La Sirène du Mississippi

Avec Ozon à ses talons, Truffaut est mon réalisateur français préféré. Mais ça ne veut pas dire que tous ses films me plaisent à l’identique. Et malheureusement pour ce thriller romanticodramatique, j’ai vu il y a une dizaine d’années – et quelque chose comme trois fois – Péché originel, un film qui m’a véritablement emballé par son ambiance, la fascinante alchimie entre un Antonio Banderas exalté et une Angelina Jolie fatale, l’action captivante et quelques scènes extrêmement réussies et qu’il est difficile d’oublier. Moi, dans les films, c’est l’intrigue qui m’intéresse en premier lieu – l’histoire, la façon dont les personnages sont dépeints, la tension qui se construit… Ici, pratiquement rien ne me surprenait et, au contraire, je ressentais un vide là où il y aurait dû y avoir le segment dramatique autour du dangereux amant de la protagoniste centrale. Ça peut paraître barbare de dire ça, mais j’ai réellement préféré Péché originel. Cela dit, mon admiration pour l’œuvre de Truffaut reste intacte. (12/11/2012)

Openly speaking, I have a real problem with this film... Francois Truffaut is my favorite director and his direction is not a disappointment in this case either. The cast is luxurious, Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Deneuve are first-rate stars and their mere presence on the screen is beneficial. Moreover, they don't even act badly. What bothers me, however, is the script, or rather the basic premise. This melodrama with a crime plot has a significantly unreliable outline, and it is fabricated to the point of misery. The film is clearly set in the time of its production, the late 60s, when the sexual revolution was at its peak, technology rapidly shortened distances and connected people from the other side of the planet, consumer society was booming, and at the same time, a successful businessman exchanges several letters with a completely unknown woman and arranges marriage with her without ever meeting her before. They don't even call each other to hear how their voices sound? If the story took place in the year 1900, I wouldn't have a problem with it, maybe in the 30s, but this? After the man learns that he has been robbed of all his savings and his fiancee murdered, by an incredible stroke of luck, he meets that fraudster, and then a short conversation culminating in the sentence: "I still love you," is enough for him to forgive that woman and plan a life together despite her criminal past, and what's more, he is willing to murder for her and lose all his standing. It just doesn't add up and I don't believe it for a second. Three weak stars for the direction and performances. Overall impression: 50%. (11/04/2009)

Why did Truffaut make so few “Hitch-esque" movies? And why, when he did make one, in the second he had to grind it down to a study of an unusual relationship? Don’t get me wrong, both moods are Truffaut precise, it’s just that together then don’t hit it off in any respect. It’s like trying to stuff a beautiful round shape into a perfect triangle hole. In the end you might even get it in there, but it won’t result in perfect beauty however hard you try. It just won’t. (15/10/2008)