A good story of criminal investigation !!
The commissioner Maigret visits an old friend who is now investigating judge in a small town of France.
This film was directed by the Swiss direcor Claude Goretta who died on February 20th 2019.
3 Reviews
"I'm afraid. Of the consequences of certain methods."
garywhalen24 September 2023
Returning home to Paris from a conference, Maigret has a planned stopover in the town of Fontenay to visit an old friend, the town's magistrate. Upon arriving and before meeting his friend, Maigret learns that there have been two murders in the town, and those who see him assume he's there to investigate the case. Maigret explains, repeatedly, that no, he's not there to help with the murder investigation. No surprise to the viewer, though, that upon a third murder Maigret involves himself. Maigret's friend Chabot welcomes Maigret's help and provides him with details of the town's social structure, the position of the murder victims in that structure, and the town people's suspicions.
I've read all of George Simenon's Maigret mysteries. Some more than once. As with any mystery the "incident"-usually a murder-and the conclusion are the hooks that grab a reader, but when it comes to Simenon, as with other great mystery writers, the best parts are the lingering moments in between beginning and end. In this episode, as with the book upon which it's based, it's conversation that fills the story, particularly the conversations' subtleties-the things one "hears" between the lines-that drive Maigret to the denouement. This film is in complete alignment with the novel: no padding, no added subplot, no change in dialogue. The solution and rationale for the murders is solid, and Maigret's deductive abilities are fair and reasonable, EXCEPT . . .
Maigret makes one slight move from, say, Point A to Point B to get to C. (I don't want to give anything away.) His getting to point A is a bit-just a bit-of a stretch, but once there his continued revelation of the events all fit with the evidence and with what Maigret had picked up in all those conversations. (After watching the ending I thought that the filmmakers must have left out something that's in the book, maybe a bit of dialogue or a thought Maigret had, so I checked. Nope, they didn't. They went with what Simenon wrote and left it as is.)
While all the Maigret films in this series have lengthy and important dialogues I would say that this one is solely a series of such, and that's OK with me. It's part of why I like Simenon. But be prepared. Yes, the payoff is worth it.
I've read all of George Simenon's Maigret mysteries. Some more than once. As with any mystery the "incident"-usually a murder-and the conclusion are the hooks that grab a reader, but when it comes to Simenon, as with other great mystery writers, the best parts are the lingering moments in between beginning and end. In this episode, as with the book upon which it's based, it's conversation that fills the story, particularly the conversations' subtleties-the things one "hears" between the lines-that drive Maigret to the denouement. This film is in complete alignment with the novel: no padding, no added subplot, no change in dialogue. The solution and rationale for the murders is solid, and Maigret's deductive abilities are fair and reasonable, EXCEPT . . .
Maigret makes one slight move from, say, Point A to Point B to get to C. (I don't want to give anything away.) His getting to point A is a bit-just a bit-of a stretch, but once there his continued revelation of the events all fit with the evidence and with what Maigret had picked up in all those conversations. (After watching the ending I thought that the filmmakers must have left out something that's in the book, maybe a bit of dialogue or a thought Maigret had, so I checked. Nope, they didn't. They went with what Simenon wrote and left it as is.)
While all the Maigret films in this series have lengthy and important dialogues I would say that this one is solely a series of such, and that's OK with me. It's part of why I like Simenon. But be prepared. Yes, the payoff is worth it.
Quite hard work for Maigret, extremely so for viewers
Tony-Holmes1 November 2023
Saw this on the Talking Pictures channel, UK. I've read many of the books, and we've seen all the UK TV versions, with Rupert Davies, Michael Gambon, and Rowan Atkinson.
These French films, with Cremer in the lead, can be hard work, at usually 2 hours long, though Cremer has the right size and gravitas for the role.
This one was exceptionally hard going - the review by Gary Whalen gives much of the background very well, there have been 2 murders when Maigret arrives, and soon a third, the town has several families of the privileged (though not so wealthy we learn) and they are generally resented by the poorer bulk of the town. Remember these are set not so very long after WW2.
One of the murder victims was one of the upper-class set, the other 2 an old lady, and a drunk, both from the 'normal' section of town. All the acts were the same 'MO' as they'd say in an American film!
The intro sections were very hard work for the viewer, long and 'talkey', laying out who was who in the main families. I nodded off just in that bit. Maigret gradually gets drawn into the details of the case, in his usual quiet and thoughtful way.
The local police are portrayed as incompetent, and the magistrate (Maigret's friend, that he's come to visit) wants to blame some local maniac (if they find one), but is afraid that one of his bridge-playing friends is the guilty party.
My other half joked that the chap who'd killed himself must have read the script again (?!) -- and she may have been right. I think this story was done better and quicker in one of the UK versions, but much as I like Simenon generally, this isn't a Maigret story I'd be recommending to people!
And it plays out, very slowly, and with quite a few meaningful pauses - I nodded off again near the end. A quite absurd sub-plot with one of the upper-class set, having an affair with a local tart, ends with both attempting suicide, one succeeding. She has been getting regularly beaten, and the man (now deceased) is taken to be the murderer -- but is that the end?
These French films, with Cremer in the lead, can be hard work, at usually 2 hours long, though Cremer has the right size and gravitas for the role.
This one was exceptionally hard going - the review by Gary Whalen gives much of the background very well, there have been 2 murders when Maigret arrives, and soon a third, the town has several families of the privileged (though not so wealthy we learn) and they are generally resented by the poorer bulk of the town. Remember these are set not so very long after WW2.
One of the murder victims was one of the upper-class set, the other 2 an old lady, and a drunk, both from the 'normal' section of town. All the acts were the same 'MO' as they'd say in an American film!
The intro sections were very hard work for the viewer, long and 'talkey', laying out who was who in the main families. I nodded off just in that bit. Maigret gradually gets drawn into the details of the case, in his usual quiet and thoughtful way.
The local police are portrayed as incompetent, and the magistrate (Maigret's friend, that he's come to visit) wants to blame some local maniac (if they find one), but is afraid that one of his bridge-playing friends is the guilty party.
My other half joked that the chap who'd killed himself must have read the script again (?!) -- and she may have been right. I think this story was done better and quicker in one of the UK versions, but much as I like Simenon generally, this isn't a Maigret story I'd be recommending to people!
And it plays out, very slowly, and with quite a few meaningful pauses - I nodded off again near the end. A quite absurd sub-plot with one of the upper-class set, having an affair with a local tart, ends with both attempting suicide, one succeeding. She has been getting regularly beaten, and the man (now deceased) is taken to be the murderer -- but is that the end?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
