I had to see all the remakes of "les Diaboliques" by Clouzot, adapted very freely by the Clouzot brothers from the Boileau and Narcejac book. In the book, the victim is a man with heart problems, killed by his wife and mistress. But Clouzot changed the situation, and it was his real wife in life that became the fragile victim (Vera Clouzot would die of heart attack a few years later), and the husband and his lover (fantastic Signoret) are the demoniac killers (was Meurisse the double of Clouzot?).
In this third version of the book, directed competently by John Badham, it is simply a remake of the Clouzot brothers script still happening in a school, with no elements from the book (even if you have Boileau and Narcejac in the credits, but missing the Clouzot brothers). Sam Waterston seems a weak husband at the beginning, but quickly reveals to be a violent monster, he is a worthy successor to Paul Meurisse. Joan Hackett, physically strong, is the fragile wife of Waterston. Tuesday Weld, physically tiny, is the tough sadistic Waterston lover. They both fit very well their characters. Still from the french movie, we see the wicker trunk for the corpse. "Reflections of a murder" is a pleasant and well done remake of "les Diaboliques", but the original Clouzot masterpiece had much more impact 20 years before, as this version is only a forgotten tv movie with only a video cassette release.
There are two other tv versions of the book, "les Démoniaques" with Aurore Clément (she is the only advantage of this poor version, far from Clouzot and Boileau - Narcejac in art collection background, to forget) and "House of secrets" (still close to Clouzot but with some elements of the book, and an interesting new beginning and ending in an asylum). And the last version is a cinema version with stars Sharon Stone and Isabelle Adjani (Stone is ridiculous, with vulgar clothings and behaviour, the husband is even more ridiculous (burying the movie) and Adjani is fine ; to forget, it is a vulgar remake of Clouzot's film still in a school (we find again the wicker trunk), with a ridiculously inconceivable new ending ; in the final credits, you can find the script by the Clouzot brothers). In fact, none of these versions are faithful to the original book, only the egyptian version from 1968 had nothing to do with Clouzot's script and was adapted from the book with the fragile husband.
I just wonder how Hitchcock would have adapted the original book, as he was very interested by shooting it and finally shot quite faithfully another Boileau and Narcejac, giving his masterpiece "Vertigo" (with just manipulating the end).
In this third version of the book, directed competently by John Badham, it is simply a remake of the Clouzot brothers script still happening in a school, with no elements from the book (even if you have Boileau and Narcejac in the credits, but missing the Clouzot brothers). Sam Waterston seems a weak husband at the beginning, but quickly reveals to be a violent monster, he is a worthy successor to Paul Meurisse. Joan Hackett, physically strong, is the fragile wife of Waterston. Tuesday Weld, physically tiny, is the tough sadistic Waterston lover. They both fit very well their characters. Still from the french movie, we see the wicker trunk for the corpse. "Reflections of a murder" is a pleasant and well done remake of "les Diaboliques", but the original Clouzot masterpiece had much more impact 20 years before, as this version is only a forgotten tv movie with only a video cassette release.
There are two other tv versions of the book, "les Démoniaques" with Aurore Clément (she is the only advantage of this poor version, far from Clouzot and Boileau - Narcejac in art collection background, to forget) and "House of secrets" (still close to Clouzot but with some elements of the book, and an interesting new beginning and ending in an asylum). And the last version is a cinema version with stars Sharon Stone and Isabelle Adjani (Stone is ridiculous, with vulgar clothings and behaviour, the husband is even more ridiculous (burying the movie) and Adjani is fine ; to forget, it is a vulgar remake of Clouzot's film still in a school (we find again the wicker trunk), with a ridiculously inconceivable new ending ; in the final credits, you can find the script by the Clouzot brothers). In fact, none of these versions are faithful to the original book, only the egyptian version from 1968 had nothing to do with Clouzot's script and was adapted from the book with the fragile husband.
I just wonder how Hitchcock would have adapted the original book, as he was very interested by shooting it and finally shot quite faithfully another Boileau and Narcejac, giving his masterpiece "Vertigo" (with just manipulating the end).