Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

GazerRise Fantastic!

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

happytrigger-64-390517 In the early 80's, as a young movie lover, my favorite was "le Plaisir" directed by Max Ophüls. And at that time, it was quite hard to have vidéo cassettes of such masterpieces, I found the cassette and watched "Le Plaisir" so many times showing it to everybody around me, the movie in fact I showed the most. We just loved "La Maison Tellier" with Gabin (so funny as a peasant searching for a love affair with Danièle Darrieux, unforgettable), every scene was perfect. And shot by master Christian Matras. The two other sketches are also great, especially the one with Simone Simon. Thank you Mr Ophüls for that true masterpiece.

dlee2012 This film feels far fresher today than Ophuls' other drawn-out melodramas. An omnibus collection of Maupassaunt short stories, filming a collection of brief narratives seems better suited to the director's style and curtailing his excesses.The first and third of the fables are the most satisfying, with strong points and a wonderful blend of magic, realism and irony setting the tone.The central story, is however, far weaker. The longest piece, it meanders relentlessly and ultimately feels pointless and lacks enough dramatic interest to keep the audience engaged.This weak centre piece does not undermine the film as a whole, however, and it remains an enjoyable piece of artistry.The costumes are excellent and convey a sense of time and place, rooting the fables firmly within fin-de-siecle France. The lighting and sets also serve the same purpose. The acting is strong and the dialogue is direct.Due to the shortness of each segment pacing, which is normally one of Ophuls' major weaknesses, does not present itself as a problem here.The first story, that of the masks, is playful in the sense that it present an actor playing a character who is playing a role of his own. The artifice of the magical mask reflects the artifice of cinema itself.Despite the fantasy element, the character is thoroughly believable in his motivations and remains highly memorable.In the last story, the line between illusion and reality is also shattered when the beautiful artist's model becomes a cripple. Her beauty is captured for eternity in the art whilst she remains wheelchair -bound yet content for her husband, who did not appreciate her when she was mobile, only now fully appreciates her when she is no longer whole.In conclusion, this film is a chocolate box of delicacies with lovely costumes, sets and interesting fables. It is Ophuls' most satisfying work, avoiding the soap opera excesses of his lengthier melodramas and has moments of real dramatic interest. It is worthwhile seeking out.

MartinHafer This film is made up of three stories by Guy du Maupassant--all of which have something, apparently, to do with pleasure (hence the title). However, this connection is very tenuous to say the least.The first is about an old man who is vain and wants to remain young. He does this by wearing a mask as he dances. Nothing interesting here other than a sad old vain man.The second is by far the longest one. It's about a brothel in a small town and it actually has two part. In the first one, it shows the reaction of the men in the community when the place found unexpectedly closed. The second consists of these women going to see the christening of the niece of one of the sex workers. All this is well acted--very well acted. Other, however,than perpetuating the 'hooker with a heart of gold' notion, this one didn't seem to have much of a point--more just a slice of life.The third is about an artist who falls in love with one of his models. However, once they begin cohabitating, they soon get sick of each other. But, through a twist of fate, they are stuck with each other. Pretty depressing.Apparently I am in the minority on this one. While its overall score is almost 8.0 and Stanley Kubrick apparently adored the film, it left me very flat. Now this is not because of the acting or direction--it was first-rate all the way and very lovely to watch. No, my problem is that none of the stories were that interesting--particularly the first and third ones. And the stories also didn't seem to have a lot of meaning or significance or irony.

dbdumonteil One of Max Ophuls' finest achievements,one of the best Guy de Maupassant adaptations for the screen.This is a movie made up of three sketches;it is rather a long story (la maison Tellier) framed by one prologue (le masque) an an epilogue (le modèle).Guy de Maupassant is ,by far,the best writer France as ever known,as far short stories are concerned-He wrote about 200 of them,and even influenced Dudley Nichols for the screen play of "stagecoach"(actually ,Claire Trevor was Boule de Suif)Le plaisir (the pleasure) is something fleeting,but the hero of the prologue(le masque) can't stand life is passing him by.His wife is a victim,women are often sacrified in Maupassant's work.At best they are ways for men to social advancement(Bel Ami,see "the private affairs of Bel-Ami", filmed by Albert Lewin ,1947,watchable,but which has given a totally false rendering of the conclusion),at worst ,once their lover or husband has used them ,they are often deserted (see "une vie" , directed by Alexandre Astruc,1958,which has a fine Claude Renoir cinematography."La maison Tellier" is the main body of the work:the subject is scandalous:madam and her whores close the brothel and head for the country.There,they are to attend madam's niece's communion.Max Ophuls has not always been faithfull to Maupassant:if you read the short story,you will realize how much these women are ugly,vulgar and fat;here ,we've got gorgeous Danielle Darrieux,plus Ginette Leclerc and Madeleine Renaud.Ophuls is an esthete and he could not subscribe to Maupassant's depictions.The two men come together when it comes to describe the reactions of the inhabitants of the village:the prostitutes pass for grandes dames,well educated,chic,and when they enter the church,it seems as if they enhance the religious fervor !!Maupassant,who was anticlerical to a fault,lets his irony flow;but there's compassion in Max Ophuls'pictures and I'm not sure the tears his heroines shed are that much laughable:regaining a child's soul -particularly on this communion day- is many a human being's secret longing.But cynism get the upper hand quickly and madam's brother,a bawdy Jean Gabin (the father of the little girl making her communion),is much more interested in his sister's "residents" than spiritual elevation.This second part climaxes the movie,with its steam-powered train,its banquet,its brothel of which the shutter are closed -we're only allowed to have a glimpse behind them-The movie opens and closes the same way:woman is born to be deserted when she's not a whore,like in the second sketch.Josephine (Simone Simon) will find her lover back but the price she will have to pay is terrifying.Why "le plaisir" ?Pleasure is few and far between in this world.Pleasure walks hand in hand with suffering.Guy de Maupassant himself knew fleeting pleasures he describes in part 2,but if you read his biography,you 'll meet a tormented soul,an extremely pessimistic mind,and a faux bon vivant who lived a dissipated life which ended in madness.This is one of the most absorbing,ambitious,complex and artistically successful masterwork of the French fifties.