C'est banal, as the French say. Lovelace, an unmarried middle-aged lady and a young lover. Each is like the personification of his type, his pure embodiment, without distractions in nuances. Everyone is organic in their role. Understandable and therefore almost uninteresting. We kind of know everything about each one in advance -- that Lovelace would cheat with a bunch of young girls, but at the same time, he'd be offended that a regular partner had taken notice of the other. A middle-aged lady wants stability, married status and simple happiness - she "earned" it five years of loyalty. Well, the young man, disappointed in previous relationships with young and stupid girls, really fell in love. Of course, he is attracted by an intelligent, beautiful woman, despite her age, who looks beautiful. What's gonna happen? Also banal.
For me, one of the main characters, as always in such films is Paris: Place de la Concorde, Rivoli Street, Champs Elysees. Cars of the era, cafes, menus (caviar black as the main delicacy), music. It pays attention to how much smoked always and everywhere and drank, and, mainly, strong alcohol. Dresses, manners.
We look now, almost 60 years later, at this other world, a different life, which had the same love dramas, they were just as decided and just as wrong. But it's not our world anymore. Therefore, I do not sympathize with the heroes, but look aloof, as at Pushkin’s or Tolstoy’s passions.
An incomparable adaptation of the novel by Françoise Sagan. The film was shrill and strong. In the love triangle were people of different ages, different temperaments of different moral foundations. The hero of Yves Montana is a womanizer who does not miss a single skirt. The heroine of the incomparable Ingrid Bergman is a loving and devoted woman, obediently suffering the antics and betrayals of her beloved man, and the young man who fell in love with her, performed by the divine Anthony Perkins, is a standard of patience and submission. He is ready to accept any lot of fate, but still tries to fight for his love. An integral part of the film is, of course, music. Brahms’ 3rd Symphony has a powerful impact and enhances the tragedy of perception of the situation.
I started reading this book with a book. I don’t really like watching the film adaptations of the works I like, since they rarely meet expectations, but this, fortunately, is not the case.
Paula, beautiful, intelligent and successful, endures the constant infidelity of her beau, not daring to object, because they have a “free relationship”. One day she meets a young, naive Philip who falls in love with her at first sight. Conflict is nothing new, a trivial love triangle. It is interesting here that the psychology of a woman, her torments and thoughts are put forward in the first place. Today, in the age of feminism, this is not surprising, but in the 60s it was not so commonplace.
Actors probably don’t need comment. Bergman, Perkins and Montana, that's all there is to say.
The atmosphere of Paris, beautiful, noisy, elegant, but so sad and cynical. Perfectly complement this picture the music of Georges Oric, and of course Brahms.
It was this thought that came to mind after watching the melodrama Anatole Litvak"Do you love Brahms?" (1961). After all, all three main characters of the picture look more able to understand their attitude to the work of this composer than in their relationship to each other. That is, if you think about it, most people.
The modern viewer love triangle, in which 40-year-old woman is torn between his lover ( age-matched) and 25-year-old infantile boy, not really knowing what he wants from life, is already difficult to surprise.
But in 1961, it seemed more provocative. Especially if you remember that the film is a screen adaptation of the novel of the same name the author emphasized "female" novels ( I apologize for the tautology!) Françoise Sagan .
The film caused a lot of criticism and failed at the box office in the United States, but had a huge success among critics and viewers in Europe, which allows us to talk about different mentalities and different moral principles of the continents. But the plot canvas of the picture can hardly claim to be interesting and exciting.
That's why I don't see the point in revealing the plot of this creation. Speaking of the film as a whole, it is worth noting that in order to so, to put it mildly, not very interesting story hooked, it was necessary to involve the most real masters of their craft.
And I have to say, that's exactly what was done. The director and producer of the film was far not the last in the United States of the directors - Anatole Litvak. And among the leading actors are Hollywood stars Ingred Bergman and Anthony Perkins .
To give brand French charm to the picture, Yves Montand is connected to the production, and small roles here are performed by Michel Mercier, Yul Brynner and Jean-Pierre Cassel (though the roles of the last two not even small - actors in the frame will appear maximum for three seconds! It will not be easy to identify them.
In any case, bringing such an eminent line-up to the film ensured that something more meaningful than one might expect would come out. It worked. The film, despite the uninteresting plot, was staged by Litvak as if in a special "light style" - very poetic, easy and stylish, and, at the same time, without excessive overplay by the actors.
About the actors should be said separately. Ingred Bergman once again shows that can make interesting for the viewer any, even as ordinary and simple heroine as Paula.
Anthony Perkins on the wave of success in Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960) plays a completely different character, and it is worth noting that he is very successful in this - how abnormal is Norman Bates in the final "Psycho", just as naive and cheerful we see Philip in "Do you love Brahms?">>>>>>
Yves Montana also copes well with his role, although a lot is stalled against the background of the above two actors. It was interesting to watch the future Angelica - Michel Mercier in a small role of one of the mistresses of the hero of Montana, although it is still difficult to determine the future movie star in Michelle.
In the end, we can say that before us melodrama, which was able to become interesting thanks to the work of the director and the actors involved in it, who were able to show themselves in it from the best side.
You can recommend the film to those who are interested in the work of the director Litvak and the actors of the picture - Bergman, Perkins, Montana. Fans of the books of the writer Françoise Sagan to watch the film will also not be superfluous. Thank you very much.
P. S. The score was slightly understated due to an uninteresting plot!
The early '60s, I think, offered far more frank lines than the cinema of the later "sexual revolution." '70s. Unpretentiously and even playfully, Anatole Litvak offers us a journey through the ultra-modern in that period, but so understandable for the twentieth century, free relations. Do not expect transgender combinations, for it is a normal relationship between a woman and a man who accept each other and share many troubles, do not hurry to marry. Accordingly, this formality allows them to open a loophole for perfectly legalized adultery. Everything changes when, amid the constant intrigues of her partner, the heroine finds peace in the arms of a young man.
It is obvious that social prejudices, their vector, have changed dramatically. Now the novel of a young, fledgling man and a very elderly woman will not surprise even the most active lovers of gossip. And Litvak’s film, like Françoise Sagan’s literary source, shows how it was about fifty years ago. It was tough. Although, all events can be represented as a rebellion of the heroine, ending in a quite understandable reduction of the equation to external decency. Having achieved the expression of feelings from her partner and showing her attractiveness to everyone, she is ready for humility and forced acceptance of patriarchal principles. All the more interesting.
But the actors who play the main roles offer us the most magnificent performances. Ingrid and Eve Montane. Anthony Perkins, mostly exploiting his success in "Psycho" and in the wake of this success received the prize of the Cannes festival. All are good and accurate, pointing to the slightest half-tones. They, the actors and their work, are now much more valuable than the plot (interesting and worthy). How expressive is Ingrid and unexpectedly changeable Eve, passing a whole circle from impenetrable macho to reflective nerd.
Alas, but biased small cameo Yul Brynner missed, but I know for sure that in the frame he was supposed to appear. Perhaps someone is more fortunate.
Love triangle performed by masters of their craft!
I watched the movie Do You Love Brahms? The movie is very good. And let the story is not new, but how cool these artists are!!
This pure melodrama is based on the relationship of three people: two men and one woman. She, that is, Ingrid Bergman, beautiful and unfading, loves him, Yves Montana, and he, a hardened bachelor, does not even love her at all, but loves many different and young girls, whom Maisie calls. It's on one side. On the other, Philip, played by Anthony Perkins, slowly but surely emerges. He cannot find himself in this life, perhaps because he has a rich mother who provides for him. He has a job, but it's a burden to him. He had girlfriends, and it was all wrong. And then he saw her, not a young woman, but a beautiful and charming woman. And, bam, Brahms fell in love! At first sight, Brahms fell in love! At first glance, it may seem that this is just a hobby or more, a childish whim of a spoiled child. Ahn no! No whim, no fascination. But love! The one that's a million! He made every effort to win over this woman, or at least win over her. I did. What a happy moment she felt when she reciprocated him. But happiness doesn't last. You can achieve physical intimacy, and make one person, take and throw from the heart of another, even if that other womanizer, that's the task. The heart will not understand. And Paula's heart couldn't. Unfortunately, and perhaps fortunately, it happens.
I am not very familiar with the work of Anthony Perkins. I only saw the Hitchcock movie Psycho. But in this film, he just touched the liver. I am not afraid of this word, a great artist and I think just a good person.
Ingrid Bergman has created a wonderful image of the right woman, which is breathtaking.
Against the background of these two people, Yves Montana's game somehow fades. Or maybe it's just his image. Don't know. It's not for me to judge.
If you haven’t seen it, watch the movie Do You Love Brahms? At least you won’t be disappointed.
I would have put 10, but basically the right final upset me a bit.
9 out of 10
France, 1960s... The time of jazz, sophisticated ladies' outfits, exquisite hairstyles, unusual (for our time) cars, chic interiors. The film is immersed in the atmosphere of the time.
The plot is quite simple.
This is about a single 40-year-old woman who has a mutual love with a man. And all would be well if not for his constant infidelities, against which she had nothing before. Of course, over time, she wanted more, she got tired of sharing it with other women. Realizing that it is not so easy to abandon his affairs, Paula begins to spin an affair with a young boyfriend Philip.
Making choices that significantly affect your own destiny is never easy. The field had to do it... It is impossible to predict how her life would have turned out if she had chosen another contender for her heart.
The cast is great. In the films of the last century, there is often a certain amount of playfulness. Here I believed every word, and sometimes I noticed that the smile almost never came off my face throughout the film. It is so fascinating.