Plein Soleil (1960)

I’ve spent the past month—and more—focussing solely on Indian cinema. Time for a change, I thought.
This, therefore. Director René Clément’s Plein Soleil (literally, ‘Full Sun’, but known as Purple Noon) is a French adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s The Talented Mr Ripley, and was the first major film of Alain Delon, who really does dominate the film. In more ways than one.

Alain Delon in Plein Soleil

Plein Soleil begins innocently enough. On a bright sunny day, we are introduced to Tom Ripley (Alain Delon) and Philippe Greenleaf (Maurice Ronet), who are sitting at a café in Rome. Philippe is drinking, while Tom is signing postcards—using Philippe’s signature. He shows one off to Philippe, and Philippe bursts out laughing: it’s a great forgery, he says. “Sign a few more!”

At a cafe in Rome: Philippe and Tom

They continue to chat, as Tom signs some more postcards. Marge, Philippe’s girlfriend, is mentioned—Philippe is worried she’ll be upset because he left without telling her. To appease Marge, Tom suggests Philippe buy her a book on Fra Angelico, about whom Marge is writing a book. She can copy it, he suggests, and there’s more laughter.

Tom makes a suggestion

There is something odd about the relationship between these two. They are obviously well-acquainted, perhaps even fairly good friends—the ease with which they chat seems to indicate that. But it appears, as they talk, that Tom is in some way subservient to Philippe. Philippe sits back and drinks; Tom writes the postcards. Philippe tells Tom to go buy the book on Fra Angelico; Tom does so.

The reason for this hard-to-pinpoint relationship is revealed when Freddy Miles (Billy Kearns), a friend of Philippe’s, happens to arrive. He is openly disdainful of Tom. Philippe, in an attempt to defuse the tension, quickly sends Tom off to buy the book before the shop closes.

Freddy happens to come by

[Note: Freddy’s female companion in this scene is played by an uncredited Romy Schneider, at the time in a relationship with Alain Delon].

When Freddy and Philippe are alone, Philippe tells Freddy that Tom and he had been friends, but they’d dropped out of touch over the past five years. Now, with Philippe languishing in Italy for a while, Philippe’s father Mr Greenleaf, back home in San Francisco, has been getting impatient. It is he who’s financed Tom’s trip to Italy, with Tom being given a mission: to fetch Philippe back to the US. For that, Mr Greenleaf will pay Tom $5,000.

Philippe explains matters to Freddy

Tom’s return—with the Fra Angelico book—brings this conversation to a close.

That evening, Tom and Philippe are winding their way about town, when they meet a blind beggar. There’s some horseplay, much throwing about of money—Philippe gives the blind man an outrageous sum of money for his cane (which Philippe thinks is smart), and for a taxi to take him home, and some more. Tom watches. It’s obvious that Philippe has a lot of money to burn. And that Tom does not. That $5,000 promised by Mr Greenleaf is going to be very welcome indeed.

Some horseplay, and a blind man's cane

Somewhere along the way, Philippe—wearing dark glasses and brandishing the white cane—manages to fool a woman into thinking he’s blind. In the process, they get friendly, and spend the rest of the evening, along with Tom, getting drunk and amorous. The woman seems quite happy to have both Philippe and Tom paw, nuzzle, and kiss her. She is also amused to discover that Philippe isn’t blind, after all.

The woman - and the men

Before the men can go too far, however, their female friend calls a halt to the proceedings and leaves them in the carriage they’ve hired. She also leaves behind an earring, which Tom finds and carefully pockets.

The two men are seen next at the town of Mongibello, where Marge (Marie Laforêt)—working on her Fra Angelico manuscript—lives. She is, as Philippe had predicted, very annoyed.

Marge lashes out at Philippe before being won over

But Philippe is a skilled lover, and she is hopelessly in love with him. She’s soon forgiven him and is busy canoodling with him…

…while Tom, in the adjoining room, is amusing himself by trying to imagine what it would be like to be as wealthy as Philippe. He doesn’t merely imagine it, either; he pulls out one of Philippe’s jackets and wears it; slips on Philippe’s smart shoes, knots one of Philippe’s ties around his collar; even uses Philippe’s comb and hairbrush to give his hair a smarter, more posh look.

Tom dresses up in Philippe's clothes

In the midst of all this, Philippe walks in, and is (not without reason), annoyed to see what Tom has been up to. When he questions Tom, Tom exacerbates matters by flawlessly mimicking Philippe’s deeper voice, and his distinct accent. But he also, obediently (though without a word, thus showing some of his resentment) removes all that he’d donned from amongst Philippe’s things.

... and is caught out

Shortly after, Tom receives a message from Mr Greenleaf, cancelling Tom’s mission, since he hasn’t succeeded in bringing Philippe back. Say goodbye to those $5,000, Tom.
Tom confronts Philippe: he hasn’t written to his father saying he’ll be returning, has he? Philippe is dismissive; it’s his life. He’ll go back to the US if and when he wants to.

Tom confronts Philippe about returning home

In the meantime, he’s intent on enjoying himself. He withdraws a large sum of money—several million lire—and spends part of it on a yacht. He decides he will take Marge for a cruise and they’ll take Tom along. Not, as it turns out, so that Tom can have a holiday, but so that Tom can steer, and keep an eye on the boat, and do the rest of the dirty work around while Philippe and Marge shut themselves in below decks and have a little fun.

On the boat

Tom, bored and curious, eavesdrops on their conversation—and, worse, is found out. Philippe loses his temper. He forces Tom into the dinghy attached to the yacht, lets the connecting rope trail well behind the yacht, and goes back into the cabin, to Marge. Tom pleads with Philippe to pull the dinghy back and let him onto the yacht, but to no avail.

The result is something even Philippe hadn’t intended; while he and Marge are downstairs, the rope connecting the dinghy to the yacht frays and snaps. Tom is left adrift, the dinghy bobbing along on the sea while the yacht goes on ahead. By the time Philippe and Marge realize what’s happened and go back to rescue Tom, he’s lying semi-conscious and badly sunburnt. They haul him back and attend to him, and Marge is especially worried.

Tom is found, semi-conscious and sunburnt

Things go back to being as they were. But with one minor difference. One sunny afternoon, while Marge and Philippe are sleeping, Tom slips into the room, quietly opens the wardrobe, and puts the earring, left behind in the carriage by that woman in Rome—into the pocket of one of Philippe’s jackets.

Tom plants an incriminating earring

Marge, when she finds it, reacts the way Tom had expected her to: she flies into a rage. There’s a huge quarrel between her and Philippe, and Philippe gets so wild, he throws her precious Fra Angelico manuscript into the sea. That is the end of it. Marge insists on being dropped off at the nearest coastal town.

Marge insists on being dropped off

Now Tom and Philippe are on their own, sitting on the deck and playing cards. Philippe guesses that Tom planted the earring, but doesn’t seem to hold it against him. In fact, in a cold-hearted sort of way, Philippe seems unperturbed, either by Marge’s leaving, or by Tom’s betrayal. Instead, jokingly, he asks Tom if Tom had wanted to kill Philippe when he was adrift in the dinghy.
Tom admits that he did, and Philippe goes on, asking Tom how he would manage that… and begins making suggestions. Tom could kill Philippe, and assume Philippe’s identity. Oh, yes: Tom is already good at mimicking Philippe, and can forge his signature reasonably well.

A strange conversation

It sounds like a lark, but all of a sudden, Philippe seems to get nervous. Even if Tom can forge his signature, he can’t write entire letters in Philippe’s handwriting. Ah, but Philippe uses a typewriter, Tom points out: and typewriters can be as distinctive as handwritings.

And, before it gets any further, Tom carefully slides out a dagger from under the bench, and quickly, ruthlessly, murders Philippe.

Tom launches an attack

It takes him quite an effort to roll Philippe’s corpse inside a sheet of canvas, tie the anchor line around it, and throw the anchor overboard.

Philippe is gone [damned, perhaps, by his own words? Were Philippe’s suggestions partly responsible for bringing on his own death, or was it inevitable? Was it premonition, in some way?]. Tom now sets about becoming Philippe: he takes over the boat and all of Philippe’s possessions—down to his monogrammed clothing. He doctors Philippe’s passport and puts his own photo in it.

The doctoring of Philippe's passport

He withdraws more money, checks into a hotel as Philippe Greenleaf, and settles into life as his now-dead ex-friend and victim.

But will it last? After all, there are a fair number of people, even tucked away here in Italy, who recognize both Philippe Greenleaf and Tom Ripley. Will Tom be able to hoodwink them all? And, has he, as he’s gone about becoming Philippe Greenleaf, covered his tracks well enough?

What I liked about this film:

The cinematography, by Henri Decaë. The stunning blues of the Mediterranean; the cobbled lanes and vibrant markets of rural Italy; the rugged cliffs, the busy streets of Rome: all are, in any case, beautiful—but Decaë renders them even more so with the use of interesting angles and memorable frames.

A closeup from Plein Soleil

A street scene from Plein Soleil

The juxtaposition of silence and noise, action and inaction. There’s the dramatic scene where Tom kills Philippe, for example. It’s all very quiet, the sea lapping gently at the boat while the two men talk. And then, just after Tom stabs Philippe, a sudden squall seems to spring up out of nowhere, buffeting the boat, throwing Tom overboard, and generally making it very difficult for him to get rid of the body. But, as soon as he’s managed that—the sea falls silent again. An interesting reflection of what Tom is experiencing, too? Or just coincidence?

And there’s another unforgettable scene where another man is killed, again very suddenly. And what we see right after the blow is struck—is not the dead man himself, but the scattered bag of foodstuffs—vegetables, and some poultry— that the man had been carrying. There’s something chilling about the focus on the very mundane food (that chicken, for instance, as dead as the man).

A crime scene, in Plein Soleil

Last, but by no means the least: Alain Delon. Besides the fact that he looks wonderful, his acting is excellent.

Alain Delon in Plein Soleil

What I didn’t like:

Plein Soleil has an interesting premise, and it is—till well after Tom has assumed Philippe’s identity—gripping and suspenseful. But somewhere along the way, it begins to drag, with unnecessary diversions (the arrival of some characters who are only very incidental to the plot, for example) that slow the story down. Also, while Tom is shown as being a resourceful criminal who thinks on his feet, he makes some terribly basic mistakes. Even the most amateur of crooks would know that leaving fingerprints around, left, right and centre, isn’t a good idea.

Comparisons, comparisons:

While I haven’t read Patricia Highsmith’s The Talented Mr Ripley, I have seen the 1999 adaptation of the novel, starring Matt Damon, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow. A brief discussion, therefore, of how the 1999 film compares to the 1960 one.

The Talented Mr Ripley is approximately 20 minutes longer than Plein Soleil. That’s partly because, unlike Plein Soleil, it begins not in Italy, but in the US, so we get the back story of how Tom Ripley came to Italy to take young Mr Greenleaf (in this version, Dickie Greenleaf, rather than Philippe) back home. The greater length of the 1999 film also allows for more complexity, and for more characters. For instance, Cate Blanchett plays a wealthy American girl named Meredith, to whom Tom (while disembarking, and intoxicated by the luxury he’s been wallowing in) introduces himself as Greenleaf—thus, inadvertently, first donning the mantle he will later deliberately wear.

Also, an important difference between the two films is that the 1999 film makes Tom homosexual—and this leads to his not just finding Dickie Greenleaf’s wealth very attractive, but Dickie himself.

Matt Damon and Jude Law in The Talented Mr Ripley

What struck me the most about The Talented Mr Ripley was the way in which it takes basically the same story as Plein Soleil, and gives it a different perspective. In Plein Soleil, Tom appears to be, from the very start, a fairly self-assured young man. Even if he has no money and doesn’t know how to hold his cutlery correctly, he is still not a greenhorn who is completely bowled over by the luxury of the Greenleafs (Green leaves? Interesting name, for a family that has a lot of the long green).

On the other hand, in the 1999 film, Tom’s head is totally turned by Dickie’s wealth. It’s not just the fact that he tries on Dickie’s clothes or shoes in his absence; it’s also the undisguised enthusiasm with which he plunges into life in the fast lane—looking forward to a skiing holiday with Dickie and Marge; suggesting they go to Venice; and generally taking full advantage of the money floating around. This is a grown man, but his somewhat naïve approach to what he cannot have—money, and even Dickie—seems to belie his years. (There’s a scene where Marge breaks the news that the ski trip is off; the way Tom turns his head away, shaking it slowly, brought to my mind a little child denied a treat, trying hard to hide his disappointment by turning away).

Plein Soleil is a simpler, more straightforward film about a man who commits a crime, and then assumes the identity of his victim to keep from being caught—and to reap the benefits of his crime. It is, at its core, a crime thriller with a good bit of suspense: will Tom Ripley be caught? Or will he go free?

The Talented Mr Ripley, on the other hand, is more psychological. It goes deeper into Tom’s motives (which are different, considering his sexual feelings towards Dickie). It also lets the second half of the film become not just a tale of Tom trying to keep a step ahead of nemesis, but also about his emotional entanglements, as he tries (rather ineptly) to convince—by turn—both Marge and Meredith that he loves them, while all the time being in love with someone else.

Patricia Highsmith (who, by the way, praised Alain Delon’s portrayal of Tom Ripley) was described as having characterized Ripley as a ‘suave, agreeable and utterly amoral’ person. By that account only, Plein Soleil’s Ripley is true: Delon is suave. It’s not that Matt Damon’s acting is bad (it isn’t, not at all), or that The Talented Mr Ripley is bad (though it drags a bit at times). It’s just that Damon’s Ripley is projected as an (initially) wet-behind-the-ears poor young man, whose lust sends him down a path that he becomes addicted to pretty soon. Not suave, not really agreeable (in fact, “Boring,” as Dickie cuttingly describes him). Just amoral.

Advice? Watch both. Or, if you don’t have the time for both, watch Plein Soleil. It’s a fairly good crime film. And the talented and beautiful Mr Delon is enough reason by himself to make it worthwhile.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Plein Soleil (1960)

  1. Despite not caring for the book (Tom Ripley is not a character I enjoyed reading about) I liked The Talented Mr.Ripley a lot. But then there is the Alain Delon factor (God he looks so young here) which is very important so I think I’ll add this to the list of films to watch when/if I come across them.

    • I can imagine this wouldn’t be a character one would want to read about – I couldn’t even sympathise with Tom Ripley onscreen. I will admit, though, that Delon certainly makes the film worth watching. He’s very good, both as the boyish, rather naive Tom pre-Philippe’s murder, and as the cold-blooded criminal, post the murder. And to imagine he must have been just about 24 or 25 years old when he did this role. Talented, indeed.

  2. Thanks for a very absorbing review, Madhu.
    I haven’t seen this movie (or, The Talented Mr.Ripley, for that matter) – but it sounds like it’s definitely worth a watch.

    I only wish these films did not have those diversions that take away from the intense flow of the story. Maybe the directors mean to give the viewers a break, but then I’d wish they’d ask the viewers first. Am sure most would say – NO! Just stick to the story, keep it going, we’re into it, don’t mess it for us. Imagine if you were a writer (oh, sorry, YOU don’t need to imagine that! ;-)), and you wrote a lovely story, but with unnecessary diversions all over the place. Readers would lose interest quite easily.
    That is one of the reasons why Comic Side Plots (CSPs) in Hindi movies also sometimes would annoy me. Ok, in the case of a Hindi movie, the intensity level is usually much lower, so it isn’t so bad but there have been intense movies that have been ruined by the CSP popping in every now and then.

    But that seems to be a minor reason not to like this one. Now that you’ve given it a thumbs up, I think I’m going to watch this. Thanks.

    • I only wish these films did not have those diversions that take away from the intense flow of the story.

      So true, Raja! While I agree that some elements of a novel (like secondary characters or minor events that may not have much of a bearing on the main plot) could be edited or even omitted from a cinematic adaptation, needless meddling with the plot or characters invariably leads to heartache. For the writers and for the viewers.

      And don’t get me even started on CSPs in Hindi cinema! :-( How many otherwise wonderful films have had their beauty marred by an intrusive CSP…

      But do see if you can get hold of this one. Shouldn’t be difficult, since it was a very popular film, and even dubbed in English.

  3. I haven’t seen Plein Soleil, but have watched The Talented Mr. Ripley, which I loved. It showed the emotional depths of Tom, which made it very intense and also made his crime comprehensible.
    According to your review, Tom here seems to be what the author wanted him to be, ‘suave, agreeable and utterly amoral’ (which says a lot about the author herself). Tom in the 1999 film had more layers to him, making him very human and showing where suppressed love can lead to.
    But most probably both films are the products of the age in which they were produced. In the 1960s homosexuality was all evil. Gay characters (and also lesbian) were portrayed as evil, though their sexuality was only hinted at, which made it more sinister.
    In the late 1990s, thank God and thanks to films like Philadelphia, there is more acceptance for gay men and lesbian women. The director of the film took care to give him more depth.
    Plein Soleil seems to scratch only the surface of the story, which would make it at the best a good thriller.
    Well-written review, Madhu and good screen caps! They capture the mood of the film very well. Not only of the telling scenes, but also the others.

    • Thank you, Harvey!

      I haven’t read the book on which both films were based, so can’t say with certainty whether Patricia Highsmith actually created Tom Ripley as gay or bisexual (a synopsis I read mentioned that there are tones of his being bisexual). But after I’d watched both these films, it did make me think that, because Plein Soleil was made back in 1960, in a far less permissible environment, Ripley’s sexuality would have had to be changed to make him conform. Incidentally, the film’s ending, too, is another instance of its conforming.

      I must agree re: The Talented Mr Ripley– I thought it was a great movie, and the acting was uniformly good. Also, the layers to Damon’s Ripley (and the way he evolves) make him a far more complex character than Delon’s Ripley, who is more the opportunistic, totally amoral character. On the other hand, there are concessions made to Damon’s Ripley, that detract from his amoral nature – for instance, in that he kills Dickie in a fit of anger, and that too in retaliation to Dickie’s insults. It’s not the premeditated, cold-blooded killing that Delon’s Ripley resorts to.

      I could go on and on…! ;-)

          • Just finished watching Plein Soleil. And couldn’t agree more with you.
            It does drag after Philippe’s murder. But I found the supporting characters important for the plot. It added to the suspense for me.
            It made a good viewing! Makes me want to watch The Talented Mr. Ripley again and read the book as well.

  4. I have only read the book (and not cared for it much like Elizabeth), but Plein Soleil’s take sounds much more like the Tom in the book. That is why I didn’t like it in some ways, because it is deeply disturbing to have such an amoral person exist. I do not remember the details about whether he made basic mistakes to leave a trail or not in the novel.

    • I am tempted to get hold of the book and read it just to see which of the adaptations is closer to Highsmith’s original! On the other hand, Tom Ripley was not a character I liked (which is not to say that I didn’t like both films) – so maybe I’ll pass this one up. There is definitely something very disturbing about a character so lacking in morality of any kind.

  5. I liked Plein Soliel better than I did The Talented Mr Ripley (though I thought Matt Damon was fantastic in it) for two reasons. One, of course, is Alain Delon. (You know my opinion of him.) Besides, the man could also act. [grin] And he was particularly good in this. Secondly, and more importantly, I thought the later film diluted the impact of Ripley’s amorality. They gave him a reason for doing what he does. In Plein Soliel, Ripley is as the book makes him out to be – he is amoral. And I like the naivete, the childishness, as you put it – he is as a child – what he wants, he wants. Now. And so, it is not deliberate, not conniving, not planned. (Unlike in The Talented Mr Ripley.) It just happens – perhaps because of Philippe’s words. The character fascinates me – because there is immoral and then there is amoral. Ripley is amoral.

    Lovely review, Madhu. Thank you. Makes me want to revisit the film again. (And no, not just for Alain Delon. [grin])

    • I admit I liked Plein Soleil better too, despite the fact that the 1999 film was also a very good one. Plus, I totally agree with you regarding how, in The Talented Mr Ripley, they give him a reason for doing what he does (though it’s redeemed – a little bit – in the last scene of the film, which I found especially chilling).

      By the way, when I was talking about Ripley being naive and acting like a child, I meant Damon’s Ripley, not Delon’s. That scene with Marge telling him about the ski trip being called off is from the 1999 film, not the 1960 one. He is childish, wants that skiing holiday, that trip to Venice, to be with Dickie, now. And so, when Dickie insults him and tells him he’s boring, the hurt and anger boil up – totally unplanned. Which, in my opinion, detracts from the amorality of his killing of Dickie. To me, that killing is an accident, brought on by fury, which goes out of control.

      Delon’s Ripley kills Philippe in a more calculated way – he’s already hiding a dagger below the bench, is ready to kill. And it’s not anger that brings it on (though, perhaps, there is resentment at the dinghy episode): it’s sheer greed.

      • Ah, my mistake. But I still think Delon was ‘childish’ as well. In that I don’t subscribe to the notion that children are sweet and innocent; they can be cruel and wicked – it’s part of their nature. And Delon’s Ripley is just that. What he wants, he wants; there is no reason for him not to want it, and like a child, there is no thought of the right or wrong. In Plein Soliel, I agree the murder is premeditated. But that planning is also that of a child – not really thinking about consequences. He wants the life that he already has had a taste of; and Dickie’s contempt for him is only matched by his (unspoken) contempt for his wealthier friend – how much more worthy of such a life is he, Ripley! It is the worm turning – he’s been condescended to for so long; this is his chance, and he snatches at it, with no thought of the consequences. Indeed, they are not worthy of being thought about. I found that chilling.

        Damon’s Ripley had a reason – he is homosexual at a time when that is frowned upon; he is partly in love with Dickie and he resents the teasing/bullying. To me, that reason painted his downfall more sympathetically than the novel meant the character to be. (Disclaimer: I haven’t read the novel; I’ve only read discussions about the treatment.) I also think the reason why, to me, Delon came off as more chilling than Damon was because the former is so much more good looking – the contradiction between look and character was so marked; but it was a fine performance by both actors.

        Sorry for the long analysis. :) And thank you for fixing my wayward html tags.

        • You’re welcome re: the html tags. I guessed you’d wince when you noticed them next, so I decided I might as well clean that up. ;-)

          Coming to Damon’s Ripley (again!!), I don’t think of his childishness as ‘innocent’ or sweet – just self-absorbed, and spoilt by the sudden spate of luxury that he’s subjected to: from the moment Mr Greenleaf pays for his travel (first class) on Cunard, Ripley is hankering for the good life, with a vengeance.

          I agree with you about Delon coming off as more chilling that Damon; for me, not only because he’s so good-looking, but also because of the sheer cold-blooded way in which he plots Philippe’s murder – right from plotting Marge’s departure from the boat, on. And, of course, the reason being so utterly and completely self-serving. No excuse of sudden emotion, etc. Just the desire to make Philippe’s money his.

          That brand of (a)morality is scary.

  6. Like I always say old films had a story and this one sounds interesting and I guess Alain Delon is the icing on the cake but for that matter I also like Jude law. He was excellent in Enemy at the Gates as a sharp shooter.- Shilpi

  7. Beautiful!
    I mean, what a review. By the way, is this blog only/primarily for ‘old’ indian films or there’s no such restriction… Thanx

    • Thanks so much! Glad you liked the review.

      And, to answer your question: yes. This blog is devoted to pre-70s cinema. I very occasionally review films from 1970 or ’71, if they feel 60s’ – for example, Fiddler on the Roof, or Sharmeelee. But more than 99% of the films I review are pre-70s.

  8. Thanx dustedoff– why this ‘fixation’ / fetish for pre 70s films– just curious …
    “also think the reason why, to me, Delon came off as more chilling than Damon was because the former is so much more good looking – the contradiction between look and character was so marked; but it was a fine performance by both actors.”– ace comment there anu

    • No ‘fixation’ or ‘fetish’ (I hate those words when they’re applied to my love for old films), just a marked preference. Personally, I like older films because the number of films back then which were well-acted, well-scripted, looked good (the fashions post-70s don’t thrill me much!), and – as far as Hindi cinema goes, where music is so much an integral part of the experience – had good music, were far more than in later years.

      Besides, it’s not as if I don’t watch newer films. I do, and occasionally they do find a mention (I’ve done mini reviews of remakes, when I’ve reviewed originals, as in this case). But since it’s my blog and I have the freedom to do what I choose, I prefer to focus on the cinema I really like.

      • >No ‘fixation’ or ‘fetish’ (I hate those words when they’re applied to my love for old films), just a marked preference.

        Well said, DO :-)

        • haha was just pulling your leg, dustedoff–was just wondering why the newer films dont merit your attention –but get your point.
          by the way, there are some dev anand films i really like–guide, teen deviyan for eg–have u written anything on these thanx

          • Sorry for the very delayed response – was on vacation and mostly kept off the net! I’ve not reviewed Guide (don’t like that film – though the songs are superb), but I have reviewed quite a lot of other Dev Anand films. Hum Dono, Teen Deviyaan, Asli-Naqli, Jewel Thief and CID among them.

  9. Hi Madhu,
    Very nice review, and a cool comparison work with Minghella’s movie. I wonder if you wouldn’t be interested to watch Jacques Deray’s “La piscine” (1969), where the two leads are seen together again, and which also centres about the dark reasons leading to the murder of Ronet’s character. The film also stars Romy Schneider, this time fully credited!

    • Thank you, Yves! I’m glad you liked the review. And thank you for recommending La Piscine – I’d only seen the name of the film listed in Delon’s filmography, but I didn’t know anything more about it. Will certainly try to get hold of it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s