The Bride Wore Black (1968)

[Mr. Arkadin]

I never saw all of Julie's victims as "bad" men. Her second and fourth victim do not seem to fall into the same mold as the first, third, and fifth. Therefore, the men Julie's killings are questionable as to their "badness".

It's also clear that she does have ethics, not allowing blame to be placed on the schoolteacher in the case of her third victim, not hurting the child, etc.. Her recounting of life with David in the flashback is a picture of the love and innocence that has been crushed inside her. When she cries outside the door of her third victim, she is not crying for him, or even for David. She is crying for what she has become--an angel of death, destroyer of men, a heartless killer.

Another interesting facet is David's ring, which Julie now wears. The ring is a point of contact with him and possibly his vengeance from beyond the grave. This is indicated slightly in the case of the fourth victim who takes the ring from her and actually tells her he loves her (which causes Julie to waver slightly). Thus we are left with the question, is Julie acting entirely on her own whim? Is she driven by loyalty, love, or even deeper forces? The superb acting by Moreau pushes the envelope further than simple slasher fare, and seems to add to the question.

[charliechaplinfan]

Remember too, she goes to the church to confession and this strengthens her resolve to carry on before God or guilt can stop her.

Does she keep the ring in jail, normally jewellry is confiscated until release, if that is her strength, she must still have it on but if not she still has the strength, the drive to carry on.

It's been pointed out that the film is flawed, in terms of plot, there are places where she might have been thwarted in killing her next victim, the one I think about most here is the killing in jail. She was never guaranteed to get into that position to carry it out. It is a minor niggle, it is still a great movie when all is said and done.

[CineMaven]

"By the way, anyone interested in a great read should pick up the book HITCHCOCK / TRUFFAUT which consists of a lengthy interview Truffaut conducted with Hitchcock punctuated with many beautiful stills. It's probably out of print but relatively easy to find."

About thirty years ago, I went to my friend Bob's house to hang out. He had that book. And he spent the night reading me that ENTIRE book. I rode my motorcycle home at 7:45 the next morning. WWhew!!!

[charliechaplinfan]

That sounds like a great night.

[MichiganJ]

***may contain spoilers***

I never intended to imply that TBWB was a slasher movie, only that, like those films, the movie is more about how the deaths are going to occur than anything else. Once the "mystery" is solved, that's all there is left. This is a movie about Julie's cold-blooded revenge, and not even so much that, but how she's going to carry it out. One of the interesting things, though, is that with the exception of one of her victims, even Julie is unsure as to how she's going to do it. Her first victim (who gets off fairly easy), she just takes an opportunity presented to her. Victim two, she uses one of his vices (drinking, which she discovers when inventorying his room with the maid), the third essentially gets buried alive, and the fifth gets "cupid's" arrow. It's only the fourth, the most "deserving" (he was the one who pulled the trigger and is also a car thief or something) who she intends to simply shoot. (One can ask, why doesn't she just shoot them all? She has opportunities with all of them to do just that, but, again, the film is not just about her revenge, but about the "how".)

As far as the men being "bad", well, number two is barely a "man" at all, and says as much repeatedly (Bouquet is one of my favorites in the film, and I think his performance is pretty great), and number five (I'm counting in order of attempts), is a judgmental womanizer, (who sleeps with a naked mural of Julie). Moreau gives some hints that she may be falling for this guy, but I don't buy it. He does nothing to deserve her love, so it's either out of character or I'm mis-reading her performance. (We are also not witness to his death, just its aftermath. So there may be something there, I'm missing, too.)

While Julie has no intent on hurting the child, she does leave the five or six-year old in a house alone all night, and presumably, it's he who discovers his dead father. The school teacher is interesting, but Julie's problem is with men, not women (she makes some comment to that regard, the lines of which escapes me.) The whole church scene comes out of left field. It follows Julie hearing the confession from the politician as to what actually happened, she cries, and then she seals the doors with masking tape. She shows no remorse whatsoever. It was even worse for poor Bouquet. She poisons him, and literally watches him die, even as he tells her how much pain he's in. Moreau's face remains a blank. This is not a woman who is sorry in the least.

David's ring is interesting, and as it's black, I always thought that's what the film's title was referring to. (She takes it from his dead finger) That David is helping to orchestrate the murders (even if only in her mind) is fascinating. But I don't see much indication of that in Moreau's performance (Although, maybe she needed to wear the ring before she could murder the artist, and he wouldn't give it back...)

I think a film like TBWB can't be looked into too deeply, though. I think Truffaut set out to make a thriller and pay homage to Hitchcock ( by the way, while I liked Hermann's score, it does often lead the action). There are way too many holes and coincidences that can't stand up to much scrutiny (most notably, how does Julie even know who shot her husband, and if she does, why don't the cops?). But all of that is beside the point; the film is a taut, enjoyable thriller, with a couple of terrific performances and works as a good introduction to Truffaut.

[ChiO]

It's fascinating how we can see the same movie, enjoy it (albeit to varying degrees), and still come away with quite varying views.

The "how" meant absolutely nothing to me. What maintained my interest is the slow inexorable march of Fate. Each man is flawed, but not fatally so, at least on the surface. As such, together they are a microcosm of Mankind. A rifle at a card game? Loading it? Leaving it around? Picked up? Startled so that it fires? And the bullet hits a bridegroom on the steps of a church? Outlandish...and yet each step has a peculiar logic that connects it to the next step. From there, it's the Angel of Death (thanks for that, Ark) taking each down as punishment for his sin, regardless of whether the sin was intended or not (of course, the killing of the bridegroom was not intended, but fleeing the scene...the failure to acknowledge and confess the transgression...certainly was). In the Noir Universe, Death...emanating from a chance event...is inevitable. Logic and justice, as we like to believe in them, simply do not exist.

Or as Kurt Vonnegut put it: We are captured in the amber of the moment. There is no why.

[Mr. Arkadin]

***may contain spoilers***

I never intended to imply that TBWB was a slasher movie, only that, like those films, the movie is more about how the deaths are going to occur than anything else. Once the "mystery" is solved, that's all there is left. This is a movie about Julie's cold-blooded revenge, and not even so much that, but how she's going to carry it out. One of the interesting things, though, is that with the exception of one of her victims, even Julie is unsure as to how she's going to do it. Her first victim (who gets off fairly easy), she just takes an opportunity presented to her. Victim two, she uses one of his vices (drinking, which she discovers when inventorying his room with the maid), the third essentially gets buried alive, and the fifth gets "cupid's" arrow. It's only the fourth, the most "deserving" (he was the one who pulled the trigger and is also a car thief or something) who she intends to simply shoot. (One can ask, why doesn't she just shoot them all? She has opportunities with all of them to do just that, but, again, the film is not just about her revenge, but about the "how".)

Wow. I could not disagree more. I think this film is about much more than "the mystery" (not sure if you're referencing her motivation or how each victim is killed). I see it as an interesting look at morality and the potential for good and evil, which dwells in each of us.

As I said in another thread, While I won't deny revenge is a big part of this film, I'd consider it the acting out, or physical manifestation of the death of Julie's love, which has destroyed her own life.

The idea of Julie not having a plan or knowing what she is going to do is refuted throughout the film. She is meticulous. Every death and its means is linked to each victim's personality (keeping with the morality theme). For example, the first victim is a womanizer who is to be married, but he still makes eyes at Julie, who uses his lust to draw him out on to the balcony where he falls for her figuratively and literally! Incidentally, I don't see Julie as Cupid with the fifth victim, but Diana The Huntress who he is drawing and has her model. She becomes his art and true to her character, she shoots him. The other killings can be linked in similar ways.

Julie shows no remorse because because as she tells the priest, she is dead already. One point here not mentioned throughout this thread is that we are talking about Julie's perception and how she sees life in very strict moral terms (black and white/good and evil). While her life is not literally over, she considers it so in keeping with her world-view, which also requires justice and punishment. The irony is she has become what she abhorred and reasoned was impossible (a potentially good person choosing to do evil). To validate her ideals, she actually attempts to become evil or death personified. Thus, her life is over in the sense that it is no longer she who lives, but the evil inside of her which seeks vengeance.

Finally, as for TBWB not being worthy of critical examination because of "holes and coincidences", I'm sure Truffaut would wear that comment as a badge of honor. After all, it was leveled at Hitchcock himself!

[MichiganJ]

Mr. Arkadin wrote:

I think this film is about much more than "the mystery" (not sure if you're referencing her motivation or how each victim is killed).

The only mystery in the film is how Julie is going to kill her victims. Her motivation is reveled half way through the film.

For example, the first victim is a womanizer...

With the exception of the bald dude, all of her victims make a pass at Julie, they might not be as overt as the first victim, but they all express their "interest".

The idea of Julie not having a plan or knowing what she is going to do is refuted throughout the film. She is meticulous. Every death and its means is linked to each victim's personality (keeping with the morality theme).

I disagree. With the exception of Bouguet (and the bald dude), she arrives at her victim's place not knowing how she's going to kill. For the politician, it isn't until playing hide-and-seek that she gets her inspiration (she would have no idea such a pantry existed to premeditate this way to kill him). Also, how would she know that the artist would paint her as Diana the Huntress? (The "cupid" line was a weak attempt at a joke, as she shot him through the heart--from the back no less!). I see it that she plans to kill them, but waits to see what opportunities present themselves. (How does poison reflect Bouguet's personality? Or a gun/knife the bald guy?)

I see it as an interesting look at morality and the potential for good and evil, which dwells in each of us.

I'd like to agree about the film being about morality, but I see nothing in Moreau's performance that indicates anything other than her desire to mete her revenge. As I said earlier, the remorse at the church seems unearned, especially given her demeanor while she watches her victims suffer and die. After her husband's death, Julie has no potential for good (in regards to her husband's "murderers"). As you and she said, she's dead inside. The morality aspect is moot.

Neil Jordan's The Brave One, starring Jodie Foster has a similar set-up as TBWB in that Foster's fiancé is murdered in an attack and Foster essentially becomes a vigilante. Her character has far more problems with her own morality than Moreau's Julie. While nowhere near as good a film as TBWB, Foster's struggle with right and wrong is what makes that film riveting. There is no such struggle in TBWB. Because we have no empathy (or even much sympathy) for Julie, or much sympathy (and no empathy) for her victims, our involvement with them is limited.

Finally, as for TBWB not being worthy of critical examination because of "holes and coincidences",...

Holy smokes, I never said that TBWB wasn't worthy of critical examination. What have we been doing for a week now? I only said, that like many Hitchcock films, if looked at "closely"--plot wise--TBWB has plenty of holes and talk about your coincidences. Who cares, though? Unless information is being withheld or manipulated these holes don't matter. I merely said that they are there, and one needn't look very deeply to find them. For the record, all of Truffaut's films are worthy of examination.

ChiO,
I tried, but still don't see this a Noir. It may have something to do with Hermann's score, which really does lead pretty much everything, but I never feel the angst I generally associate with Noir. There are a few moments where I can possibly see Noir, and that is when Truffaut films first-person from Julie's perspective, most notably during her stalking of the little boy. And it's here where Hermann's score, accenting when the boy turns his head and looks directly at "us", that the uneasy noir feeling hits. But once Julie is in the boy's house, that feeling is gone, and is replaced by the curiosity as to how big of a jerk his father is, and how she's going to do him in. Even when she's playing hide-and-seek, a sequence that could have been interestingly tense, is instead, almost fun.

[ChiO]

It may have something to do with Hermann's score, which really does lead pretty much everything

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. Within the first 10 minutes, I was tempted to turn the sound off and just read the subtitles. Underscoring (slight pun) a point is fine, but before we really knew anything about Moreau, the score was letting us know that she's ominous.

[charliechaplinfan]

The revenge she takes far outways the crime that they committed. By association of them all being in the same room in her mind, they are all guilty. The police can't connect them together which suggests that she learnt who was in that room from another source, let's presume it was a small enough town for someone to have known them all. They didn't know Julie until she told them who she was. The killing of number two and number three are cruel, at least 1,4 and 5 wouldn't have suffered for long.

I think she was an object of desire for the 5th man she killed, when she went to him she was dressed as a tramp obviously calculating what he would react to and he was seen looking at her very in interest only to be set upon by the police.

The score is quite penatrating but it was one of the things about the movie that really made me think Hitchcock, the scores for Vertigo and North By North West aren't subtle but are part of what makes a Hitchcock movie.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Hi MJ, it's pretty late here, and I'm about to crash, so I'm not going to answer everything in this post, but I will try to clarify a few things:

I was not inferring that Julie had everything planned down to the last detail. I do agree that Julie is an opportunist when it comes to her marks, but the film suggests that she does her homework on each victim and like the Boy Scout motto, is prepared. You can see this in the way that she meets her victims and becomes close to them. While it's also true that we are only shown her mapping of Bouguet's flat, this tells us that Julie studies her men, their backgrounds, and devises a plan of action. It would be pointless (and boring) to show her doing this over and over. The ironic nature of their deaths is obviously created by Truffaut.

Why not kill them outright? I think Julie wants them to suffer as she does. This is alluded to in her confrontation with the third victim when she says "For you it's an old story, for me it recurs every night".


As for the other three victims, Bouguet is not a womanizer. As you mentioned, he does not even consider himself manly. Julie sees the poster in his apartment of his ideal fantasy woman and brings her to life, awakening in him a hunger for love--only to poison him with a romantic wine--fulfilling his dreams, which will soon be eternal. The story pivots on the third killing where Julie's motives are revealed through flashback. Playing a schoolteacher who beats an intellectual at a children's game (Hide and Seek, the game she plays with all her marks), Julie relates the death of her innocence while he expires in real life. The gun/knife episode of Delvaux is pretty straightforward. He was the actual man who fired the gun and Julie proposes to use the same weapon on him. Upon finding him in jail, she again adapts and becomes a prisoner, killing him in his own cell.

The morality aspect is moot.

Obviously we must agree to disagree here. From my perspective, it is precisely because of her moral ideals that she becomes a killer.

I never said that TBWB wasn't worthy of critical examination.

I apparently misunderstood your previous post. Actually, I think it's great that the thread has stayed active this long. I wish TCM would show more foreign films, but they are not likely to do so unless they see interest generated. I love to see different points of view on film because it encourages me to look past the baggage I bring, and try a new perspective. Now to bed!

[MichiganJ]

Mr. Arkadin,

I'm starting to think we agree more than disagree and I'm just having troubles expressing myself coherently.

Julie most certainly is an opportunist, and a good one, too. The only victim where we don't see her specifically set up the killing is the first, and presumably she worked that out before the film starts (it's actually my favorite "death". Well, not the death necessarily, but the way Truffaut films the scarf blowing, seemingly forever, is not only gorgeous, but also ominous.) I also really like the sequence with the lawyer. How she finds the pantry, and then locks him in is terrific. Truffaut's brilliance shines when Moreau is rummaging through the cabinets looking for the masking tape and then he cuts to inside the pantry as she seals him (and us) in. Gruesome in its simplicity.

While Bouguet isn't a womanizer, he certainly makes his desires known, and you're right, Julie plays up to those desires.

As for Julie's moral ideals, I think after her husband's death, Julie has no choice but to seek revenge. She's powerless to choose between right and wrong and has become a killing machine. She even seems to hesitate form killing the artist, but is compelled to in the end. Her lack of choice between good and evil is why I don't think morality comes into play. (And why, for me, I'm more interested in the "how" than the "why".)

However, I do very much like the idea that she is compelled "by" her husband. Perhaps morality comes into play after all. Taking that idea to, maybe an absurd conclusion, perhaps the ring is the key. Truffaut takes great pains to show us her removing the ring and putting it on her finger. It's the excuse of loosing the ring that stops Julie from leaving the politician's house and it may explain why Julie hesitates killing the artist--because he has the ring. Of course the ring isn't mentioned for the other victims, so who knows.

I think it's great that the thread has stayed active this long. I wish TCM would show more foreign films, but they are not likely to do so unless they see interest generated. I love to see different points of view on film because it encourages me to look past the baggage I bring, and try a new perspective. Now to bed

Yes, yes and YES! This is a fun thread and everyone has forced me to re-think many of my initial views, and try to defend others. I, too, wish that TCM would run more foreign films; silents, too. (I guess I love to "read" my movies.) But I'm also grateful for what they do show. I tend to watch more international films than anything else, and TCM has turned me onto a number of great, thought-provoking films. (Just like this forum!)

[charliechaplinfan]

At least TCM shows some foreign movies, I have had to use rental services to see foreign movies and it's a great way to see them, so many have been released now that it's possible to sample at least two or three films from most of the more popular directors.

[Mr. Arkadin]

I saw Abel Ferrara's Ms. 45 (1981) recently (thanks to a glowing endorsement by Mr. Dewey), which seemed to have similar themes and parallels to The Bride Wore Black, although much grittier and more linear:

[youtube][/youtube]

For those wanting talk different Truffaut, the old Mississippi Mermaid (1969) thread is here:

http://silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/vie ... f=1&t=1489

Sorry the pics are gone. I shifted them in my photobucket account some time ago.

[JackFavell]

The Bride Wore Black is showing again on Tuesday, September 29th at 8:00pm.

I have never seen it (well, I have seen one small scene), but I am looking forward to recording this one, and would love a chat after the showing.