Even dedicated Laughtonians seem to dismiss this interesting performance of the masterand why? Why?Their premise is grievously wrong. What CL does here is a Simon impression,a Simon pasticheand a proper, adequate and of a delicious finesse lecture of the genuine Maigret
--one would consider it needless to sayyet Maigret is not Holmes, Poirot, etc.. Laughton sized this distinctivenessand worked it in a masterly Simonian key
.Laughton's entrance in THE MAN ON THE EIFFEL
is saluted with a laugh. This is the genuine Maigretas done by Simon
.This adaptation is primarily a Laughton recital. His performance has a genuineness not to be found elsewhere. The dismissal of his role here by so many Laughtonians is puzzling. Laughton was born to play Maigret. The Simon impression/pastiche seems rather conscientious. The droll note is deliberate. One buff consider MAIGRET Laughton's worst performance ever; on the contrary, it's one of his most perspicacious and subtly endearing, even riveting. Who loves Simenon's novels in their subtle substance ,can not but hail this marvelously tasty film. This is vintage adaptation; one must be naive, or grossly incompetent to think or, moreover, feel otherwise. Some speak as if they thought Laughton ought to play a Holmes or a Poirot here. The real, literary Maigret is as Laughton plays it. Ignorance, mere literary ignorance, dear pals, is playing a nasty trick on her victims, leading them to believe they know how should Maigret look likewell, to those folks I utter: Maigret is no Holmes, no Poirot, do not expect this kind of stuff
. Very, very good film. It is primarily a Laughton recital, and so comes highly recommended.
Three more things:--there comes a day when the _cinephile makes one of his defining experiences:when he understands that Laughton, Simon, Bogart, even Gable are better than Newman, Brando, Hopkins this experience may take various forms, yet the essential content is as enunciated;--secondly, THE MAN ON is a superior B movie, charming and lurid as a B movie; maybe the directing is somewhat clumsy, but the conception is definitely fine;--it is deliberately lowbrow, a fine, delectable amusement, a frank B movie (as such, different from the notion of Delannoy's classicist adaptations of the Simenon mysteries ).The touches of camp of this amiable, lurid tale, colorful and highly amusing, are deliberate.
The critics of this charming, atmospheric crime thriller assume that Maigret is Holmes or Sam Spade or whoever. Well, he is not. He is someone else. Here we have Maigret as Simon would have played him.
This funny adaptation is a small B movie both more comical and more overtly dramatic than its literary source.
Three more things:--there comes a day when the _cinephile makes one of his defining experiences:when he understands that Laughton, Simon, Bogart, even Gable are better than Newman, Brando, Hopkins this experience may take various forms, yet the essential content is as enunciated;--secondly, THE MAN ON is a superior B movie, charming and lurid as a B movie; maybe the directing is somewhat clumsy, but the conception is definitely fine;--it is deliberately lowbrow, a fine, delectable amusement, a frank B movie (as such, different from the notion of Delannoy's classicist adaptations of the Simenon mysteries ).The touches of camp of this amiable, lurid tale, colorful and highly amusing, are deliberate.
The critics of this charming, atmospheric crime thriller assume that Maigret is Holmes or Sam Spade or whoever. Well, he is not. He is someone else. Here we have Maigret as Simon would have played him.
This funny adaptation is a small B movie both more comical and more overtly dramatic than its literary source.