IMDb > Que la bête meure (1969) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Que la bête meure (1969) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 16 comments in total 

14 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
A striking film, with a Highsmith flavor, and vintage Chabrol, 12 June 2006
9/10
Author: Chris Knipp from Berkeley, California

This is one of the best Chabrol films I have seen. It's interesting to note that it's based upon a novel by Nicolas Blake, pen name of C. Day Lewis, at one time Poet Laureate of England and father of Daniel Day Lewis. From the movie, it seems Blake/Lewis was writing very much in the spirit of the great, and very cinematic, mistress of psychological crime writing, Patricia Highsmith. Though she never wrote anything exactly like this, the similarity is in the first-person narrative of a potential murderer, and in the way the story approaches an utterly evil person in an everyday upper-bourgeois setting; even the account of a man having an 'affair' with a woman he isn't necessarily attracted to is typically Highsmith; and there's attempted murder on a sailboat, and a man is almost bludgeoned on the head with a rock – Highsmith devices. The journal of the man contemplating murder, which is then found out, is something Highsmith might have liked.

Though as some have noted the narrator finds his way to the hit and run killer of his son a little too easily, the movie by allowing that is able to take us headlong into an astonishing, almost shocking situation. To get so close to evil -- this man who everybody hates, who would kill and cover it up and make his sister collaborate, who is abusive to everybody and everything, yet lives in bourgeois splendor, is so unusual it takes a while to realize how hair-raising it is.

Events move quickly after that. This is more understated than most of Chabrol and the greatest violence consists of a few slaps on the face of a lover or a boy, and words of abuse hurled by a boorish man and his nasty mother, but those moments are all the more disturbing for coming in such a buttoned-up world, and the action is very fast and economical compared to some of Chabrol's films. The scenes between the narrator and the boy Philippe where the boy says he wants his father dead and wishes Mark/Charles were his father, are very touching. The references to the rich variety of death descriptions in the Iliad are particularly resonant, as is the one at the end to Brahms quoting Hebrew scriptures, with the Brahms song sung by the great Kathleen Ferrier. The style may be neutral but the film is elegant and its look has not dated. The repugnant family scenes and the nightmarish dinners are typically Chabrol. The simplicity of the style is the more impressive seen in terms of possible followers like Ozon. They don't make them like this any more; they can't.

Michel Duchaussoy makes a good contrast to Yanne because he is so bland. He's an intentionally neutral figure whose moral status is meant to be ambiguous. Is he a hero out of Greek tragedy or is he just an escaping villain? Has he brought about justice -- has he even done it, since the son claims responsibility -- or has he merely been sucked into a whirlpool of evil? In the detective's office he finally begins to look for the first time like a sensitive writer. Before that he looked like a bland actor, but his opacity is just what Chabrol wants. Maybe he's one of Chabrol's most appealing heroes, but in the end what are we admiring?

Was the above comment useful to you?

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
the French bourgeoisie at their worst, 28 August 2006
8/10
Author: christopher-underwood from Greenwich - London

A particularly difficult film to comment upon without giving away vital plot elements but it has to be one of the director's finest. It has the suspense he can work so well, it has the the French bourgeoisie at their worst, it has gentle eroticism and sudden brutality.

We also have here superb story telling combined with high emotional content and a continuous switchback ride of twist and turns, even though we, seemingly,have the whole plot of the film placed openly before us within minutes of the opening credits.

Meticulously directed, there is not a superfluous scene, nor even a superfluous gesture. It is pure riveting cinema from start to finish

Great performances, great camera-work, great Chabrol.

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Hit and run, 1 December 2006
8/10
Author: jotix100 from New York

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The serenity we watch at the beginning of the story, a boy at a beach, is shattered as he is hit by a speeding car near his home. We know something bad was about to happen as Claude Chabrol, the director, sits us, his audience, in the back seat of the car, but he only lets us see the backs of the killer and the woman in the passenger's seat. The impact jolts the woman, who lets out a horrible scream, but the man couldn't care less about what he has done.

Charles Thenier, the father of the dead boy, Michel, is shattered by the discovery of his dead son. He goes into a deep grief, ordering to get rid of the boy's possessions. On a visit to the house in Brittany, he questions the old servant if she discarded everything, but she breaks down and tells him she couldn't part with Michel's toys. Charles vows to avenge Michel's death. He will not stop before he finds, and kills the person who caused the tragedy. Charles begins to write all his findings in a diary that he fills with details about the murder.

Just by accident, Charles learns about the woman who was a passenger in the car. She happens to be an actress and he follows her. It's easy for him to fake he is in love with her. Charles, who has begun a diary about his findings is interested in knowing all about this beautiful woman. Helen tells Charles, about a sister that lives in Brittany. As it turned out, her sister lives not far from his own town. As Helen thinks her involvement with Charles is getting serious, she invites him to go with her to visit her sister and her family.

Helen's sister is married to Paul Decourt, a boorish man who makes fun of his wife's artistic temperament. Paul, who owns a large garage, fits the description of the killer of Michel. Charles finds an ally in Phillippe Decourt, the son of Paul, an intense young man who is ridiculed by his own father. Charles, who has planned to take Paul for a boat ride in order to kill him, but he finds a formidable foe. Decourt tells him he has given the diary, in which Charles has written his feelings about Paul Decourt. As Helen and Charles are driving back to Paris, they are surprised to learn about Paul's death by poisoning and they go back.

When confronted by the police inspector, Charles, tells all he knows, but his interrogator doesn't believe in what he has to say, or his alibi. It seems that Charles contributed to the suspicion that now falls on him as the possible murderer when he had nothing to do with it. When Phillippe confesses about doing his father in, it appears he is covering for Charles. The last scenes of the film have a calming effect as we see Charles in his boat in the middle of the sea sailing to an unknown destination.

Claude Chabrol is an excellent adapter of other people's material. This film is based on a Nicholas Blake novel we read some time ago. As he did with Ruth Rendell's "A Judgment in Stone", he wrote a magnificent screen treatment of this complex novel. Chabrol is not interested in keeping the killer's identity from his audience. We know throughout the narrative who was the one responsible for young Michel's death, yet, there is suspense in watching Charles preparing for his revenge carefully.

Jean Yanne, who was seen in Chabrol's "Le Boucher", returns as Paul Decourt, a far more colorful character without any redeeming qualities. Michel Dushaussoy who plays Charles goes from the despair at the start of the film into a quiet man who is biding his time to do the right thing to avenge his son. Mark DiNapoli, is another asset to the film. He is a calculating young man who hates his father and sees in Charles a kind soul that shows him the attention he never got from his old man. Caroline Cellier appears as Helen Lanson, a beautiful woman who falls in love with Charles. Raymone, who plays Paul Decourt's mother has two great scenes in which she reveals her true nature; she is just the female version of her son. Maurice Pialat, the director, is seen as a police inspector.

The musical score is by Dominique Zardi, who also has a small part in the film. Brittany's landscape is captured by Jean Rabier. The film is one of Claude Chabrol's best directorial efforts.

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
The ogre., 13 August 2001
9/10
Author: dbdumonteil

"Que la bête meure " belongs to Chabrol's golden era.This is one of his most brilliant achievements,and,nevertheless,he would do even better with the next one"le boucher",with,again,Jean Yanne,an actor,who,before ,was featured in generally mediocre commercial movies.In his two films with Chabrol ,Yanne will show skills we would never thought of.Both characters,in "que la bete..." and "le boucher" are monsters;but monsters of different kinds:in "le boucher",Yanne is pitiful,moving,a product of the war (in Algeria?)On the other hand,in "Que la bête...",he's a hateful vulgar petit bourgeois brute.Compare the way Chabrol introduces his characters:in "le boucher",Popaul appears in the first scene,the wedding banquet,and he seems a good guy.In "Que la bête...",Chabrol does not show his face during Duchaussoy's son death on the road.When finally,the father discovers the reckless driver's house,we meet first his scared family circle.Then we hear his formidable voice.All happens like in a fairy tale:Tom Thumb entering the ogre's den.Perhaps Chabrol's most terrifying character, he holds up to ridicule his wife's attempt at poetry and he cannot understand his son ,a frail,sensitive,and clever teenager. The plot will take shape quickly,and after this story of sound and fury,the last pictures brings the audience some relief.Note,in both films,"le boucher" and "Que la bête.." ,the presence of water in these last pictures.

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
A dour naturalistic thriller, a moving film about grief, a Bunuellian social comedy, or a playful analysis of stories and storytellers?(possible spoilers), 21 December 2000
8/10
Author: Alice Liddel (-darragh@excite.com) from dublin, ireland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

'Que la bete meure' seems to diverge from Chabrol's characteristic methods in some ways. it begins with a death, as well as inexorably leading up to one. It does not directly concern the murderousness of bourgeois marriage, although it deals with that too. Most radically, we gain access to the main character's emotions and motivations, revealed through diary entries - usually Chabrol's characters reveal themselves through action or reaction, and then, motives are often obscure.

These are only really differences if we read Chabrol's film literally, superficially, which it is always fatal to do. The status of this diary must be questioned, especially when it moves outside the narrative, explaining Charles's motives, into it, as it becomes a barrier to his achieving a revenge, and is the only piece of evidence against him. We remember that he is a writer; in a sense, he creates the narrative, the film we are watching - he lives his life like a plot, with heroes, villains, romance and catharsis.

In this way, like so many Chabrol heroes and villains, he is linked to the director (at one point he stands by his home-movie camera), a voyeur, an intruder, while his lover is an actress. He writes childrens' books - as in many Chabrol films, 'Bete' is about the death of innocence: the film opens with the killing of a child; a second child is abused by his father to the point of contemplating murder. And yet, even when his son is killed, Charles wants to make believe it didn't happen, wants to live a different story.

So the film is full of stories, centred on, brought together and interpreted by Charles. In another 'story' concluding the film, his letter to Helen, he explains these stories, their purpose, even the meaning of the title; as he does so he is effacing himself, escaping France, the past, his identity. The Greek and religious elements structuring so many Chabrol films are made overt here, the equation complete in this most mathematical of films that began with such a terrifying sum, or a law of physics, with two contrary principles colliding.

And yet the last third is a babble of so many conflicting stories we don't know who or what to believe, how to filter lies from truths. This centres on the diary, its status as personal testimony, confession, cold-blooded plan, or an author's fiction. The neatness with which Charles' plot is tied up, as much as how it is engendered (the 'coincidence' of Paul's car getting stuck on a country lane), defies credibility, and the move from grim revenge thriller to hilarious bourgeois-baiting cartoon comedy is disarming to say the least. Is this simply a moving film about grief, about the patterns and fictions we create to help cope with what is essentially meaningless and horrifying? After all, if the beast must die, so must the man - and Chabrol, like his hero Hitchcock, is obsessed with doubles.

This narrative duplicity is matched in a rare Chabrol film of this period by a dour naturalism verging on ugliness, with deep, muddy colours, and harsh landscapes as pitiless as the revenger's quest. Yet another endlessly fascinating enigma from Chabrol.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
almost perfect,...., 29 January 2006
9/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I loved this film and would have given it a 10 had it not had a major problem with the plot towards the beginning of the film. Michel Duchaussoy is looking to find the hit and run driver who killed his son and has almost no clues to assist him. However, after a little searching, the first important clue is almost magically given to him! Now if you ignore this inconsistency, the rest of the film is great. This silly clue leads him to the passenger in the car--who turns out to be a rather decent person (though you must admit she is very weak because she let the driver bully her into silence). Duchaussoy initially fakes interest in this woman to find out if SHE was the driver or if she would reveal who it was, though along the way is seems he really does being to fall for her. VERY slowly he is able to gather that the driver was her brother-in-law. A little bit later, they get an invitation to stay at the sister and brother-in-law's home and he is eager to go and confront the murderer.

Fortunately for Duchaussoy, the man is completely horrid in almost every way (unlike the sweet girlfriend). It's easy to hate him and want revenge--heck, almost everyone around this "man" wanted him dead, it seems. However, revenge isn't something rushed and along the way he gets to know the family--particularly the decent but woefully abused son of the murderer. One of the most poignant scenes in the film is when this boy comments that he wishes his father was dead and would like to have Duchaussoy for a dad, instead.

Finally, the hero plans to drown the evil murderer, since the villain hates water and apparently can't swim. However, when they are out on the rough seas, the jerk informs him that he found and read Duchaussoy's diary and KNOWS he's planning on killing him, so he gave the book to his lawyer JUST IN CASE! Well, the plot is over and Duchaussoy and his girlfriend are thrown out of the house. BUT, Duchaussoy is happy and goes out to celebrate--presumably because he can now prove who the murderer is. At the restaurant where he is celebrating, the TV news reports that the killer was himself poisoned and the police were looking for Duchaussoy. Duchaussoy returns and is the prime suspect. BUT, considering that there is the diary that discusses his plans to kill the man, police are unwilling to arrest him because the diary was now known to all--plus nearly everyone had a motive for killing him! Well, at the very end the police inspector reasons that Duchaussoy STILL is the murderer. However, the dead man's son then admits to killing his father with rat poison. However, in the next scene, he leaves his lady friend a note admitting he REALLY was the man who was the killer. HOWEVER, the way this was done (where it appears Duchaussoy is about to kill himself) and the strong possibility that he only finally admitted to the killing because he cared for the boy and wanted to provide him with an alibi are brilliant. This uncertainty and the plot twists really made the film.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Clouzot-esque - which is all to the good, 1 December 2001
8/10
Author: Spleen from Canberra, Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

With the best will in the world you couldn't call Claude Chabrol and exciting film maker, but he can be interesting, and here he is at his most interesting. Made at a time when he (and many other directors) had for some reason forsworn visual beauty (look at "Les Biches" and you'll see a film that OUGHT to be gorgeous, and is instead rather dingy), beauty manages to sneak in anyway; besides which, all the images have a quiet, sombre grace which neatly suggests how the world would actually look to the central character.

The film contains a rare successful use of first person narration. We hear extracts from the hero's diary, which at first appear to be no more than an expository device; later they turn out to be an important part of the narrative (that is to say, the diary, as a physical object, has an important role to play in the story because of what it contains).

Possible spoiler ahead (although I'll try to be vague in case someone reads it by accident; it's worthwhile coming to this film cold).

Towards the end Chabrol raises the possibility that the diary is not what it appears to be. There's no doubt that what the hero writes in his diary is true, and in a sense we know that it's not even misleading - but it could be there's something crucial left unsaid; the diary may be one of those books in which, in Brian Aldiss's words, "everything is clear except the author's purpose in writing it". Yes, it IS maddening when Chabrol suggests two interpretations without making one seem even the slightest bit more likely than the other, but I didn't mind being maddened. Chabrol's even-handedness works for two seemingly incompatible reasons: (1) the emotional truth of the story is much the same either way, yet (2) each possible interpretation is so intriguing it would be a shame to lose the other one.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the best from director Chabrol, 6 November 2000
8/10
Author: Mario Bergeron from Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Canada

This is a very fine psychologic thriller in some mellow tones. The story is simple : a boy gets killed by a mad car driver and his father wants to find the man to kill him. We know, from the start, that there can be two finale : the father kills the man, or he changes his mind. But Chabrol makes us think that it can have another finale... Or another? Or perhaps this one? Not at all! We never thought of the real finale. This is brillant, well written and directed movie. Very fine acting by Duchaussoy and Yanne.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Multi-layered and intelligent revenge drama, 12 August 2008
Author: AdnanZ

Following a number of fairly mediocre efforts from the early to late sixties, Chabrol got right back on track with the excellent "Le Biches", and followed that film with "Que la bête meure", an intensely involving revenge drama with the emphasis on psychology and character over action and violence.

The film opens like any revenge thriller would (albeit probably better-shot and acted than most of them), with a child being killed in a hit and run and his father vowing to track down and kill the perpetrator. The tale slowly becomes more and more psychological, however, and ends up being a variation on a Greek tragedy, as others have noted. Chabrol is rarely content with following the expected routine (when he is his films can be dismal), and "Que la bête meure" is far from routine, as we end up spending more than an hour with the all the main characters in place and even together most of the time. The script is carefully written to avoid plot issues (outside of the contrived and silly first clue the main character gets, I can't think of any major issues I had with the script), and the dialogue is as deliberately orchestrated as Chabrol's direction is, building the suspense and drama gradually.

After the nearly continuous camera motion in "Les Biches", Chabrol takes a different approach to this film. It's less stylized and more natural, with the shot composition never feeling contrived as it sometimes did in Chabrol's immediately preceding effort, although there is some very good and very deliberate work around when we first meet the villain. Chabrol also uses close-ups to great effect, particularly in the scene late in the film with Paul and Charles on a sail boat.

What is striking about "Que la bête meure" is that while it deliberately builds suspense it also refuses to work as a thriller, and this is most clearly seen towards the end of the film when we get the standard twists but they're so subtle and low-key that one barely pays attention to them. The plot doesn't really matter here, the film is about much more, about the moral implications of revenge, about the nature of man, and it does well to apply these preoccupations to its characters so that we are never far removed from the emotions they are going through, in particular the main character Charles, played by Michel Duchaussoy.

After a string of disappointing features the last two years of the sixties saw two strong efforts from Claude Chabrol which helped keep him as relevant to cinema as he is. "Que la bête meure" is not a perfect film, and it may not even necessarily be a great film (although I think it qualifies), but it is engaging and enjoyable and far from empty. It leaves one thinking about it well after it has finished playing.

8.5/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Claude Chabrol shows us the true meaning of death,life and revenge, 24 September 2008
10/10
Author: Lalit Rao (cpowerccc@yahoo.com) from Paris, France

If there is a Gallic director who likes to surprise his admirers with new tricks,unexpected methods and iconoclastic stance,it is new wave master Claude Chabrol.There have been many bright moments in his illustrious career when he has made films for them which could only be appreciated by a sharp brain and attentive eyes.Que la bête meure is a hard to classify film which is neither a thriller nor a run of the mill revenge drama.It is a film which plays with all leading conventions of these two genres.This man must die starts well with the depiction of a reckless accident.It is quite possible that this might induce inattentive viewers to regard it as a revenge drama.This is not the case as viewers are quickly caught in a maze of crucial dramatic scenes that have direct bearing on film's progress.Caroline Cellier and Michel Duchaussoy perform well as lovers whose relationship has a lot of bearing on this film's progress.Chabrol is known for avoiding a not so happy end for his film.This is the reason why "This man must die" will prepare you to imagine your own type of end in order to do injustice to the concept of happy end of this film.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history