Nada (1974) User Reviews

Expertly cynical cartoon-thriller.

[the red duchess · 7/10 · 31 October 2000]

For nearly a decade, in the late 60s and early 70s, Claude Chabrol was arguably the greatest director in the world, in Europe at any rate. 'Nada' comes from this period, and yet is an exception in the oeuvre. Instead of a claustrophobic thriller in a domestic setting, 'Nada' is about international terrorists running amok through France (in a way, the film is a parody of the previous year's 'Day of the Jackal'). Instead of intricate psychological depth, Chabrol offers pure cartoon. The police are a hangover from the Vichy era, murderously cyncial, while the terrorists are organised by someone who no longer believes in revolution.

As a sophisticated analysis of pressing contemporary events, the whole thing seems rather silly, until you start spotting Chabrol's wicked, misanthropic irony, and you wonder if the old boy hasn't done it after all. Never take Chabrol's glittering surfaces at face value. The massacre scene is deeply cynical, shocking, brilliant cinema.

The NADA Trap

[jcappy · 7/10 · 14 March 2010]

The NADA Group's weakness is that it's both too circumscribed by the state and too willing to mirror the state to count itself as revolutionary. The boldness of Chabrol's film is his picture of a criminal, sadistic authoritarian state, so that the first half of this equation is more than convincing. In his first and last theoretic statement, Diaz says: "Leftist and state-controlled terrorism, while their methods cannot be compared, are the two jaws of the same idiot trap." Yes, Diaz is right the trap he fell into was much of his own doing, but the failings of the cadre is in no way comparable to the nearly absolute social control of the state.

This said, the outcome of the kidnapping of the US Ambassador, might have been more favorable--or not undertaken in the first place--if NADA was a truly revolutionary group. The greater the force, the stronger the internal politics have to be. That is, self-determination may not have been an option, but acting according to principle was. Three ways in which NADA reflects the state, and thus makes itself more vulnerable to the state, are in its treatment of women, in its casual reliance on violence, and in its adherence to spectacle.

Upon entry into the US Ambasador's bordello suite, one NADA member announces "We are not sadists," presumably to ease "Salome" and claim a difference with the State. Granted, but NADA is sexist. It does practice sexual commodification and it does exploit women. Veronique Cash may not need a Madam, nor get paid for her services, but one of her services is obviously sexual. Women as sexy yes, love as sex no: this is the formula of both the State and NADA. And tellingly, Epeulard, mister experienced-revolutionary, does not want her in the group, but he does want her body. Cash is kind of like the drinks she serves, a kind of badge for the cadre's masculine status. Nameless, to both the police state and to the cadre, she identifies herself as "a kept girl" or "I'm a girl, I'm a whore." And is referred to as "a misunderstood bitch," which is, in a way, accurate. For she may be, in the end, the most subversive "member" of NADA. She alone is in touch with the natural world (her rabbits are the first victims of the massacre); she alone is armed enough to take measure of vengeance for it, and she alone can take the measure of the failed men around her (the only man shown doing housework is Epeulard --and only after his impotence is made clear). But it's her shocking mind-blown murder at the hands of the fully masked Goeman that's the ultimate proof both a brutally sexist state, and a feckless revolutionary cadre.

In the tete-a-tete between the Minister and Goemond, the siege of NADA is put on the level of military operation, cross-hairs, cold calculation, and summarial justice: "I don't care how you do the job," says the Minister. "Besides, is it worth taking them alive?" "If up to me," says Goemond, "I would put them to the wall... but the Ambassador?" "If they liquidate him," says the Minister, "how dreadful... the left has a tiny fraction of sympathy which could no longer identify with the left." NADA's violence casts a very weak shadow next to the fatherland's, but it's relation to it is no less obvious. The bungled abduction, the shoddy planning, the death of the cop and the house worker, the male swagger and callousness, the casual romance of the plan, the cynicism and indifference, and the suicidal, heroic tendencies, are all part of NADA's violence. An actual opportunity does not a timely and thought-out political action make. One result of this is the immediate round-up, interrogation and, in some cases, torture, of a thousand Parisian lefties. Another is the subsequent deaths of every damn one of the NADA comrades. All this cannot simply be cast off as expediency. It is not true as Goemond says "that leftist have no guts," but it may true that action and weapons are more endearing to them than intelligence or defense.

Yes, "the revolution will not be televised." But the state/media are one and NADA gets cast in a story it cannot direct. Lifestyle, personality, posturing, and cool gestures can inform their narrative, while intelligence, community, and reason are what the omnipresent cameras and TV screens cannot shoot nor display. So if the state has its script, stagecraft, and empire style down pat, NADA, unable to produce its own image, must capitulate in its own demise. Each member's role is cued by the shadows of little screens. One adapts an all-black clothing scheme, another shouts "I'd rather die in blood, than live in a pile of poop," another goes down with "shit, long live death." No wonder XX says "the 60s had a goal;" and calls this malleable giddy group a "bunch of kooks." Diaz, on the lam after the siege, broadcasts his identity to a gas-attendant, trusting fame will spark the revolution: "tell the press they murdered us." NADA confuses popular support with voyeurism. And Diaz, believing in the simple idea of anti-authority is, like NADA itself,, politically apathetic, and never asserts any politics on its own terms. So, it's up to Treuffais, who's passed up the abduction, to offer the "short but full story of the Nada Group" which he does in words and not images.

Not the best that Chabrol has to offer

[The_Void · 6/10 · 7 December 2008]

Claude Chabrol had his golden period in the late sixties and early seventies with films like This Man Must Die, The Breach and Wedding in Blood. These films were great because Chabrol delivered thrills and complex characters in equal measures; but Nada is something of a change of pace and unfortunately this film is not vintage Chabrol. The film features basically a criminal plot and this is mixed in with political elements. From a personal point of view, politics doesn't interest me that much anyway; but that is especially true here as Chabrol isn't able to spin an interesting story out of it. The plot focuses on a group of kidnappers that call themselves 'NADA'. They hatch a plot to kidnap the American ambassador, take him back to their hideaway and wait for the Government to give into their ransom demands. The plot goes smoothly; but the gang encounter trouble when internal rivalries begin to spring up; and they find out that the police chief they're up against is less forgiving than they are.

From Claude Chabrol I have come to expect intriguing and meaningful films that work on a multitude of levels. Part of the reason why I don't consider Nada to be anything like Chabrol's best work is simply because I don't care about the subject matter (as opposed to the best of Chabrol, which have the ability to appeal to everyone). However, the fact still remains that this is not a particularly good film. The point of the film is muddled at best and Chabrol's message is always hazy. The plotting is not particularly exciting and since the plot line is not interesting; Nada does at times become difficult to follow. To its credit, the film is rather well made and as always Chabrol does a good job of staging and setting scenes. The acting is decent too and Chabrol has brought together a varied and interesting cast, headed by Italian actor Fabio Testi, who plays their respective roles well. Overall I would not recommend this to my fellow Chabrol fans; the great director has a vast filmography filled with classics and I would recommend seeing those instead.

Cynical, minimalist Chabrol

[Camera-Obscura · 11 October 2006]

THE NADA GANG (Claude Chabrol - France/Italy 1974).

With this excellent political thriller Claude Chabrol charted into more familiar genre territory. This time he made this cynical account about a small Franch group of post '68 terrorists kidnapping the American ambassador from a luxury Parisian brothel, secreting him away in an isolated farmhouse while they wait for an answer to their demands. But the police chief they're dealing with is even more violent than they are and doesn't care about getting back the hostage alive.

In hindsight this film has become a typical exponent of the - mostly left wing - underground activities in the '70s and 80's. In these modern times, when terrorism is almost exclusively associated with Islamic religiously motivated terrorists, this kind of political activism comes across as refreshingly modern.

While some might consider Nada as somewhat of a disappointment after Chabrol's brilliant series of films, like La femme infidèle (1969) Qua la bête meure (1969), Le Boucher (1970), La Rupture (1970) and Juste avant la nuit (1971), this remains cool, stylish and exciting film-making of the kind very few directors can match. And what about Fabio Testi in his black leather overcoat? Is he the coolest looking criminal you've ever seen, or what?

Camera Obscura --- 8/10

Confused and Pointless Message

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 4 February 2011]

A group of anarchist leftist called "Nada" and led by the terrorist Buenaventura Diaz (Fabio Testi) abducts the American ambassador Richard Poindexter (Lyle Joyce) in a brothel in Paris and brings him to a farm in the countryside. The French Minister (André Falcon) gives a blank cheque to the violent chief of police Goemond to destroy the kidnappers and then makes him the scapegoat to protect the State.

"Nada" is a political thriller by Claude Chabrol with a confused and pointless message. Maybe in the historical moment of its release (1974), with the United States of America sponsoring the dictatorships in South America, this acid criticism to the role and behavior of the State could work. But in 2011, this film is dated. In this genre, I still prefer Costa-Gravas films. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

very interesting but very muddled message

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 12 February 2006]

I've got to admit that this movie was pretty interesting to watch, but because it didn't seem very clear in its message I doubt it had much impact. It was just a rather cynical and nihilistic mess. The story is about a group of anarchists who snatch the US ambassador and hold him for ransom. But, we then see that although the terrorists aren't very nice, the police are a bunch of fascist thugs and they deliberately kill all the terrorists and let them kill the ambassador. So, the message seems to be contemporary French society of the 70s stinks and individual acts of terror are meaningless--so rise up all peoples and have a widespread revolution instead. Please,...I didn't watch the movie to be preached at or listen to distorted moral relativism. Ponderous and preachy seem to be the general tone of the film. PLUS, if EVERYTHING stinks, what, then, does the film's maker suggest instead?

PS--this movie is pretty violent and there is some VERY explicit nudity that would make this inappropriate for all kids.

Fast moving, darkly amusing

[HEFILM · 9/10 · 30 June 2005]

A thriller with serious intentions but also with a fast pace and a comic/ironic view of all its characters motivations. The ideas behind the brutal police and the brutal kidnappers are dead serious, but Chabrol shows each side to be rather absurd and many scenes have some odd or funny pay off moment. The main policeman lounges like a goof ball in a chair while they torture a suspect. During the kidnapping one of the kidnappers knocks out a completely naked hooker and at the end of the scene comes back into the room to cover her pubic hair. The dialog is filled with comedic twists throughout. These Little things let us know that these deadly doings are, well silly. If it wasn't that people get killed doing them these people would be laugh out loud funny. That's the point of the tone of the film. It's an additional layer of damnation that most dead serious thrillers forget. The violence in the film is bloody and the message about politics being against all of us and ready to betray anyone, especially if you resort to killing your fellow man is important today. This is one of Chabrol's best films, he makes good use of helicopter views of the assault on the hideout at the end of the film. A well cast film with many parts, but you never get confused as to who is who. There aren't many films that have tried or achieved this combination of elements, one that does come to mind is the excellent TV movie THE DAY REGAN WAS SHOT.

Uneven political thriller

[Red-Barracuda · 5/10 · 27 June 2011]

An anarchist group called Nada kidnap the American ambassador in a high class Paris brothel. The state then counter this by giving the chief of police license to deal with the situation. The state proves to be more brutal than the terrorists.

This is a pretty atypical film from Claude Chabrol. While it deals with moral ambiguity, which many of his films do, it also is very directly political which is unusual. Other than the idea that the state can be more amoral than terrorists, I'm not too sure what else the film has to say. The subject matter of Marxist revolutionaries taking radical action is one that would have been much more in vogue in the 70's than now though. Overall, the film lacks the personal feel of Chabrol's more intimate thrillers. The political angle doesn't seem to be material best suited to his style. And as a result Nada is a slightly underwhelming movie.

The slump begins here

[dbdumonteil · 3/10 · 21 January 2007]

"Nada" was the most inadequate follow-up to "Les NOces Rouges" which,with hindsight,appears now as the last good movie of Chabrol's golden era (1967-1973) "Nada" is Chabrol's first real attempt at a wholly political movie;his previous work "les Noces Rouges" had also political elements but it was more a psychological thriller with the usual look at society in French provinces."Nada" includes terrorists,ambassador,hostage-taking,a lot of blood,not really Chabrol's field.A heterogeneous cast gives the movie the coup de grâce :only Duchaussoy,who had already played with the director ,and Maurice Garrel are up to scratch.Viviane Romance ,one of Duvivier's actresses ("la Belle Equipe" "Panique") ,is wasted as a madam (Gabrielle).Italian actors (Fabio Testi,Lou Castel)are awful.

With "Nada" this a second period of barren inspiration for Chabrol .It would be "Violette Nozières" before he was again at the top of his game.

A must see, especially for being a very surprising Claude Chabrol's movie in the pure Yves Boisset style

[searchanddestroy-1 · 24 April 2016]

If you are fond on French crime novels world, you know that this film was adapted from à Jean-Patrick Manchette's novel. One of the best French novelist from the seventies and eighties. The novel which this feature is adapted from was a very nihilistic tale against the institutions, governments and state rules. And this movie made by Claude Chabrol - whose it is not the kind of movies he usually did, you know that - this film seems very close, scene for scene, to the book. If you dare comparing, this film NADA is, to the genuine novel material, exactly the same that Jean-Pierre Melville's LE DEUXIEME Soufflé was to Jose Giovanni's novel. In both cases, the movies made from the books seem so close to them. But you would be damn wrong if you thought so. Concerning Melville's film, please read my comment. But about NADA, I repeat, Manchette gave us a story which enhanced the anarchists, or left winged terrorists, he tried to give them some good reasons to behave as they did. But if you read the book and then watch the movie very closely, you will notice that Chabrol doesn't have the same language. In a sort of way, he criticizes the anarchists. He wants to show to the audiences the emptiness of everything they do. In that purpose, he uses some sentences told by the anarchists characters. Even if, I repeat, the movie seemed to have been shot, "book handed". Page by page.

The message was not the same.

And, besides, I have already seen movies adapted very differently from novels but only on the "shape" - scenes - but not on the true meaning. For instance both RIFIFI films: RIFIFI CHEZ LES HOMMES and RIFIFI CHEZ LES FEMMES.

I will finish by telling you that Michel Aumont gives in this film one of his best performances ever as the terrific, nasty, disgusting commissaire - superintendent - Goémond. Nasty and sometimes funny, when he speaks or listens to someone, very unusual for a disturbing character, some kind of Gestapo torturer. Watch very closely to his character's performance please, especially, I repeat, for the very evil character he is. You won't be deceived. Michel Aumont who is still alive and also a great stage performer. He has in this film a role very close to the one Robert Hossein had in LE PROFESSIONAL, a kind of fascist like superintendant. And the relation between two supporting characters, Maurice Garrel and the anarchist hooker, is also very unusual and touching, especially during his impotency sequence. This is also a typical post 1968 era feature, which shows the political manipulation, the most realistic and unbearable one, when high scale ministers order their "henchmen", killer cops working for the government, to kill, kill, even innocents, but not in a straight way, with proper words, in the purpose to achieve their shameful goals. Very daring for this time, in the pure Yves Boisset style. The ministers order to kill and then get rid of the scapegoats whom they ordered to execute the power low works. Very very close to reality, believe me.

not a good Chabrol

[happytrigger-64-390517 · 3/10 · 23 February 2019]

I was completely disappointed with that Chabrol rarity telling the plot of the Nada gang, with comletely dull characters. The first part is undrinkable, you see anarchists boozing all the time and always telling stupid political sentences, kind of raging nouvelle vague with uninteresting scenes. The best part is the farm assault when cops shoot to destroy the Nada Gang, like they did later with Mesrines. But it remains far from the best Chabrol, he wasn't an action director. And the music score is awful.

Nowhere to run, nowhere to go, nothing to show, a big empty

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 3/10 · 22 March 2011]

In the stiff and confusing "NADA", Claude Chabrol invite us to follow a revolutionary group called NADA and their dangerous mission of kidnapping the American Ambassador in France in exchange of some political demands, confronting a repressive govern that didn't want any kind of talk with these folks. The movie is broken in two: first, we follow up the group led by Buenaventura Diaz (Fabio Testi) and formed by young guys and a woman; and the other half is the police and authorities trying to block NADA's activities and rescue the ambassador.

The movie never explains the origin of the name (or if they did I must have missed), but in Potuguese the word 'Nada' means nothing, and nothing is what this movie has to show. Chabrol was trying to make here a mix of political thrillers à-la Costa Gavras mixed with Godard's political expressions and speeches, and the final result is a movie with no message, no direction, with a few good action sequences to thrill us at the ending but in the middle the project gets very, very boring. This kind of material on Godard or Gavras hands would be amazing or at least interesting, better developed on screen.

This so-called leftist revolutionists and their ideas fall flat because while fighting to implant their revolution they prefer to get arrested than to get killed, in fact, they don't have a cause - but we can assume they're opposed to America's control on everything. True believers in ideals would prefer to die than go to jail. So why we should care for them? The idea of fighting back never occur to them and their characters aren't people we can relate with. The main problem with "NADA" besides of not having a speech or something relevant to show and say, is filled with long dialogs (specially the ones concerning the police) that goes nowhere, driving viewers to insanity.

Good action sequences; a nice ending; and a handsome actor like Testi, are not enough to raise a movie from its dreadful depths. Very disappointing. 3/10

What is going on in this film?

[Charlot47 · 31 January 2024]

So far, very few reviewers seem to have grasped what is going on in this film and the rest are floundering. For it is highly local and highly topical, as Chabrol contrasts two poisons then prevalent in French society.

One, more recent, was the evil residue of the unrest in 1968. In France, as in West Germany and Italy, minuscule groups of ex-students mouthing empty slogans took to robbery, extortion and murder in the apparent hope of triggering the collapse of capitalism.

The other, longer lasting, was the even more toxic legacy of successive military defeats. After the defeat by Germany in 1940, the upper levels of the French civil service and police were permeated with men who collaborated in the horrors of the Vichy dictatorship and the Nazi occupation. After the defeat in Algeria in 1962, the army was also infected by the bloody repression of its opponents, real or supposed. Too many men had learned that you got results by ignoring the rules and by resorting to torture and murder.

Chabrol's terrorists are suitably dangerous but bumbling, with only their leader aspiring to some sort of Lucifer status. His cops are terrifying, replicas of the Gestapo that had terrorised France only 30 years earlier, with the diabolical commissaire sporting a hairstyle of the early 1940s while his two goons could easily have been pulling out toenails at that time.

Though placing the story in a highly contemporary setting, as always Chabrol is not making a political statement or giving us a history lesson. His subject is humanity and its flaws.

PS One reviewer warns us not to let our children see this film. Not because of the endemic violence and profanity but because of two brief moments when a woman is shown with no clothes and a man is shown on top of a woman under the bedclothes. Both are intrinsic to the story, as the first glimpse is of a prostitute at her place of work and the second is of a terrorist, who (highly symbolic!) has to admit to the girl that he is impotent. Though it is always admirable to broaden young people's minds, I can't think of a single Chabrol film which could really be appreciated before the age of 18.