This Chabrol movie seems to be almost forgotten - given the few comments printed here and given the fact that it's unlikely to be mentioned among the maestros masterpieces. Even though it is based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, and has some degree of tension in it, "Le Cri du Hibou" doesn't really draw the viewer inside the small world of it's handful of characters. Everyone in this film seems to have his private neurosis, and when fate bonds them all together, an explosive mixture is the result. Unfortunately (and unusually for Chabrol) the narration is not clever enough to tantalize the viewer. Instead, quite a bunch of implausible elements make it hard to enjoy the unfolding of the story. Then again, since it is the story of a man regarded as threat by his surrounding without ever wanting to threat anyone, a man seen as guilty without guilt (or is there guilt at his hands?), Chabrol had to avoid all too much realism. An ultra-realistic view at the same story would stop at 40 minutes; it would not be able to display the ideas driving the characters to their deeds like Chabrol does. Seen through this perspective, the film is quite an interesting statement.
11 Reviews
very interesting to watch but far from perfect
planktonrules14 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
In general, I liked this movie. In particular, I liked the first half of it. The story also had lots of twists and turns that made it very interesting until somewhere towards the end. By that point, I felt there were so many plot twists that I just wanted a final resolution. Plus, when the end came, it just didn't satisfy me all that much.
Instead, this is actually a film that might have been better had it stayed on target with the direction the plot ORIGINALLY headed. The idea of a stalker being discovered and then stalked by the victim is really interesting and the way this strange woman fell head over heels with the stalker was very interesting. BUT, then, inexplicably, she hates him and then kills herself. This is one too many plot twists--and, of course, there were more to follow.
In conclusion, there were MANY MANY wonderful elements in the movie and a lot to like BUT the movie desperately could have used an editing.
Instead, this is actually a film that might have been better had it stayed on target with the direction the plot ORIGINALLY headed. The idea of a stalker being discovered and then stalked by the victim is really interesting and the way this strange woman fell head over heels with the stalker was very interesting. BUT, then, inexplicably, she hates him and then kills herself. This is one too many plot twists--and, of course, there were more to follow.
In conclusion, there were MANY MANY wonderful elements in the movie and a lot to like BUT the movie desperately could have used an editing.
Hoot
jotix10014 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Robert an architect and artist finds himself working in Vichy. We watch him as the story begins, watching surreptitiously a young and attractive woman living in an ivied covered house in a forested area. Juliette, the woman of the house, senses she is being watched, although she has no basis for her suspicion. Juliette has a strange relationship with Patrick, a pharmaceutical salesman who travels in the region.
One day, Robert is bold enough to show up at Juliette's door. She is curious, realizing he might be the presence she felt on the other side of her fence. She feels attracted to the handsome Robert, who happens to be separated from Veronique, a vulgar wife in Paris. Patrick becomes jealous watching his girlfriend's attentions on Patrick. Robert, in turn has had mental problems and had been treated for his condition, now being in better mental health. Juliette clearly fancies Robert.
After a road confrontation where Patrick has been following Robert and Juliette, as he is taking her home, the two men fight. Patrick and Robert end up by a river, where Patrick lands after being hit. Robert fishes him out so he does not drown. Patrick is reported missing and the local police becomes involved. What no one realizes is that Patrick has sided with Robert's estranged wife in order to create trouble for the architect.
"The Cry of the Owl" is a film directed by Claude Chabrol and based on a Patricia Highsmith story. The adaptation was by M. Chabrol and Odile Barski, a frequent collaborator. This film from 1987 falls into the director's middle period which is not as important as his early and late efforts, but being a Chabrol film, it is a must for his admirers.
The film, as seen today, seems to be a bit dated. The machinations between Patrick and Veronique to do harm to Robert are roughly handled. The novel was not exactly one of Ms. Highsmith's best, but it suffers in the relocation to France, something which did not happen with Chabrol's adaptation of novels by Ruth Rendell, just to mention one writer.
The best thing in the film is Christophe Malavoy who plays Robert. Mathilda May is too bland for the obsessed Juliette. Jacques Perrot seen as Patrick is not creepy enough and Virginie Tenevent, who is Veronique is perfectly vulgar as the sleazy former wife.
One day, Robert is bold enough to show up at Juliette's door. She is curious, realizing he might be the presence she felt on the other side of her fence. She feels attracted to the handsome Robert, who happens to be separated from Veronique, a vulgar wife in Paris. Patrick becomes jealous watching his girlfriend's attentions on Patrick. Robert, in turn has had mental problems and had been treated for his condition, now being in better mental health. Juliette clearly fancies Robert.
After a road confrontation where Patrick has been following Robert and Juliette, as he is taking her home, the two men fight. Patrick and Robert end up by a river, where Patrick lands after being hit. Robert fishes him out so he does not drown. Patrick is reported missing and the local police becomes involved. What no one realizes is that Patrick has sided with Robert's estranged wife in order to create trouble for the architect.
"The Cry of the Owl" is a film directed by Claude Chabrol and based on a Patricia Highsmith story. The adaptation was by M. Chabrol and Odile Barski, a frequent collaborator. This film from 1987 falls into the director's middle period which is not as important as his early and late efforts, but being a Chabrol film, it is a must for his admirers.
The film, as seen today, seems to be a bit dated. The machinations between Patrick and Veronique to do harm to Robert are roughly handled. The novel was not exactly one of Ms. Highsmith's best, but it suffers in the relocation to France, something which did not happen with Chabrol's adaptation of novels by Ruth Rendell, just to mention one writer.
The best thing in the film is Christophe Malavoy who plays Robert. Mathilda May is too bland for the obsessed Juliette. Jacques Perrot seen as Patrick is not creepy enough and Virginie Tenevent, who is Veronique is perfectly vulgar as the sleazy former wife.
Cold, rational and hardly engrossing
bob99829 March 2018
Patricia Highsmith created one fascinating character in her novel: Nickie, the ex-wife of Robert Forester, here called Veronique. Virginie Thevenet plays her and she is terrific. Seductive, lying, violent and completely fascinating, she is the one thing in the movie that really works. Malavoy acts like a Boy Scout troop leader, May is dull and lifeless and Kalfon is hard to believe as a detective. Only Penot as the beefy handsome coward Soulages manages to rise to Thevenet's level.
Chabrol was known for his cold, passionless thrillers; you went to them out of a sense of duty. Wasn't he after all one of the founding members of the New Wave? See it if it turns up on late night TV, and there's nothing else to watch.
Medium-grade Chabrol
gridoon202413 April 2024
"Cry Of The Owl" is one of the most obscure mid-1980s Claude Chabrol films, and frankly, not among his best (I prefer his "Masques" from the following year). It is very low-key, and doesn't ignite - to the extent that it ever does - until it's too late. Mathilda May is radiant and gives a touching perforance, but it is a little disconcerting that this story is based on a book written by a woman (the famous Patricia Highsmith), considering the behavior and, especially, the fate of both main female characters. Then again, you could say that the men don't fare much better, either. **1/2 out of 4.
Adept adaptation of a creepy Highsmith novel
heliotropetwo1 May 2006
M. Chabrol has done a strong, creditable job of transferring the powerfully discomforting world of Patricia Highsmith to the screen. Highsmith's characters become moral monsters through a condition of absolute confidence in their own warped psyches. These characters never learn, or understand themselves. Their lies to each other are absolute because they lie to themselves absolutely. No cliché goes unpunished. Characters become moral monsters without losing their sense of rightness. They seem powerless not to act in self-destructive ways.
The film is not equal to "Strangers on a Train" or "Purple Noon," other adaptations of Highsmith's work. But it is faithful in spirit to a novel which is itself not equal to the literary sources of these films. See it with an open mind and revel in the creepiness. Chabrol is a sufficiently great artist to allow another great artist her night cry.
The film is not equal to "Strangers on a Train" or "Purple Noon," other adaptations of Highsmith's work. But it is faithful in spirit to a novel which is itself not equal to the literary sources of these films. See it with an open mind and revel in the creepiness. Chabrol is a sufficiently great artist to allow another great artist her night cry.
A far cry from Chabrol 's great works.
dbdumonteil31 October 2003
Patricia Highsmith's "cry of the owl" was not her best or even among her best;we are far from triumphs such as "the talented Mister Ripley" "Ripley's game " or "strangers on a train".But it was an interesting psychological study,focusing on a man who thought that, whatever he might do ,he was bound to fall and he would even bring bad luck to his human pals.Like a lot of HIghsmith 's characters ,he was a neurotic,who could not fit in the "normal world" ,with a heavy guilt feeling and a touch of masochism.Chabrol's screenplay is very faithful to the novel,keeping even the last line,but it's a good example of how accuracy leads to failure.
The choice of Christophe Malavoy was excellent because the actor is subtle enough to convey such a despair .But Chabrol put him against a gallery of weirdos who would drive any man insane:a brunette whose behavior is completely implausible,played an unconvincing actress,Mathilda May;a vulgar unattractive wife -Ah Stephane Audran where are you ?- ;a brute of a fiancé who seems even more irrational than the hero,it's the last straw!On the paper the hero's thoughts and frames of mind made up for the implausibilities of the plot and built an atmosphere of ambiguity ,an ambiguity which is almost totally absent in the film,in spite of Malavoy's commendable efforts.To top it all,there's an irritating part of a cop (Kalfon) ,a la Colombo,gobbling up madeleines ,and hinting at Marcel Proust as he tries to remind his unusual suspect of what he may have done.
Because,like in a lot of Chabrol movies,people eat in in "le cri du hibou".The hero and his lady friend treat themselves to some delicious crêpes suzette (flambées) and cassolettes of langoustines:the neurotic is also a gourmet !And he does love the girl's home-made cookies!
Doing two movies a year,Chabrol makes frequently spotty works:such was the case of "le cri du hibou" , deservedly forgotten work,whereas the contemporary "masques " -released at the beginning of the same year- was a brilliant film noir turned almost farce.
The choice of Christophe Malavoy was excellent because the actor is subtle enough to convey such a despair .But Chabrol put him against a gallery of weirdos who would drive any man insane:a brunette whose behavior is completely implausible,played an unconvincing actress,Mathilda May;a vulgar unattractive wife -Ah Stephane Audran where are you ?- ;a brute of a fiancé who seems even more irrational than the hero,it's the last straw!On the paper the hero's thoughts and frames of mind made up for the implausibilities of the plot and built an atmosphere of ambiguity ,an ambiguity which is almost totally absent in the film,in spite of Malavoy's commendable efforts.To top it all,there's an irritating part of a cop (Kalfon) ,a la Colombo,gobbling up madeleines ,and hinting at Marcel Proust as he tries to remind his unusual suspect of what he may have done.
Because,like in a lot of Chabrol movies,people eat in in "le cri du hibou".The hero and his lady friend treat themselves to some delicious crêpes suzette (flambées) and cassolettes of langoustines:the neurotic is also a gourmet !And he does love the girl's home-made cookies!
Doing two movies a year,Chabrol makes frequently spotty works:such was the case of "le cri du hibou" , deservedly forgotten work,whereas the contemporary "masques " -released at the beginning of the same year- was a brilliant film noir turned almost farce.
THE CRY OF THE OWL (Claude Chabrol, 1987) ***1/2
Bunuel197620 May 2010
I had wanted to buy this one for a long time, but repeatedly postponed it due to the excessive price-tag of the DVD and the criticism leveled at the quality of the transfer (which was decent to my eyes even on a 40" TV monitor, if somewhat dark and with the burnt-in subtitles being intrusively large and bafflingly situated towards the middle of the screen!). Anyway, I eventually took the plunge not too long ago and am extremely glad I did – what with the accompanying Audio Commentary alone proving value for money!
The film is a well-regarded effort from Chabrol's middle period, given added prestige by being adapted from the work of celebrated crime novelist Patricia Highsmith. Incidentally, it makes for an excellent example of the director's admiration for Alfred Hitchcock (who had himself brought Highsmith's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN to the screen back in 1951), building suspense and goading the audience into complicity in much the same way as the acknowledged master of the form – though the noir trappings of the narrative (and, by extension, the expressionistic quality of the cinematography here) actually derives from Fritz Lang, another strong influence.
The plot – reportedly, a very faithful rendition of the novel – seems simple enough at first: a slightly disturbed man (about to be divorced) spies on a beautiful neighbor and, when he finally confronts her, realizes that she is herself essentially unbalanced (being willing to drop her current boyfriend and take up with him!); in this regard, the film reminded me a good deal of PRETTY POISON (1968). However, things get complicated when the boyfriend proves both jealous (though the male protagonist never actually consummates the affair!) and violent (even if he has to be saved from drowning himself when the situation comes to a head!), and even more so when the hero's malicious ex-wife becomes involved.
Interestingly, when the boyfriend goes missing, not only is his 'rival' suspected by the Police but, in a delicious reversal of Chabrol's own LA FEMME INFIDELE (1968), the girl rejects rather than endorses him – to the point that she tragically takes her own life (the panoramic shot revealing her lifeless body amid the tall grass is a brilliant touch). Surprisingly, the latter stages turn into outright black comedy as the boyfriend's repeated bungled attempts on the hero's life leave many of those around him lying in a pool of blood – including the boyfriend himself and the ex-wife in the astounding climax (capped by an ambiguous freeze-frame which leaves the protagonist's destiny hanging in the balance).
Another definite asset here is the well-chosen cast: while I was familiar with Mathilda May as the volatile heroine (best-known for playing the nude space vampire of Tobe Hooper's LIFEFORCE [1985] but who also had an important supporting role in Chabrol's recent A GIRL CUT IN TWO [2007]) and vaguely aware of Jean-Pierre Kalfon (portraying the bemused cop on the case), perhaps the most impressive was Christophe Malavoy in the central part (who proving a veritable magnet for disaster likens him with the lead character of Luis Bunuel's delightful 'non-serial killer' black comedy, THE CRIMINAL LIFE OF ARCHIBALDO DE LA CRUZ [1955]!). This analogy is also mentioned in the Audio Commentary featuring one Ric Menello and David Kalat (President of All Day Entertainment, which released the DVD) who provide a comprehensive, scholarly yet entertaining analysis of the film, its tortuous distribution background, as well as a broad look at Chabrol's prolific career.
The film is a well-regarded effort from Chabrol's middle period, given added prestige by being adapted from the work of celebrated crime novelist Patricia Highsmith. Incidentally, it makes for an excellent example of the director's admiration for Alfred Hitchcock (who had himself brought Highsmith's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN to the screen back in 1951), building suspense and goading the audience into complicity in much the same way as the acknowledged master of the form – though the noir trappings of the narrative (and, by extension, the expressionistic quality of the cinematography here) actually derives from Fritz Lang, another strong influence.
The plot – reportedly, a very faithful rendition of the novel – seems simple enough at first: a slightly disturbed man (about to be divorced) spies on a beautiful neighbor and, when he finally confronts her, realizes that she is herself essentially unbalanced (being willing to drop her current boyfriend and take up with him!); in this regard, the film reminded me a good deal of PRETTY POISON (1968). However, things get complicated when the boyfriend proves both jealous (though the male protagonist never actually consummates the affair!) and violent (even if he has to be saved from drowning himself when the situation comes to a head!), and even more so when the hero's malicious ex-wife becomes involved.
Interestingly, when the boyfriend goes missing, not only is his 'rival' suspected by the Police but, in a delicious reversal of Chabrol's own LA FEMME INFIDELE (1968), the girl rejects rather than endorses him – to the point that she tragically takes her own life (the panoramic shot revealing her lifeless body amid the tall grass is a brilliant touch). Surprisingly, the latter stages turn into outright black comedy as the boyfriend's repeated bungled attempts on the hero's life leave many of those around him lying in a pool of blood – including the boyfriend himself and the ex-wife in the astounding climax (capped by an ambiguous freeze-frame which leaves the protagonist's destiny hanging in the balance).
Another definite asset here is the well-chosen cast: while I was familiar with Mathilda May as the volatile heroine (best-known for playing the nude space vampire of Tobe Hooper's LIFEFORCE [1985] but who also had an important supporting role in Chabrol's recent A GIRL CUT IN TWO [2007]) and vaguely aware of Jean-Pierre Kalfon (portraying the bemused cop on the case), perhaps the most impressive was Christophe Malavoy in the central part (who proving a veritable magnet for disaster likens him with the lead character of Luis Bunuel's delightful 'non-serial killer' black comedy, THE CRIMINAL LIFE OF ARCHIBALDO DE LA CRUZ [1955]!). This analogy is also mentioned in the Audio Commentary featuring one Ric Menello and David Kalat (President of All Day Entertainment, which released the DVD) who provide a comprehensive, scholarly yet entertaining analysis of the film, its tortuous distribution background, as well as a broad look at Chabrol's prolific career.
counterfeit Hitchcock: accept no substitutes
mjneu5912 November 2010
A film described as being "in the Hitchcock tradition" usually means "a cheap imitation", and this French import is no exception. Director Claude Chabrol tries hard to invoke the spirit of the Master by adapting his screenplay from a story by Patricia Highsmith (author of 'Strangers on a Train') about a divorced artist with a fixation about birds (sound familiar?), whose voyeuristic attraction to the unhappily marries Mathilda May leads to a perfectly innocent, platonic friendship between two manic-depressive people. The plot kicks into gear after May's jealous husband disappears; birdman Christophe Malavoy is then accused of foul play, and the film goes to pieces in a hurry, collapsing into a random sampling of routine plot twists before ending in an unfair, inconclusive freeze-frame. It might have been an entertaining whodunit, but unlike his mentor Chabrol takes his scenario far too seriously: you only have to imagine the actors speaking their dialogue in English straight from the subtitles to realize how silly it really is. The film was made in 1987 but until 1991 was never released on this side of the Atlantic, and for good reason.
"Dream images belong in dreams,not in real life."
morrison-dylan-fan8 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Since learning about it after catching Jamie Thraves's overlooked 2009 version (also reviewed) in late 2016, Claude Chabrol's adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel has been my most anticipated viewing of works from the auteur. Finding a best films of 1987 poll taking place on ICM,I finally released the owl.
View on the film:
Slipping on Patricia Highsmith's novel like a velvet glove, co-writer/(with regular collaborator Odile Barski) directing auteur Claude Chabrol's adaptation takes Highsmith cynical,apprehension world view, and superbly coils it with the rich dissection of the murderous bourgeoisie which spans across his credits. First sighting Juliette by watching from afar, the writers alight a fatalist Neo-Noir edge in the entanglement between Robert and Juliette, spun from the pressure of trying to keep how they first met secret, and Juliette's ex Patrick digging for details on this outsider.
Cracking open Robert's past from his bitter ex-wife Veronique's hissing asides which hold Robert from escaping his old life, (a major theme in Chabrol's credits) the writers display their claws with a tantalising Mystery Thriller, sinking into Robert's detached bourgeoisie status being torn to shreds by bitter, calculating ex's,and Chabrol's traditional, doubting police officers, leaving everything in a bloody pile on the floor. Soaring on his son Matthieu's plucked, spidery score, Chabrol & his regular cinematographer Jean Rabier take a turn of the screw with a unrelenting tense atmosphere, nailed in French New Wave distorted wide-views, imprinting the impression of Robert being a loner from all those in town.
Setting out the rules of the game for him, Chabrol grinds Robert down with bursts of red against a pristine, sterilised white and silver canvas, reflecting the Noir lack of morals, in the conniving bourgeoisie. Taunting her ex Robert, Virginie Thevenet gives a alluring, viciously seductive turn as Veronique,whilst Jacques Penot slithers round being the Highsmith blonde psychopath Patrick. Dazed by the pure vision of Juliette, (a terrific Mathilda May) Christophe Malavoy gives a excellent performance as Robert, who whilst getting shaky at the edges from becoming entrapped in a game, is held at the core by Malavoy as a Noir loner, detached from the cry of the owl.
View on the film:
Slipping on Patricia Highsmith's novel like a velvet glove, co-writer/(with regular collaborator Odile Barski) directing auteur Claude Chabrol's adaptation takes Highsmith cynical,apprehension world view, and superbly coils it with the rich dissection of the murderous bourgeoisie which spans across his credits. First sighting Juliette by watching from afar, the writers alight a fatalist Neo-Noir edge in the entanglement between Robert and Juliette, spun from the pressure of trying to keep how they first met secret, and Juliette's ex Patrick digging for details on this outsider.
Cracking open Robert's past from his bitter ex-wife Veronique's hissing asides which hold Robert from escaping his old life, (a major theme in Chabrol's credits) the writers display their claws with a tantalising Mystery Thriller, sinking into Robert's detached bourgeoisie status being torn to shreds by bitter, calculating ex's,and Chabrol's traditional, doubting police officers, leaving everything in a bloody pile on the floor. Soaring on his son Matthieu's plucked, spidery score, Chabrol & his regular cinematographer Jean Rabier take a turn of the screw with a unrelenting tense atmosphere, nailed in French New Wave distorted wide-views, imprinting the impression of Robert being a loner from all those in town.
Setting out the rules of the game for him, Chabrol grinds Robert down with bursts of red against a pristine, sterilised white and silver canvas, reflecting the Noir lack of morals, in the conniving bourgeoisie. Taunting her ex Robert, Virginie Thevenet gives a alluring, viciously seductive turn as Veronique,whilst Jacques Penot slithers round being the Highsmith blonde psychopath Patrick. Dazed by the pure vision of Juliette, (a terrific Mathilda May) Christophe Malavoy gives a excellent performance as Robert, who whilst getting shaky at the edges from becoming entrapped in a game, is held at the core by Malavoy as a Noir loner, detached from the cry of the owl.
Claude Chabrol's strange film about strange events
robert-temple-117 April 2023
This film THE CRY OF THE OWL (original title LE CRI DU HIBOU) is the first of two film adaptations of the mysterious and disturbing novel by Patrician Highsmith, and of course is filmed in French because it is directed by Claude Chabrol. A second film of the novel, shot in English, was released in 2009, also called THE CRY OF THE OWL. I have not seen it so cannot compare the two, though it is difficult to image that it equals or surpasses this one, which is made by a master often called 'the French Hitchcock'. The story starts in a creepy way. The character Robert, played by Christophe Malavoy, is a harmless variety of 'peeping Tom', who for weeks obsessively watches the character Juliette, played by Mathilda May, going through the activities of her evenings at home, cooking, eating, having a drink, sitting and watching television, etc. One night Juliette encounters him on her lawn and they speak. He admits that he likes watching her, but instead of being horrified, she invites him in for a drink. She is lonely and discontented, and unafraid. In this way a strange friendship commences between them, and they go on seeing each other, but can never confess to anyone the bizarre way they have met. This situation does not go down well with the character Patrick, played by Jacqes Penot. He had believed himself engaged to Juliette, but she is tired of him and breaks off her relationship with him. But he is even more obsessed with Juliette than Christophe ever was, and becomes not just insanely jealous but violent. The film becomes rather surreal as Chabrol explores the murky neuroses and motivations of the complex characters. Things get less and less comfortable, and we become more and more disturbed by what we are watching. Nor is it easy to figure out what is really going on in all the aspects. We discover that Christophe has a strange ex-wife named Véronique, played by Virginie Thévenet, who at first just seems a very merry and mischievous person. As the story progresses we realize that she is entirely insane, far more mentally disturbed even than the violent Patrick, and extremely dangerous, not to say murderous. So this means the four main characters are all unbalanced. Thévenet's performance is harrowing in the extreme, maniacally brilliant, and her character is so disturbed it's almost enough to frighten you off ever visiting France again, just in case there's another one out there. The story is revealed in unexpected ways, frightening emotional revelations being fundamental to the way the plot evolves. Patrick disappears and a police investigation commences. We then discover that he has gone into hiding in a small hotel, hoping that Christophe will be accused of murdering him, which indeed he is. In this way, Patrick seeks revenge for Christophe taking 'his' woman away from him. But that is only the beginning of an incredible spider's web of intrigue, and to explain what is revealed subsequently would ruin the viewer's fun. So instead of only not revealing the ending of the film, I am not even going to reveal what happens after we reach the middle of the story. There are are so many surprises that it is up to the viewer to discover them by watching this bizarre film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
