Coup de Torchon (1981)

So much average

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

"Coup De Torchon" is technically well-made and well-acted (as you'd expect from a French prestige picture), but it doesn't seem to have much of a point to make, unless it is trying to tell us, as Pauline Kael accurately puts it, that "killing on a small scale is less immoral than killing on a big scale". It begins as a pitch-black comedy, but it stops being funny when Noiret kills a completely innocent person; from that point on, it seems to have nowhere to go but down. At 123 minutes this film is too long, and it runs out of steam long before the end, although some scenes do retain their shock value. One major plus is the fresh-looking cinematography; on DVD, the film looks as if it was made only a few years ago. ** out of 4.

I saw this as part of a Jim Thompson quest.The film opens with a solar eclipse, a mythic way perhaps of foreshadowing the eclipse of humanity and values that follows. The West African setting is only proper in that aspect, like the setting of the Jim Thompson book, it's a doomed dusty limbo blotted out of the map where, in the absence of palpable law or ethos, humans are allowed to be the lowest they can be. Elsewhere the world is perhaps striving to maintain a moral appearance, but not so in Bourkassa, no one is looking there. Thompson had a dark view of humanity, for his own reasons, and for his protagonists, his crazed sheriffs and murderous sociopaths, he seems to reserve a last word that justifies their existence.It's a really funny film, as a comedy it works marvels, and I like how Tavernier shifts the tone light to dark, goofy to perverse.But what about Codier, the policeman of the small African town at the edge of the desert? Another reviewer reads in him a deranged figure of destiny that smites down people who deserve it, a vengeful Jesus placed on this earth not to save souls but to release them. But, even though his folly is obvious, the lack of retribution for his acts, the lack of a destiny to smite him, is it omission or statement? In an amoral universe that defies order, Codier is perhaps trying to maintain a perverse moral ground, or he's only serving his own bastard self, pushing his luck to see how far it will get him. If the film was a thriller it might have not worked, but I saw an absurd comedy foremost, and the laughter of that amoral universe is also echoed in Codier himself.When he goes on on his little soliloquis on existence, Tavernier reaches for a solemn tone that seems strange at first, but at least we can understand that this murderous buffoon is no better than anyone else around him. He's likable because he suffers indignity with the nonchalance of a Mr. Hulot, but the next day he'll wake up a coward killer and scumbag. This contrast and his own belief in the incorrigible of his actions makes the movie work.Perhaps he's so successful at being a scumbag, because the rest of the world permits it. If everyone else around him is either a moron or a scumbag, why should he strive to be any better? As a human being he's pathetic, but as a movie character I find him fascinating to watch. The fatalism that everyone gets what he deserves and there's no escaping the cogs of fate is the icing here.

I adored the first half hour or so of this film. Then, sadly, the film seemed to lose its way--mostly because the main character was practically impossible to understand or appreciate. To put it bluntly, his motivation and actions stopped making sense. BUT, as there are so many interesting elements to the film, it's still worth seeing...though it clearly misses the mark.The film follows the actions of an ineffectual policeman in French West Africa just before the Second World War. Lucien (Philippe Noiret) does nothing as sheriff but collect a paycheck and ignore crime. He is clearly a cuckold in regard to his job and his relationships. Crooks break laws and mock him and his wife openly carries on an affair with her 'brother' right in front of him. You really feel bad for the guy, so when out of the blue he begins paying these people back, you are thrilled--even when he begins, in some cases, killing people. The murder victims really do 'have it coming' and you want to see Lucien to get away with it.Later, however, the film gets pretty muddled. First, he ends up killing an innocent guy simply because he knew too much--and it was hard to feel sympathy for Lucien--particularly because before this you did like him a lot because he DID stand up for the black natives--though not obviously so. So, he went from a secret savior of the Africans to just another white !@@#$ and nothing more. Second, there were some allegorical religious elements that seemed incongruous. He began to see himself as like Jesus meting out retribution to evil-doers--but ended up looking more like Satan or the Angel of Death--or just a real jerk! This religious angle really just clouds the film--not enhances it. Third, I was a psychotherapist and psychology teacher and I STILL had a hard time understanding Lucien--his character, though interesting, made little sense and just confused me. With a bit of a rewrite, this could have gone from a good and thought-provoking film to a classic. Too bad--it did sure excite my interest.

let's see - our reviewers have, to date, set the novel in Texas, the Carolinas, Kansas and Florida. does it matter? no, because this is one of the best films ever made, and where you think it should have been set doesn't matter a bit. and don't be put off by comments of this being about an idiot who finally gets offended and runs amuck, or a serial killer, or that it lacks the suspense a good thriller needs,or that the film is a failed noir; it is a noir that breaks the mold and never tries to insert venetian blinds into colonial Africa. it is a film that has enough layers that after 4 viewings i am sure i have not plumbed them at all well. i just cannot imagine what some of these reviewers were watching; it really isn't for everyone. if your shtick is political correctness, skip this one - it is just full of people saying 'ni--er'. people say the eff-word, as well. go somewhere else if this offends. but if you are interested in what makes folks tick, and how much odd crap lurks just beneath your own skin and by extension that it isn't yours alone; it belongs to all of us - then just go see the movie. a remake? might as well remake Golgotha and see if you can't improve on the tone of the moment, or get the message across better....