popcorninhell Lucien (Philippe Noiret) our thickset protagonist is a bit of a beguiling figure. On the surface he possesses all the traits of a villain or the very least a very unlikeable human-being. He's lazy and selfish; he carries on a lustful affair with a married and abused woman (Isabelle Huppert) and sees his position (a provincial sheriff) as an inconvenience not even bothering to arrest people who knowingly break serious laws. Furthermore he's utterly weak-willed; hen-pecked by his wife (Stephane Audran) and her peculiar brother (Eddy Mitchell) and harassed by his superiors in the provincial capital. What's worse a ballsy pimp who enjoys shooting cadavers in the local river decides humiliation is better than bribery as a means to getting what he wants. Something in Lucien finally snaps and he uses his only two advantages to rid the world of his problems; his intelligence and his remote location.Coup de Torchon (1981) takes place "at the edge of civilization" on the outskirts of a French African colony mere months before WWII. Barely accessible by train, Lucien's small colorful town is a cesspool of disease, decay and crime to which Alex turns from idle bystander to perverted exterminating angel. Yet it is the way he pulls off his various revenges that is at once beguiling and disturbing. Every situation is pre-calculated and seemingly natural. Lucien never loses his sincerity or blows his cover which makes everything he does absolutely shocking. One minute he's shooting a man in the stomach, the next he's genteel with his mistress.At one point Lucien remarks that he is the devil incarnate which while giving him a bit too much credit nevertheless plays into the themes of good and evil in the film. The story is bookended by a scene where Lucien is acting as a Prometheus-like figure to a group of African children; then by another where he aims his shotgun at one of the same children as a boy stares at him blankly. As morality and civilization crumbles throughout the film, the often felt but never seen rise of Nazism promises to obfuscate the sins of the reckless sheriff. Finally there's the character of the new school teacher (Irene Skobline) who exemplifies all that is good and innocent. At the end of the film when war is finally declared, Lucien dances with her as if she were the spoils of his hedonistic one man war.As despicable as his actions are however, Lucien remains a charming central figure. Like Shakespeare's Iago, his mischievousness is hidden by an innocuous face and harmless, good-natured wit. Unlike in Bad Lieutenant (1997) this cop doesn't let the audience sit on the sidelines and say "there but by the grace of God go I." Coup de Torchon seduces you into indulging in Lucien's Machiavellian plans and for an instant lets you have sympathy for the devil.http://www.theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com

MartinHafer I adored the first half hour or so of this film. Then, sadly, the film seemed to lose its way--mostly because the main character was practically impossible to understand or appreciate. To put it bluntly, his motivation and actions stopped making sense. BUT, as there are so many interesting elements to the film, it's still worth seeing...though it clearly misses the mark.The film follows the actions of an ineffectual policeman in French West Africa just before the Second World War. Lucien (Philippe Noiret) does nothing as sheriff but collect a paycheck and ignore crime. He is clearly a cuckold in regard to his job and his relationships. Crooks break laws and mock him and his wife openly carries on an affair with her 'brother' right in front of him. You really feel bad for the guy, so when out of the blue he begins paying these people back, you are thrilled--even when he begins, in some cases, killing people. The murder victims really do 'have it coming' and you want to see Lucien to get away with it.Later, however, the film gets pretty muddled. First, he ends up killing an innocent guy simply because he knew too much--and it was hard to feel sympathy for Lucien--particularly because before this you did like him a lot because he DID stand up for the black natives--though not obviously so. So, he went from a secret savior of the Africans to just another white !@@#$ and nothing more. Second, there were some allegorical religious elements that seemed incongruous. He began to see himself as like Jesus meting out retribution to evil-doers--but ended up looking more like Satan or the Angel of Death--or just a real jerk! This religious angle really just clouds the film--not enhances it. Third, I was a psychotherapist and psychology teacher and I STILL had a hard time understanding Lucien--his character, though interesting, made little sense and just confused me. With a bit of a rewrite, this could have gone from a good and thought-provoking film to a classic. Too bad--it did sure excite my interest.

ThurstonHunger In general the Criterion Collection has been pretty reliable for me, and while I'm glad I came across this film, I see it as a somewhat ambitious failure. I have not read the Thompson novel from which it was drawn, but transplanting a story from the American South to crumbling colonial West Africa alone is inspired.If the film is a comedy, then it did not work me. The melding of slapstick with social commentary ran thin for me, but again it could just be that I lack le bone funny. At least I recognized parts here that likely were intended to be ribald (as opposed to some Japanese humor, where I'm often completely lost).Perhaps it is not that the humor is stupid (although the recurring dimwit incest interlude and the outhouse surprise...surely push it), but that the characters are stupid. That being said, the lead character it is of course crucial that you see him as a bozo of sorts, but behind his broad caricature of indolence, is there some intuition or even initiative stashed away? Again, an ambitious choice to have an apparent laggard as your lead character. He's seen as perpetually exhausted and at the same time amazingly lazy. An inept if not corrupt sheriff, but potentially very fair-minded. A slothful yet irresistible sex machine? That character alone was worth the watch for me, especially a couple of more serious discussions he has.But ultimately what does the film do? Take us from the joys of a meaningless existence to the tragedy of a meaningless existence. The directors sets up some of the early kills as somewhat justified, only to move through less and less "necessary" slaughter ending abruptly with the image of innocence being as wantonly wasted? And that image is meant to tie back visually to the films start, as if to imply this is just the way of the world. A cycle of violence.Does this excuse our pot-bellied peculiar policeman? Do his messianic delusions even make sense, as he plots to seduce the "pure" schoolteacher? And do the three women intentionally seem to similar, as if they are plots along the same curve and that curve is a circle.I don't know, and regrettably I did not care as much as I should have. Perhaps the clumsiness of the film that might pass as charm for other viewers? Perhaps the predictable randiness, that even a few decades ago felt like a use of sex as cheap titillation.Is it just a parable of despair? Is it just a jokey eulogy for the colonial ways, saying adieu to its greed, stupidity and savagery? I don't know, that's why it gets a 5/10 for me... I do know that it makes me want to read the Thompson novel to see what inspired Tavernier to take on this.See what you think, but if you think I'm too harsh on the stupidity of the film, I hope you get the DVD that offers the proposed alternate ending with two monkeys... Ugh...that would have got a 3/10.

Eric Van den Bossche One of the best films ever on my regard. It is possible that European viewers are more familiar with the colonial history behind it, though the script is based on an American novel (Pop.1280 by Jim Thompson). The original story is based in America, but here it is based in a French-African colony in the 1930's.The baseline is a global truth: everybody has his breaking point. Great acting performances by everyone involved. Don't forget to check out the other films by this French director; he often shows he's one of the best!And while you're there: some of the best movies (Tati, Resnais, Truffaut...) ever were made in France; so are some of the worst(DO NOT check out French comedies, they are mostly awful)