maud listens to Jean-Louis, and vice versa. That is also the case with Jean-Louis and Vidal…despite their differences; the two have good rapport and respect each other. I think that is why the film has been so lasting and heralded. It is about the way people engage and communicate. The methods behind how close or far away to approach one another.The celebrated "night" of the film, where Maud and Jean-Louis are alone, in her bed, with a decision to make (sex or no sex?) is fascinating because the woman is open for a possible embrace, but the man has to determine if this course is worth taking. Their talk has this aura of desire behind it I liked to see develop…too often it is so much more about attraction than how words can lead two people to connection. Interestingly, I found the later coupling of Jean-Louis and Françoise rather compatible but less compelling as Catholicism leads them together, but that hanging question of "what might have been?" resurfaces when he meets Maud in passing. Either way, Jean-Louis charted his course towards Françoise, but chance (a theme I read Rohmer emphasizes in his work a lot) led him to Maud and Vidal.

Jackson Booth-Millard 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die has been a very useful book for finding the obscure and not very well known little gems from the big screen, this French film is definitely one that I wouldn't have known about before reading it, I was hoping it was deserved placing. Basically devout Catholic Jean-Louis (Jean-Louis Trintignant) has moved to a new town and plans to marry pretty blonde Françoise (Marie-Christine Barrault) who he meets at mass, and he also runs into old childhood friend and Marxist Vidal (Antoine Vitez) in around Christmas time in Clermont-Ferrand. Vidal invites Jean-Louis to meet freethinking and recently divorced Maud (Françoise Fabian), they have interesting conversation about religion, atheism, Blaise Pascal's life and writings on philosophy, faith and mathematics, morality, and love. After a long night Jean-Louis ends up spending the night with Maud, where they end up having more philosophical discussions in her bedroom, and his beliefs on marriage, fidelity and obligation become a dilemma in this situation, although the young woman that he apparently truly loves he has never spoken to. Also starring Léonide Kogan as Concert Violinist, Anne Dubot as Blonde Friend and Guy Léger as Preacher. I admit it being in a foreign language with subtitles made it a little difficult to concentrate on everything, but it did seem a bit more dialogue based anyway, the performances were good, particular Fabian as the beautiful woman that is perhaps trying to seduce the already taken man, it did have some witty words that I read, and it certainly did have engaging moments where you wonder where it's going, it was an interesting drama. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay Based on Factual Material or Material Not Previously Published or Produced and Best Foreign Language Film. Very good!

horus472 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.

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) This film can be looked upon from different point of views. The key moment is when Jean Louis is sleeping in the same bed as Maud, and she starts coming on to him and he rejects her, but we can understand that it is out of principles and not because he is not attracted to her. Jean Louis is a religious man, fascinated by Pascal's writings relative to faith, infinite and betting. He falls in love at the beginning of the film, in church, with the blonde Françoise, without even talking to her. To have a sexual relationship with Maud would be a betrayal to this love. Maud is a woman who lives her life intensively, and is an atheist and to her Jean Louis's repression would mean missing out on life. By making this repressive choice Jean Louis will eventually be able to have a love relationship with Françoise , which was his aim. To a spectator which shares Maud's thoughts, Jean Louis is missing life and conforming himself to bourgeois's values. But for those who identify with Jean Louis, he got his great reward , from abstaining , which he did out of faith and principles, not even knowing the outcome. A very intellectually stimulating film with excellent performances, specially Françoise Fabien and Marie Christine Barrault.