tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-478111043202609148.post8776663083436258374..comments2007-09-25T10:56:27.516-04:00Dan Sallitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13136066978329749513noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-478111043202609148.post-86150202721830366132007-09-25T10:56:00.000-04:002007-09-25T10:56:00.000-04:00

Daniel - I agree, both on the virtues of the <B>Tigre</B> films and on the lesser appeal of <B>Fantomas</B> (which I saw long ago, not in this series). I think that the world is better prepared to appreciate those "commercial" Chabrol films from 1964-67 now that Hong Kong, Tarantino, etc. have acclimated us to a reflexive genre cinema that builds on surface appeal.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting that

Dan Sallitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13136066978329749513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-478111043202609148.post-13987858769771063462007-09-24T17:33:00.000-04:002007-09-24T17:33:00.000-04:00

I was quite excited about this series but managed to only get to MoMA one day, and not even for the film you recommended nor Chabrol's latest. But both films were rewarding, and specifically the surprise of <I>Codename: Tiger</I> which I had always read as written-off by most New Wave histories and, clearly like <I>Le banc de la desolation</I> is a good instance of a director approaching

Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00090178978468389578noreply@blogger.com