Bob Pr. I'm in a play reading group and we often watch a movie based on a play we've read when one's available. Similarities are that a group of wealthy Parisian men find that there's oil underground in Paris and want top scatter derricks all over the city to get it. The countess is opposed to the plan. Among the differences are that she does away with all the ____. Still, it's a worthwhile movie with a fabulous cast of characters.

Edgar Soberon Torchia There is a segment within a scene almost ending the first act of "The Madwoman of Chaillot", that suggest the direction the story is going to take. While the fanciful old countess Aurelia (Katharine Hepburn) explains young Roderick (Richard Chamberlain) the joys of being alive, the visuals turn to a slightly hazy retrospection of her love life, in which Roderick is seen as her mustachioed lover Alphonse, and the waitress Irma (Nanette Newman), with whom Roderick will fall in love, is seen as Aurelia when she was younger. All this theatricality is followed by a brief scene that ends the act, in which Irma delivers a soliloquy about her growing love for Roderick. Then after a fascinating first hour in which the plot is so startlingly current, as act two starts, we enter the world of filmed theater and the movie hardly recovers. If "The Madwoman of Chaillot" is remembered with affection after it ends, it is because of its first part, in which a rich and ruthless self-made man who leads a group that includes a general, a Catholic priest, a broker and a communist commissar, joins a similarly cruel prospector whose plan is the creation of an enterprise to dig up oil in the middle of historical Paris. The prospector has sent his nephew Roderick to put a bomb in the Palais de Chaillot to kill a public officer who denies him permission to begin his oil operation. But when Roderick fails and the police believe he is going to commit suicide, he meets countess Aurelia, who hears about the plan and decides to solve it by herself. Then action slows down, everything is done in interiors and the situation is resolved in strange ways -- first with a metaphorical trial which is pure stage material, and then with a certainly weird "execution" of the villains. By 1969 director Bryan Forbes was riding the crest of his own international film wave and had a great cast, in which even John Gavin delivered a fine funny performance of an evil priest. Masina is a delight, Evans is wonderful, and Homolka, Leighton, Henreid, Boyer and Dauphin are as good as all the supporting players, while Hepburn tries hard with her teary eyes... I could not help thinking what this would have been with a French actress in the lead.

ftparish Lots of good comment already made except for some confusion over interpreting and understanding allegory. This is one of the best examples. Much has been said about the waste of talent by big name actors in this film. This play gives point to the old adage that there are no secondary parts in a play. This play demanded and used TALENT, hence the outstanding cast of true professionals. I was disappointed that there was no credit or reference made of the musical score. It is excellent. I'd buy a copy if I could find it. This music is haunting and will live with you for a long time. This is one of those movies that makes one wonder why it is not more prominently marketed. Maybe too cerebral?

deanmorris_nyc previous reviewers have hinted at the charm that the play must have offered in its limited setting. the director fails to avoid tacky music: brass, harpsichord, and vocals going "oooh oooh oooh", choppy cutting, overacting, bad looping, faded color, freeze-frames/guitar strums to highlight irony, strings and flute for tenderness, awkward movement, and a lot of flesh tone lipstick. it makes you appreciate Hollywood black and white films and quality camera lenses, and also true naturalism rather than this fake naturalism. doesn't age well at all. fascinating only as an example of what stars in a lame vehicle can look like -- sort of like having a hideous room in the house that you keep to look at once in a while to remind you what well-done looks like. these stars aren't that old but are getting past their prime which is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this whole thing. worth a second viewing drunk so it can be laughed at to enrich my own life.