Grande école (2004) User Reviews

Familiar unrequited love story

[JakersWild · 7/10 · 10 December 2004]

From reading other reviews this may be one of those movies that seems to be about whatever is most important to the viewer. To some it is mostly about capitalism and class / social castes. To others it is more a love story. To me the love story seemed central, with it feeling like a movie by gay men for gay men. We start with two decent looking guy roommates, one of which clearly is into the other, who seems to return friendship only. Both men are dating women. A working class love interest Mécir, played by Salim Kechiouche, comes into the life of the obviously conflicted gay lead, Paul. Paul is torn between apparently unreturned love for his male roommate, his sociality acceptable relationship with a woman, and an openly gay lover who doesn't easily fit into the life he feels expected to lead.

Being a French movie, English speakers must be prepared for subtitles. There is a fair amount of frontal male nudity in the film, and being a French film, yes the men are naturally uncircumcised. The nudity is always incidental and mostly in a single locker room scene, a scene which perfectly captured the discomfort I felt in gym class myself as a gay teen. The fear of being caught looking at the other guys contrasted against the potential delight of being surrounded by dozens of fit nude peers. It is tough to understand people being uncomfortable with the frontal nudity when it isn't used in a sexual way. Still, if frontal male nudity bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't watch. There is minimal female nudity. Since questions are raised about what is the perversion, homosexuality, or the insistence on fitting into societal norms despite one's feelings, it seems strange to find reviewers debating something as basic as casual nudity.

Stories of unrequited love and love triangles have been told many times before, and probably told better. But as a gay man, the conflicts Paul felt were very familiar and real to me, and the story took me back to an early time in my life. I could certainly sympathize with his situation. It was easy to be drawn to the character of Mécir. Not only is he a feast for the eyes, I also found myself trying to will Paul to wake up and realize that Mécir was the only choice of the three with a likelihood for long-term happiness. As in life though, nothing is quite so simple. If you want to know more, you might well enjoy the movie. Feedback on this review is welcome.

Has its moments

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 8 July 2006]

Paul (Gregori Baquet) is attending a prestigious university in France. He has a girlfriend named Agnes (Alice Taglioni) who is puzzled why he won't live with her. Paul becomes sexually attracted to handsome roommate Louis-Arnault (Jocelyn Quivrin) but won't admit it, while handsome Arab Mecir (Salim Kerchrouche) makes it clear that he loves Paul. What is Paul to do?

Has its moments. When it sticks to Paul, Mecir and Louis-Arnault and the sexual aspect it's absolutely fascinating. But they continuously keep throwing in long boring speeches about business and politics that bring things to a screeching halt. Also (with the sole exception of Mecir) most of the characters are very unlikable and cruel. Paul's girlfriend especially comes across badly and Paul himself is whiny. It ends in a very muddled way with an unsatisfying ending.

The acting is all pretty good. Baquet is a bit too whiny but Quivrin and especially Kerchrouch are very good. The one sex scene is done very tastefully and there is quite a bit of casual female and male nudity (this would get an NC-17 if it had been rated). All in all not too good but some bright moments and acting make it worth a look. I give it a 7.

Mind games without a clear resolution...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 10 November 2005]

Credit the director with getting a cast of unknowns to give very credible performances--an ensemble of attractive young people who have certainly put themselves into these roles. The relationships seem real and all of the main actors acquit themselves well. The story basically follows the lives of five students and a construction worker as they explore truths about each other in a situation ruled by a strong-willed girl who decides to play a game of entrapment when she suspects her boyfriend is sexually interested in his roommate.

But the script is a talky one and goes in all directions trying to steer us into thinking homosexuality is clearly a question of choice or that a simple homoerotic experience for a man can change his whole perspective on life. It's a muddy theory that the author/director are striving to execute on film, but they end up with a story of unrequited passions that goes nowhere in the end.

A scene of sexual fulfillment between two men is artfully presented and tastefully photographed. But there is an artificial air whenever the sexual themes are being explored. The only exception is the shower room scene where the hero tries to hide his interest in the showering athletes.

The picture is actually one long-winded mind game that it plays upon the protagonist (and the audience) and nothing memorable or strong enough happens to give it a high recommendation.

You have to wonder who the target audience is for a film of this type which seems to be sending mixed messages.

A literary, existential crisis of the soul...and confusing, too!

[tevanson · 18 October 2004]

"Grand ecole" aspires to be the sort of existential drama that the French New Wave directors produced in the 1950s and 1960. It pours race, class, economic status, history and sexuality into a big martini shaker and pours out a heady concoction.

But just what the film is, in the end, is not clear at all.

Paul is the hunky son of a Marseilles contractor. Raised to be brilliant but also racist (snubbing Arabs) and classist (snubbing blue-collar workers and the poor), Paul is sent to an elite Parisian economics college where he is supposed to learn about management and marketing. But Paul isn't his father's son. He's artistically-minded (which should be your first clue about his inner life) and rejects his father's biases. Soon, Paul has taken up with Agnes, a young woman who is attending the liberal-arts university next door and who is an avid supporter of human rights.

One of Paul's roommates is Louis-Arnault, a hunky business major with a penchant for water polo (he comes from a legendarily wealthy background) and girls. The other is the materialistic, shallow, rich boy, Chouquet.

Paul has a stunning girlfriend, the beautiful Emeline, who also attends the school of economics. While Louis-Arnault's and Emeline's relationship seems stable and loving, Paul's relationship with Agnes seems a bit rockier. Paul loves Agnes, but is a little emotionally and physically withdrawn from her.

It's not long before Paul develops an intense homosexual crush on the handsome, athletic Louis-Arnault -- even going so far as to steal his boxers! Then the handsome Arabian blue-collar worker, Mecir, arrives on campus as part of the construction crew renovating buildings on the school grounds. Paul is equally attracted to Mecir.

Agnes is no dummy: She senses Paul's ambivalence and proposes a test. If Paul seduces Louis-Arnault first, Agnes will leave and never say a word. If Agnes seduces Louis-Arnault first, then Paul must give up his homosexual longings and be exclusively heterosexual and monogamous with her.

The great problem with the film is that it is not entirely clear why Agnes would suggest such a thing. For his part, Paul never agrees to Agnes' plan -- so just what does Agnes think she is doing?

After the first hour, Chouquet drops completely out of the picture -- which is frustrating. Mecir figures more and more prominently in Paul's sex life and emotions. But just as the viewer expects religion to become an issue (Mecir is clearly a practicing Muslim), it doesn't.

Much more satisfying is the film's extensive commentary on the emotional desert that is capitalism, greed and materialism. There is a tremendously important and well-written discussion during the film's climax that is a real wonder. The grand ideas fly fast and furious, and the writing and acting is pure gold there.

For the most part, however, the film's sexual themes -- which are ostensibly it's raison d'etre -- are muddy. The film's commentaries on race, class, materialism and the burden of history are much clearer and more satisfying.

Overall, the quality of the acting is rather good. Salim Kechiouche is superb, and Gregori Baquet has his moments. Also rising above the fray is Alice Taglioni, who is subtle and powerful as the put-upon Agnes.

The direction, cinematography and editing are nothing to write home about.

But "Grand ecole" is worth the effort, even if it is ultimately an exercise in frustration.

Over ambitious, frenetic - but engaging in a very French way

[grahamclarke · 7/10 · 11 April 2005]

It's seems impossible to not compare this type of French cinema with its American counterpart. As is usually the case, the French is just so much more interesting, faults and all. This may be an over ambitious project, but there is a message in there somewhere, (or rather too many messages). It's a bit frenetic at times, but this may be due to the director's lack of experience.

Director Robert Salis' technique is to hurl as much as possible onto the screen in the hope that something will stick. Many elements of the plot are not really thought through producing some confusing moments. It's also tends to be very wordy, which may work for those fortunate enough to understand the language, but makes for lots of subtitle reading.

However in the final analysis enough actually sticks, making this not an unmemorable film. Much has to do with an excellent performance by one Gregori Baquet who besides coasting on his abundant charisma, shows a wide dramatic range, controlled with intelligence.

A certain French eroticism pervades many of the scenes, but oddly enough, Salis' handling of the sex scenes (both hetero and homo) is less convincing. There is something decidedly mechanical about them.

However, one does get absorbed into the lives of this group of young Frenchmen coming to terms with society, their personal futures, their sexuality and life in general.

Grand Embarrassment

[boypan · 1/10 · 24 August 2004]

I saw this film at the New Festival in New York. It was by far the worst film there. It's use of uncircumcised full frontal nudity and a wishy-washy script and direction that neither commits to a re-make of 'Maurice' nor decides it's a Neil LaBute flick, left me feeling 'Why would anyone ruin a perfectly good cast like this?'. It lacks irony and fills the vacuum with sentiment, which causes the times when the movie turns on itself to make you want to wipe your face as your mind and heart search for what could be going on in the film but isn't. I wish the director and editor had re-edited the film because maybe there's more story there that could be released from an otherwise unpleasant experience.

Mediocre soft-core Bi- porn

[RickManhattan · 6/10 · 2 March 2011]

Much as I would like to be able to endorse this earnest effort, it really is a messy hodge-podge of implausible, unconvincing plot, twisted logic, mediocre cinematography, poor editing, bad hair color and unsatisfying conclusion. The shower scenes of the swim team are enticing if you're into men's bodies (it's hard not to be, after all), but they make their point too obviously and for too long.

The blond has a bad bleach job and the stock, naïve redhead has another bad dye job. The guys in bed together are so obviously not into it that it's laughable. You come away wondering if the point is one of those inscrutable, pseudo-intellectual French lessons that the world is a confusing enough place, and if you through sex into the mix it's even muddier. The flat-footed provocation of naming one of the leads "Arnault" (for the uninitiated, the richest man in France is Bernard Arnault, an unusual spelling that cannot be a coincidence) is silly, and the ending isn't mysterious, just dopey.

The reference at the beginning to being from "Lot-et-Garonne" is like saying he's from Appalachia, terribly arch. The subtitles are poor, including even such mistakes as "Give us free reign /s.b. 'rein'/ and "it's" for 'its.'" This is a library item, not a keeper.

PS: having viewed the "making of" and "deleted scenes" add-ins I feel more positive about the director's efforts. He at least acknowledged the miserable dye job on the redhead, and his heart is in the right place as to his motivation in making the movie.

Grande domage...

[Mariana Cornejo · 3/10 · 16 December 2004]

This is what happens when you try to adapt a play from the theater. Look at the end of the picture, totally theatrical.

With a reminiscent of Les liaisons dangereuses the final steam-less speech try to make us think that the whole (and deep) theme of this matter was the manhood. Who cares by this point? It was about manipulation. And so the audience feels after this movie has ended.

Young directors: A play is told with the words more than actions. A film is the opposite most of the times.

And I'm not talking about the gay theme, overly exploited without a point ('cause there's no explanation of this topic considering the so called "philosophic" or presumptuous basis) to the level that this film should have been called Grand Gay

Memorable film

[naked-city · 9/10 · 27 January 2005]

I am one of the people that was moved by this film. It is a great film, not perfect, but nonetheless great. This is a comment for people who have seen the film, so if you haven't and plan to, don't continue ! First, I have read all the reviews here and find many have some pretty off observations about the movie. The film plays like a theater piece because it is adapted from a play written in the early 90s. Salis, too, comments that he wanted to keep the theatrical feeling in most of the film. Thus, the movie can be very wordy at points, but the words are generally well chosen. Someone here said that all the men are uncircumcised because they are French. Well, the second male lead, Salim Kechiouche, is an Arab Muslim and he is circumcised. Also, another said that Kechiouche's character, Mecir, is obviously a practicing Muslim. Considering that he is drinking wine on his first date with Paul, it is obvious he is not a practicing Muslim. And then someone said that Paul and Agnes go to schools that are side by side. Well, in fact, Paul is attending a grande ecole quite a distance out of Paris, while Agnes is attending a school in Paris itself. That is one of the reasons given at the very start of the movie for why Paul and Agnes will not live together. OK, I am just being picky, but thought these misobservations should be cleared up. Now, for the film itself. First, the only truly big quibble I have with it is the male on male erotic scenes. The problem here is that neither Baquet or Kechiouche are gay or bisexual. Thus, they don't kiss each other very convincingly. Their erotic scenes are meant to be highly stylized, but with the tentative kissing, the scenes don't work as well as they could have. If I were Salis, I would have asked the two to rehearse kissing until they could do so with passion and tenderness. However, the affectionate scenes with the two, such as the two scenes in Mecir's car, are very sweet and touching. Overall I thought the acting was very good. Baquet and Kechiouche are esp affecting. The final scene of the two together at the Bibliotheque Nationale is esp memorable. Paul's sudden realization that Louis-Arnaut has known for a long time that Paul loves him, but instead of saying something to Paul, Louis-Arnaut only plays with his mind. Then Mecir's trying to console Paul, only to be rebuffed, which leads Mecir to utter words he probably couldn't have before, that he loved Paul. Remember in the car, Mecir refused to be called homosexual. I feel that is because in his Arab culture, it may be OK to have sex with a man, but not to be called a fag or homo. The next scene seems to bother people the most, the final confrontation of Paul and Louis-Arnaut. I liked the scene, and it fits given that both Paul and Agnes are considered lit people, that is wordy dissectors of life, something neither Louis-Arnaut nor Emeline, his girlfriend, likes. However, it is the ensuing scene between Paul and Agnes that is fundamental for clarifying the rather open ended finale. Paul tells Agnes that he slept with Louis-Arnaut. If I am not mistaken, it is a lie. But the wager Agnes proposed to Paul is that if she can sleep with Louis-Arnaut before Paul can, Paul must give up his fantasies of him and move in with her. However, if Paul can sleep with him first, she said she would leave Paul. He lies and says he did sleep with him. And it seems right that he does lie. Both Agnes and Louis-Arnaut had been manipulating him, albeit, Agnes does so openly.(Interestingly, Agnes then puts Mecir's love gift to Paul around his neck, not knowing what she is doing because Paul told her that he bought the gold chain for himself.) Thus, when he boards the train at the end, I feel he has left the school and Agnes. It is not clear that he going to Mecir, but Mecir is the only other character in the final scene and Paul, smiling broadly, is toying with Mecir's chain. I have watched the film a couple of times now and it has lingered in my mind for quite awhile. It is one of those films that, for me, seems alive, the characters exist and I care about them. Salis has said it is a film about choice whereas some here say it is truly just a gay film. To me it is both. Paul has to choose not only between men and women, between respectable conformity and self fulfillment, but also between Louis-Arnault and Mecir. He has made the wrong choice with Louis-Arnaut, but the ending allows one to hope he has his eyes open now.

What's going on in this strange, convoluted plot?

[rsmolin · 7/10 · 16 February 2005]

Yes, the cast is attractive. Yes, the acting seems quite good. Yes, there are some relevant allusions to history, philosophy, and business. And, oh yes, there's lots of excellent sexual and sensual scenes--enough to highly recommend this film. But the story lines, especially as we reach the third act, do not dovetail well. Also, the climax seems contrived. The need to appear artistic dominates the screenplay, which has lots of good confrontations. But in the end, the resolution among the characters is not very satisfying. However, it still is a superior film in quality and execution. And, did I mention? It's sexy!

Stereotypical movie with lots of unanswered questions and

[lilin-58631 · 3/10 · 11 December 2015]

The movie is as stereotypical as it can be. The characters are plain and predictable. I feel as if the movie was a the-dreamers-wanna-be, given that they were trying to portray liberal characters such as Agnès and trying to be philosophical at the same time, but they did not succeed. I lost track of the movie halfway. I don't know if it was only me, but the three roommates looked very alike and I still confused them at the end of the movie. Definitely not worth my time. I gave it three stars because there were some scenes that were good: passionate and lustful. I liked, however, the way they criticized the educational system in France and the social class division, aristocracy and bourgeoisie.

Excellent!!!poetic and memorable

[jasonmckensey · 10/10 · 1 August 2006]

I rented this film and just felt compelled to have to comment on it. This is one of those rare gems that stays with you for days. You can't help to admire the beauty of the Paul and Louis as you wish they got together. The music and men in this film are fantastic. The nude scenes and love making scenes are so beautifully done you wish you could join them and never leave and I'm straight!!!. The women were strong in their role and intelligently written. Everything about this film was artistically and beautifully made. The vision of the director certainly jumps out at you and grips you to the end. On the down side the movie does portray the sorrow of having to deal with feelings that sometimes are beyond your control. I applaud the director for using this cinematic language to describe the gut wrenching hurt you can suffer when you love someone so much when specially they don't seem to feel the same for you. I shall highly receommend this film and it should be one that every film lover should have in their collection.

Ditch the philosophy and politics and you have a good film about relationships

[terryhall2 · 7/10 · 3 January 2007]

Firstly, I am not quite sure what the issue of circumcision is. This is mainly an American abberation (under the pretension that it is more hygienic to be circumcised and is practised as a matter of course there) In Europe, it is usually performed only if it presents a problem to the individual man (eg. cases of phemosis for example) That aside, I enjoyed the naturalness of the film. I have no problem with human nudity and don't understand why anyone gets upset about it and besides Gregori is quite a cutie. The galling thing was the philosophical chat and the human rights dialogue which destroyed the whole essence of the film..basically the relationships between the members of the faculty. I would also like to have seen more raw emotion from Emeline and Paul when they witness their respective partners cheating on them. Agnes, one screwed up woman who lives in the fantasies of her head, annoyed the hell out of me (though she looked fabulous), but the story really belongs to Paul- and given what he had to do in the film, did admirably.

Odd, dysfunctional and mercenarial

[Coralknight · 5/10 · 30 November 2019]

As there are enough synopses already written, I'll just concentrate on the feel of the movie. It does have some very homoerotic scenes with full frontal. But it also has some very dysfunctional themes; such as a man who is obviously homosexual but who chooses to stay with a long-time girlfriend. Were he bisexual, this would be understandable and even acceptable. But it just comes off as one confused character taking advantage of anyone around him that will let him. I'm not sure if this was what the film was going for, but no one seemed particular sympathetic here.

For me the human story trumps the overblown philosophizing

[martyb-3 · 28 October 2004]

The production values aren't the best in this film, but one rarely expects better of a film festival entry. Seeing beyond that is what festival fare is all about, in my opinion.

Tha said, I was easily taken in by Paul and his emotional struggle. At first, I was put off by the ambivalent and quirky behavior of Paul and the others, but I began to recognize that this was a representation of the nuances of real life, as opposed to the packaged fare that Hollywood usually dishes out. What another reviewer found confusing to me was an invitation to get inside the heads of characters who, like real people, weren't exactly sure what they wanted or who they were trying to be.

The relationships were complex and yes, frustrating to figure out at times. But the acting was good--complexity is mush harder to convey than the broad-brush emotion that Hollywood paints larger than life. I loved Mecir--superbly acted--his earnestness nearly brought me to tears. I thought the ultimate outcome of Paul's relationship with him (and with Agnes) mirrored real life as well. And just when I thought Arnault was a shallow caricature, the character surprised me with intelligence (if cynical) and depth.

I agree that the third roommate (name?) disappeared mysteriously in the middle of the film; it had seemed he would play a greater role at the outset. The peripheral characters were neither well developed nor exceptionally acted, but are no reason to dis the film.

The film was marred for me by the extremely self-conscious and forced 3-minute conversation near the end about class struggle, corporate greed, etc. I liked these themes in the film, but this Cliff-Notes style summation was so artificial that I--and the audience I was with--laughed out loud at every pontification, each more hysterical than the last. My immediate comment was "it's like a French parody of the French!" Profound thoughts and deep convictions, spewed with piercing emotion--ultimately lasting as long as a cigarette and washed away with a glass of Bordeaux.

Except for that camp exchange, I very much enjoyed the movie and would see it again.

Pretentious nudity.

[DjBeau · 4/10 · 31 January 2004]

I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10

Exploitative Gay Cheesecake

[kellycastlebridge · 4/10 · 28 February 2010]

This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an "art" movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead.

Desire and the Spectrum of Human Attraction

[gradyharp · 10/10 · 29 July 2005]

Grande école seems to be one of those films that viewers either love passionately or dismiss as a mess. Robert Salis ('À la recherché du paradis perdu') has not only adapted the play by Jean-Marie Besset for the screen, he is also the thoughtful, intelligent, and challenging director of this little masterwork. Though there is much to please the casual eye (the cast is a collection of truly beautiful people!) with sensual scenes as brave as any yet filmed, the real beauty of Grande école is the multilayered story, a story which explores the dichotomies of class, race, gender, philosophy, economic status, and history and social issues - just the sort of milieu expected from a 'big school' environment.

A spectacular opening sequence reveals a castle-like private college in Paris complete with extended pyrotechnic displays of aerial fireworks, a fine metaphor for the personal explosions that will accompany the students in the school year in this college of the prosperous and one heavily weighted toward capitalistic ideals of perpetuating wealth. Paul (Gregori Baquet) is at the onset an oddity: he is he son of a Marseilles contractor, a man who has created a home life of racism and classism, a father who haughtily sends his son to the elite school to learn marketing and management despite the fact that Paul is more inclined toward the artistic aspects of learning. Paul has a girlfriend Agnès (the stunningly beautiful Alice Taglioni) who is a liberal supporter of human rights and while she attends the neighboring liberal arts college, she cannot understand why Paul can't share a flat with her. Paul prefers to live in the dorm and his roommates are the passive Chouquet (Arthur Jugnot) and the pinnacle of materialism Louis-Arnault (Jocelyn Quivrin), who not only is focused on his studies but also on his college water polo team and his girlfriend Emeline (Elodie Navarre).

Paul and Louis-Arnault bond and though Paul has a strongly vivid sexual relationship with Agnès, he finds himself attracted to Louis-Arnault. In a post-game shower room scene Paul sits on the bench viewing the team playfully soaping each other and his sense of sexual awakening is palpable. Paul steals Louis-Arnoult's boxers, lies on his bed and we are aware that he desires Louis-Arnault. During this opening of the school year the three roommates stroll the campus and encounter an argument among the workers: Mécir (Salim Kechiouche), a young handsome Arab from the working class, is being berated and Paul jumps to his defense. The two make eye contact and a chemistry is created. Though neither of the two considers himself homosexual (and there is a beautiful scene that describes that desire is desire whether hetero or homo sexual) but gradually they drift into an erotic world of sexual discovery (in some of the most artistically sensual filming ever created!).

Agnès senses Paul's sexual changes and convinced that his longings are for Louis-Arnault, she poses a wager on which one will have the desirable Louis-Arnault first. Changes and conflicts occur right and left (mise-en-scenes lifted directly from the play) and the bonding of each of the characters is dramatically altered - Paul, Agnès, Louis-Arnault, Emeline, and especially Mécir, who is the only character in the film who seems in touch with his inner person. It is about the social and sexual and class games people play and how these irrational subdivisions of our culture can lead to sad ends.

The cast is not only physically beautiful (and there is sufficient full frontal nudity to gain access to the complete actors!) but they respond to Robert Salis' direction with fine ensemble acting. The interweaving of dream sequences and illusions that accompany the utterly grounded factual storyline enhance the film immeasurably. Emmanuel Soyer is responsible for the gorgeous cinematography and Éric Neveux for the original musical score, a score beautifully complemented by excerpts of the music of Bach, Brahms, Bizet, Donizetti, Puccini and Shostakovich.

As an important and fascinating addition to the CD Director Salis presents an excellent 'making of' segment including deleted scenes (and why they were deleted), running commentary from all of the actors, and a discussion of Foucault's philosophy and the nebulous understanding of 'desire' - a facet of being an alive being. Highly recommended for those who long for challenging films of substance, films that imprint on the psyche for meditation long after the film is finished. Grady Harp

Orgiastic and Distasteful: Spoiler Alert

[[e-mail] · 1/10 · 10 March 2010]

"Grande Ecole" is not an artful exploration of mixed sexuality but, if you're in need of it, a movie for an X-rated channel. Although I suspect there's nothing in this movie to spoil for a willing viewer, the plot is simply an excuse for male-to-female and male-to-male couplings set in the unconvincing context of a competition between a Parisian school for future CEOs and a major school for those seeking higher degrees in the liberal arts. There's likewise a frisson of cultural clash between high status and lower status French youth, plus a societal conflict involving native Frenchmen and Arab immigrants from North Africa. All that's missing is a female-to-female coupling, which could easily have been arranged with no more than a slight twist in the plot.

The acting is at a somewhat higher level than in the usual pornographic movie -- but "Grande Ecole" is, to be blunt about it, no more than pornography with artistic aspirations. I'm not offended by the sex. It's just repetitive and, before long, boring. Where's the Hays Office when you really need it?

Nostalgic look on sexual desire

[zundays · 8/10 · 12 December 2005]

There's a touch of Rohmer in "Grande Ecole". Characters, set in unglamorous, surburban spaces, are just a little too intent and penetrating to be real. Their emotions are simple, yet surprisingly delicate. They experience no jealousy or revenge, but desire, self-doubt and tenderness. Like Rohmer's, Salis' movies feel too nostalgic and sweet to be topical, and that aestheticism is put to the use of tolerance and humanism. Sex scenes for example are remarkable. Homo- and heterosexual love become comparable because Salis makes caressing and enticing the cornerstone of every sexual encounter. The movie however becomes overtly theatrical towards the end, and does not tune in with the closure that Rohmer would have gone for. Salis resolves conflicts, by now difficult to disentangle, only by confusing the viewer to a point of no return and settling for the beauty of seeing all characters reunited finally, if not in the movie, at least on the screen: him and her, and him and her, and him.

Intricate and true -- coming of age for adults

[billpride · 8/10 · 8 May 2005]

The title translates to "The Best of Schools," the school of life. This film really makes me wish I was fluent in French, including idioms and nuances that must be flowing every moment. Subtitles just can't cut it. But there's a great line in the film, which translates pretty well, I think: "You don't get it at all. Hetero, homo, all that's finished. It's outdated and it doesn't matter." In the "Making of..." feature, the director (Robert Salis) says, "...the theme is based on the notion of choice, or, actually, the disobeying of imposed choices...." and "crisscross desire" (which he insists is not the same as sex). He also said, "...it's like a dresser with drawers on top of one another. To find out the complete contents you have to open the drawers separately one after another." He does just that very skillfully.

Needless to say, it's a complex film, with happy parts, sad parts, sex galore (men with women, and a man with a man), sexy men showing full frontal nudity, and all that. About halfway through, it felt exactly like "Maurice," (and Salis even mentioned that film in the "Making of..."), but then it changed to something totally different after that. This isn't a Gay film. It's a "men who have sex with men" film. "MSM" is a term sex researchers use because most men would never self-identify as Gay, but usually will privately admit if they've had sex with men.

There's a lot more depth, but I'm not going to analyze it to death. Great movie! Watch it. Don't watch the trailer or the "Making of..." or anything else first though.

Back to "desire": Salis'closing line in the "Making of..." is, "There's only love and the lack of love. And desire naturally goes hand in hand with the lack and nourishes itself." I think I'll have to watch the movie all over again now to understand that.

Grande Surprise

[wschm1976 · 10/10 · 25 December 2004]

When I first read a summary about this film I thought, "Please, not another coming out story of a poor college boy who discovers in his junior year that he likes boys more than girls..." And, yes, basically that's what you're in for.

This movie could have worked as a comedy (Paul and Agnes betting who gets to sleep with Louis-Anault first would have given room to a lot of hilarious situations)- but no, it's a drama and a good one at that.

What levels the movie really up are the excellent performances by Gregori Baquet and Salim Kechiouche. Their scenes together are the best of the entire film.

Of course, the entire film comes along a bit pretentious with its philosophical over-the-top dialogue that makes you constantly think that no one talks like that, on the other hand- the same kind of dialogue helped "Dawson's Creek" to stay on air for 6 seasons. And that's probably the line where you should place this movie - persons who rate it with "Maurice" opened next to their computer and looking for flaws in this one are maybe not the target audience...

Loved it - Fantastic

[sinnerofcinema · 10/10 · 23 July 2006]

This is a wonderful film that I have now seen over ten times. It was very gripping and the situation very real. I found Pauls obsession with is roommate to be moving. I could feel his love. I only wish his love did not go unrequited. I was really rooting for him. But I really loved the production values, the scenery, acting and specially the nudity. The nudity alone in this picture is worth the price of purchase. The story is very well developed and like most french films, it keeps you guessing in the end. Kudos to the director and cast. Look forward to seeing more of the actors and the filmmakers work. I unfortunately bought this DVD in Mexico. It does not include the DVD extras. I will be purchasing the English version just to see the extras.

A must see!

[pipos-1 · 10/10 · 15 January 2006]

I saw this film by chance, and I really didn't expect any type of theme or issue witch would be showned. I think it's the way to go, on this very particular film. You must experience it and not intellectualize it too much or you'll be completely lost. The catch here is that this film doesn't offer you a solution, it refers to several important question, both psychological and social, but doesn't teals you what you showed think about it, and that might be the reason that makes it so disturbing. One of the things that this film shows is that we end desiring that what it lacks in ourselves and what we can do with it when we find it. The film maker offers us an opportunity to think about important questions about one's identity, self realization, social awareness, but doesn't tells us what to do. All of this with good conversations between the actors, which are complex and unfinished. This film stimulates the mind and the search of the self. It's one of those films either you love it or you hate it, but it's a must see.

Great movie

[jgmkok · 9/10 · 13 March 2005]

I think that this movie is a kind of modern version of Maurice, the love from the upper class for the lower class is now transformed to a theme of this century. I liked the set and the story. Especially the start in Carcasonne is amazing, really beautiful castle with the fireworks. The script can be understand by a lot of people. To study for the first time and have roommates to cope with and fall in love. The complexity of this upper school and what this does to your feelings derives perfect from this movie. Being in love with a woman and then discover your other feelings, very realistic. The music is also good. I can recommend this movie to everybody. I only think the poster does not cover the story. It does not give the right impression.