GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Mark Turner The list of movies that have been lost over the years is larger than one would expect. Many were lost in fires on the backlots of Hollywood, the incredibly flammable material used to make them making them easy prey to those fires. Some have been lost to time, deteriorating in what is termed vinegar syndrome due to the fact when film canisters are opened containing these films they smell like vinegar, their images gone for eternity. Others are just never found. It is this sort of film that makes up this film.Directed and written by Serge Bromberg it is the tale of a film that began shooting in 1964 led by famed director Henri-Georges Clouzot. American audiences will know his work mainly from two films, DIABOLIQUE in which two women murder one's husband by drowning him in a bathtub and THE WAGES OF FEAR the story of a group of down on their luck men willing to transport nitroglycerine across treacherous roads in South America, later remade by William Friedkin as SORCERER.Bromberg opens the film (as well as discussing it a bit more in depth in one of the extras included on the Arrow release) by talking about his conversation with Clouzot's widow and how he convinced her to allow him to tell the story of the film that never was. While she'd been asked before she was convinced to allow him to do so.Due to his previous successes Clouzot was given the go ahead by Columbia Pictures to shoot the film he dreamed of, INFERNO. The story itself revolves around a French hotelier Marcel (Serge Reggiani), his attractive wife Odette (Romy Schneider) and his obsessive jealousy towards his wife. While it might sound simple enough the plans Clouzot had for it were far from it.Rather than start filming right away Clouzot spent a number of weeks working with the technical crew to create a new film style unseen or used prior to this film. A combination of colors, light, lenses and prismatic effects were played with and viewed building up an arsenal from which he would create his film. Hours and film were used for the express purpose of seeing what could be accomplished on film. The end results are amazing and interesting to watch, accomplishing things that could easily be done now with effects and computers. But the time here is 1963 and these weren't invented yet. To see what he achieved is a thrill to behold for film fans.Weeks were spent doing these test shots. In addition to that Clouzot attempted to plan out what he intended to shoot in minute detail. Storyboards were drawn and deeply intricate directions were listed on diagrams and scripts to be used, providing them with a battle plan that should have resulted in time saved and a well-timed shoot.Good fortune smiled on him with the perfect location to shoot the film. The only problem was that the lake was to be drained to provide power nearby within weeks and the shoot had to be finished by then. The planning should have allowed this to happen. But then Clouzot's own obsession took hold. Shoots and reshoots, other obstacle placed in his way and crews that were left confused by his direction moved the production behind schedule. Eventually occurrences took place that resulted in the film never being finished.But that doesn't mean that the footage shot in the weeks prior to actual filming as well as the footage that was filmed before production shut down were gone. Bromberg has formed the story of what happened into an interesting film, combining that footage with interviews of the crew members that remain as well as certain sequences filmed with stand-ins for the main actors. The end result is a combination of a look at what could have been as well as a lesson in what not to do if you plan on creating a film.All of this makes for an interesting film. But more than that the images captured with that test footage offer a feast for the eyes showing some brilliantly shot images that make you wish the film had been completed. Shot mostly in black and white, the dream sequences, moments where we are placed inside the head of Marcel and in his madness induced jealousy, are shot in color. While the black and white test footage is impressive the color moments are imaginative and beautiful.Arrow Video has released this film in a beautiful hi definition blu-ray format. The extras here show why Arrow is one of the best companies around. They include French cinema expert Lucy Mazdon discussing at length the films of Clouzot and the problems behind INFERNO, "They Saw Inferno" a featurette with unseen material and further insight into the making of the original film, as mentioned earlier an introduction with director/writer Serge Bromberg, an interview with Bromberg, a stills gallery, the original trailer, a reversible sleeve with artwork by Twins of Evil and for the first pressing only an illustrated collector's booklet with writing on the film by Ginette Vincendeau.Arrow has outdone themselves on this one and lovers of French cinema and the films of Clouzot will want to add this one to their collections. If you love movies then this is one to take a look at, seeing not just what was shot but the descent into potential madness that befell the director shooting a film about a man's descent into madness. The end result is a dazzling documentary that delights the senses and is worth watching.

tedg Presuming that you have not yet seen it, here is a description.Henri-Georges was a remarkable filmmaker. Though contemporary with those normally tagged new wave, he was interested not in ideas but the effectiveness of cinema. His special talent was internal perturbations of reality. After a long period of silence, he embarked on his most ambitious project: a film about a jealous man, showing his torture through practically achieved cinematic effects.He got a huge budget from Hollywood and lavished it on the film, not on sets, costumes, actors. Much was shot, and then the thing unraveled, largely because of the filmmaker's own obsessions. Production halted.Later, in 2009, this film was made about the making of the previous one, weaving the movie and the making of the movie together. The format is superficially simple: we have seated interviews with people who were involved, while relevant footage runs behind them. We see much of that footage without the original sound, though some slight, small effects have been added. Most of the footage are strange optical experiments. Some is the action in "reality." We also, separately, have two contemporary actors reading the lines from the shooting script so at least we know the story such as it is.The result is remarkable. As collaborators, one after the other, testify to the growing madness of Clouzot, or apparent madness. Or perhaps genius. It is effective as a documentary, perhaps unique in its form. It merges fiction and non-fiction, story on story, folded so that it matters. The main actor walks off, the filmmaker has a heart attack, the lake on which filming occurs literally disappears. Trains come. Anxieties mount as loves and the obsession to create clash. We wonder about projects started but unseen from Welles, Hopper, Kurosawa. Like unimagined dreams we might reach, they perhaps have more power without us encountering them. Frankly, I never heard of this failed project before. I am grateful to have encountered it now, in this way.Unfortunately, you may find the optical effects strange, dated. They all are "real" in the sense of being generated according to physical laws and properties. These days, we normally denote the unreal by effects done virtually and supposedly unconstrained by reality. So the shock is reverse: the film we are examining (in black and white) is the fiction, while the madness within that film (in color) is real."You have to see the madness through," is the last line of this. Clouzot could not. Let's hope you, dear reader, do.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

serge-33 Okay, this is an insiders' movie for the die-hards, but it works for everyone.The director presumably got the idea when he got stuck with Clouzot's widow in an elevator - he even thanks the elevator for its technical failure in the credits.What do we learn? Overall, we learn about flawed genius, about how unlimited budgets can send a brilliant director off-track. we learn about how far actors will go to satisfy their director's requirements.What do we see? First, being born in 1964, the year the movie was filmed, I loved the stilted, post-industrial surroundings at the lake and the hotel were the film was supposed to be set. I loved the costumes, the modernity and became totally nostalgic (to going back to being a baby, I suppose). Romy... Does it add anything we haven't seen from her? Perhaps not, but it sure is nice and especially to see her with Serge Reggiani who only makes her beauty shine more.Does it work as a documentary? Yes, very well, in my humble opinion. The director does not ask (irrelevant) questions, but he simply presents the material and gives us an insight that perhaps, there was more than Clouzot's seizure to halt filming. He uses beautiful background music to make-up for the missing soundtrack. The dialogues read by two really good actors: well, perhaps it was a bit contrite, but I was thinking all the time that one of the things that would have been quite mediocre had the film been completed, would have been that: the dialogues were flat, boring and superficial (but the actors read them well).My friend asked me: how many movies are there about a movie. Lots, but yesterday evening I could not think of one. But this is more, this is a documentary about a movie about failing to make a movie.Highly recommended.

writers_reign There are several valid reasons for wanting to see this film, not least the unshown footage of Romy Schneider who had the lead role opposite Serge Reggiani, add to that a film written and directed - in so far as it went - by Henri-George Clouzot, reminiscences of the shoot by the likes of Catherine Allegret and assorted technicians, the roping in of Jacques Gamblin to flesh out (via reading) some of Reggiani's scenes and what's not to like. The film was doomed from the start. Clouzot was a changed person and thought nothing of waking the crew at 3 a.m. to discuss an idea. Reggiani finally ankled on the grounds that enough is enough and was replaced by Jean-Louis Trintignant who never got on set because Clouzot suffered a heart attack and the film was closed down. It remains fascinating for any French film buff, especially when you throw into the mix the fact that Clouzot's widow, Ines, sold the script to Chabrol who went ahead and shot it. Old School versus New Wave. It's no contest and this fragment eclipses every movie that Godard ever shot.