User reviews

Truffaut's study of a middle-aged man losing his way in life in the age-old fashion is caught in a mesmerizing series of quick-succession shots and sympathetically-captured quotidian details. An unthinking, self-assured man; his wounded, passionate wife; his sweet, vulnerable lover; an inevitable tragedy. This underrated film has no real surprises, but its sure-footedness is impressive and the simple story ultimately very moving.

Imagine how director François Truffaut felt at the Cannes premiere of this film as more than half the audience walked out. In terms of audience approval, "La peau douce" was Truffaut's big disaster. Why did audiences hate it so much? For the exact reasons that it is a landmark film.

1. The main character is not very likeable; he's almost completely expressionless even though this is a love story. 2. Certain events happen in a way that isn't exactly realistic: an elevator takes nearly 2 minutes to travel up 5 floors but only 15 seconds on the way down. 3. Certain events happen without any dialogue or explanation, just a succession of close ups showing objects and activity. But these 3 points are very deliberate, and they are what make "La peau douce" such a tremendous work of art.

1. Why is the main character not likeable? As Truffaut said, this film is "an autopsy of adultery". The story is about a respectable man with a meticulously perfect life who engages in a very imperfect affair. Truffaut wanted to present everything as objectively as possible so that we can analyze all the elements without the prejudice of sentimentality. So he made the lead actor Jean Desailly play the role of "Lachenay" with neutrality; we sense deep emotion, but there are no melodramatic scenes of outward expression as we've come to expect in love stories. If you think about it, isn't that how most people's love lives are? We don't usually get dramatic closeups with soft lighting and complimentary filters. An objective observer woudn't necessarily sympathize with what we're feeling but rather would scrutinize our actions & choices. And as far as that goes. Lachenay makes some pretty bad ones.

2. How realistic is the storytelling? At times, not very. But this style is one of the greatest examples of "hyper realism" which is something Truffaut learned from his mentor and idol Alfred Hitchcock. For example in the elevator scene, time is stretched on the way up, intensifying the first meeting between Lachenay and Nicole (excellently played by Françoise Dorléac, the carefree, outgoing sister of Catherine Deneuve). Only a handful of words are said, but in true Hitchcockian form it's a very suspenseful and portentous scene that deserves its full 2 minutes. The same elevator ride down, with Lachenay alone, is designed to give us contrast and return us to the realistic world as the 5-floor descent is shown in real time, only 15 seconds.

3. Dude where's the dialogue? It's there, but sometimes it's conspicuously absent like in the entire seduction scene which consists of a wordless walk down a hotel hallway, a fumbling for some keys, a lingering stare, hands touching as a door is opened, one hand turning on the light while another hand turns it off, and finally a magnificent dark silhouette of 2 people facing each other. Fade to black. Did we really need any dialogue to understand exactly what was going on in their heads? No, we didn't even need any facial expressions. Again drawing an idea from his hero Hitchcock, even taking the idea into new territory, Truffaut fully embraced the idea of image based storytelling. (In his letter of introduction to Hitch, Truffaut closed by saying that if all movies were suddenly silent again, then Hitchcock would prove himself the greatest storyteller of all time.)

A quick note about the ending (NO SPOILERS) because half a dozen other reviewers seem to have a problem with it: Um you guys realize that the ending was taken from an event that actually happened in real life, right? Look it up (AFTER the film)!

There are so many other gems in this film worth mentioning, but my review would drag on for hours, and that time is better spent with you experiencing this flick firsthand. Audiences of 1964 hated it, but now looking back some 70 years, we realize that "La peau douce" is a masterpiece.

On a business trip to Lisbon you're distracted, by a stewardess you find rather attractive, so you take a chance and call, as she's staying down the hall, it's a tangent that will mean, your life's refracted. You're consumed with all the flushes of desire, she's igniting all the flames your wife cant fire, but opportunities to meet, while remaining quite discreet, when back in Paris, leaves you shackled in the mire. A business trip to Reims provides a chance, to take Nicole, and to enjoy some more romance, get some privacy at last, break your circumstantial fast, though best laid plans may leave you looking more askance.

A well-known publisher has an affair that delivers considerably more than he bargained for. Great performances and original for its time.

Truffaut filmed La Peau Douce immediately after the international success of "Jules et Jim". Released at the heyday of the nouvelle vague, critics and audiences panned the film as a futile resort to bourgeois classicism after the unconventional antics of his previous masterwork.

They could not have been more mistaken. Time has treated La Peau Douce better than most of his later efforts. It is definitely a triumph of direction with each scene being carefully planned and meticulously structured, not unlike a Hitchcock movie. In practice, Truffaut transposes Hitchcock's mechanisms of suspense into a seemingly trivial story concerning the illicit love affair of a distinguished editor/author with a younger stewardess and its withering consequences. The characters and the milieu of the story are effortless evoked, but the main joy is derived from the visual inventiveness that Truffaut shows in scene after scene. It's a triumph of a purely cinematic mode of expression, which Truffaut was one of the few who had really mastered it.

Pierre Lachenay (Jean Desailly) is a successful writer. He is leaving Paris for Lisbon to give a conference on "Balzac et l'argent". On the flight to Lisbon he feels instant attraction for a beautiful flight stewardess. In Lisbon he'll discover that he's staying at the same hotel as her. Pierre wastes no time and gets to know her. Her name is Nicole (Françoise Dorléac). She is spontaneous and easy-going, but it's easy to detect the romantic streak in her. They start an affair right there in Lisbon. She gives him her Paris telephone number. He calls her. They meet. In Paris their relationship grows in intensity.

Pierre is a married man. His wife is also a good-looking woman and he has a 10-year-old daughter that loves him (as does his wife). Pierre is an intellectual with an organized life, maybe having had some flings here and there, but nothing that really threatened the comfortable foundations of his life. But now he has met Nicole. And Nicole represents everything that Pierre had never really experienced before: she has a real "joie de vivre" but underneath it, there is pain, and above all, strength - the strength to overcome sadness and start all over again, that is, to live right here and now.

Pierre, on the other hand, as an intellectual, lives a life of compromises. His wife, Franca (Nelly Benedetti), loves him and has a strong personality. She knows exactly what she wants and is determined to fight for it. Pierre is between two strong women. He loves Nicole - she has opened a new life, a new world for him. Will he follow his heart? And where will his heart lead him? I think that "La Peau Douce" is one of the more personal films made by Truffaut. It has a psychological subtlety not displayed in his later works (be it his later Antoine Doinel films, his literary adaptations, or his homages - to Hitchcock, Jean Renoir etc..). Never again would Truffaut reach the depth of "La Peau Douce".

"La Peau Douce" reveals understanding (and tenderness) for all the characters, but alongside these traits there's also a bitter irony and even some touches of dark comedy. The characters are shown in all their weaknesses and beauty. In later Truffaut films the tenderness would be the prevailing feature - the irony would come along in a watered-down form.

French drama from writer-director Francois Truffaut. A respected author and lecturer (Jean Desailly) has an affair with a young stewardess (Francoise Dorleac).

I believe this film is deeply personal for Truffaut. He has several films about male protagonists who cheat on their wives or girlfriends (Bed and Board and The Man Who Loved Women, for example). What I like best about The Soft Skin is precisely that the affair happens because the stewardess is impressed to get involved with a minor celebrity, and he sleeps with her mainly because he can. They don't "fall in love" with each other; it's an adultery story, not a love story. Because the emotional involvement of the characters isn't very great, neither is the involvement of most of the audience. I will infer that Truffaut had more than one fling like this, but had no insight into why he did this. The subject is personal, but nothing about the presentation helped to alleviate that paucity of engagement.

Two other points: 1) Truffaut's films tend to be very one-paced. They don't usually quicken, slow down, speed up, etc. They proceed pretty much at the same pace from beginning to end. This is a real limitation. 2) I have come to believe that as much as Truffaut loved Hitchcock's films, as a director he learned absolutely nothing from him. Hitchcock is a master of pacing. The best moments in Truffaut's films usually come from a realist aesthetic that is the opposite of Hitchcock's master manipulation of genre and audience.

A middle-aged married man (Jean Desailly) starts an affair with young beautiful Nicole (Francoise Dorleac). It leads to predictable complications and a real howler of an ending.

Supposedly this is considered one of Francois Truffant's worst films. When it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival back in 1964 it was a fiasco. People were bored silly, there was LOTS of shiftings in seats, a few walk-outs and people hissing at the ending! While I agree it's not a good movie it's not THAT bad! It is well-directed with some sharp observations on love and relationships. There's some beautiful black and white cinematography and excellent acting from Dorleac and Nelly Bendetti (as the man's wife). However Desailly was a terrible actor (he didn't like Truffant and it comes across loud and clear), the film is slow-moving and the ending was so over the top I thought they were kidding! It's worth seeing a little for the acting, cinematography and ending but don't expect any great masterpiece.

Pierre Lachenay (Jean Desailly) is a well-known publisher and lecturer, married to Franca (Nelly Benedetti) and the father of 10-year old Sabine (Sabine Haudepin). He meets stewardess Nicole (Françoise Dorléac) and they start a hidden affair, but Pierre cannot stand staying away from her.

Glenn Heath Jr. called the film "a mesmerizing morality play detailing the machinations of adultery and their deadly consequences." That sums it up. But indeed, the French have become synonymous with love and romance (though it is not clear why, since they are also seen as smelly and hairy). Here we have a story that shows the difficult part of love: aging.

Although not appreciated in its time, the film looks beautiful and is easily on par with "Jules and Jim".

The Soft Skin could have easily been titled "The Tangled Web" or something along those lines, considering the old adage about the dangers of lying. It's an extremely straightforward story about a husband who strays with another woman, and the complexity of this new relationship. I always struggle with films about infidelity, and this was no different. I found myself constantly annoyed and frustrated with the main character. But when he encountered obstacles in his efforts to build up this affair, I was chuckling at his misfortune because I was so opposed to the entire thing from the beginning. In other words, while I was kind of annoyed that he seemed allergic to telling the truth (even when it would obviously improve his situation,) it didn't bother me so much to watch his bad choices blow up in his face.

I suppose one of the positives I could draw from The Soft Skin is the fact that it serves as a morality tale of sorts for people who might find themselves in a similar position. By addressing some of the downfalls that can come from cheating on your spouse, it can potentially teach others that it's not a road they want to go down. That's not exactly a lesson I need to learn, but I can appreciate a movie that makes it so abundantly clear for others. I can also commend the acting performances. It wasn't exactly an enjoyable experience, but part of that is because it felt real. The trio of lead actors did an admirable job of embodying their roles and making the characters authentic. I can't say I liked The Soft Skin all that much, and I probably won't recommend it, but it was effective at telling a story so others might find it considerably more impactful if they care more about this kind of plot.

François Truffaut's fourth feature and his first true masterpiece is essentially a classic love triangle, filmed like a quiet juggernaut that eventually overwhelms all those involved. On a quick trip to Lisbon for a lecture, literary essayist Jean Desailly's eye catches the lovely Françoise Dorléac, the air hostess on his flight. Soon he's asking her out for a drink and a love affair develops in between her flights, as his married life with seductive but demanding wife Nelly Benedetti slowly unravels. Much to Truffaut's credit, there is no judgment passed on any of the characters: whether Desailly is undergoing a dreaded mid-life crisis and wishes to be young again or is merely indulging an intellectual whim, whether he really wants to prove himself he is still a man capable of passion or just looking for a way out of his stifling marriage, is entirely up to the viewer to decide. But the director doesn't avert his eye from the seedy unpleasantness of the central situation, as the masterfully extended Reims interlude and the shock ending prove. Basically, it's a film about the mess people make when they think they're in love, all the more disturbing because Truffaut bases it all on chance meetings and missed opportunities - had Desailly not arrived late for his plane to Lisbon, had Dorléac not called him back at the hotel, maybe none of this would have happened. Marvelously shot in black and white by Nouvelle Vague lenser Raoul Coutard, this was the very first film where Truffaut showed the world all he was capable of; it's a stunningly modern film on the most classic of all melodramatic stories.

For starters, this movie wasn't really all that successful when it first came out. Things have changed since but I think that much of the people who see it today probably wouldn't if it wasn't for the prestige the director's name enjoys today. If you wanna know what I think, it's superior to the okay but mildly disappointing 'Jules et Jim'.

This is a movie that I'd recommend to all men who can't be loyal to their girlfriends/wives. I can recommend it for two reasons, depending on each case: to men who are aware of their lack of loyalty but can't stop and yet want to learn something from that ; or to men who simply don't want to get married and have kids or don't care about taking affairs with women seriously.

This movie is well directed, fun, romantic and at the same a harsh and almost sick movie about love. The ending is so harsh and shocking, proving how love can turn to hate and just how sick love can get.

Jean Desailly and Françoise Dorléac are superb in their respective roles and despite their age difference of 20 years they have a perfect chemistry.

This should definitely be on Top 250.

The ending of this movie really helped to improve this movie. Most of it involved an affair between a pretty young stewardess and a famous author who looked like a very chubby version of Peter Sellars (with his glasses). I found myself not caring for him or his mistress and I thought this movie was going to glamorize adultery--I just felt sorry for the poor wife. However, its effect on this wife becomes more the focus of the last third of the movie and that's when the movie really picked up for me. After all, I am not the sort of person who LIKES movies that make adultery seem "cool"--all too often, the emotional or physical impact is irresponsibly ignored. Kudos for giving a more thorough view of its impact on all.

Aside from the ending - which I'm still not sure about, I thought this film worked remarkably well. The protagonist at first got on my nerves because it was clear he was making a mistake by falling for the stewardess -though we're also led to feel it is a kind of fate drawing him further towards his doom. As their relationship developed, Truffaut uses some Hitchcockian bits of suspense to frustrate us and the hero/heroine as they struggle to find a place to be alone. By then I began to sympathise with the hero, only to learn, eventually, that he was better off being frustrated. I think the ending would have worked a bit better - be more convincing - had I come to know the wife's character better. The ending still kind of worked for me, and in retrospect I like the clockwork quality of the script: this mistake leads to that one, leads to another and another and - BOOM! Not sure why so many people disliked this film - the acting and directing are spot on as far as I can see.

Hilarious the bad weather between the protagonist and his lover, an anti-hero of dubious character, I hoped it would end alone, because of his dislike, but I didn't expect this fantastic outcome, the couple's subtle relationship with the energy savings and switches , realistic situations in a non-consensual love triangle, Panair do Brasil, aviation pioneer, active in the film, bankrupt and impeached for political reasons... Ecclesiastes 9:18 "...one sinner destroys many goods". Wonderful movie.

Over half a century on it seems mystifying that this fourth film of Truffaut's fared so badly on its release. Time has treated it well however and it has gradually come to be regarded as one of his best.

Truffaut drew upon many diverse sources for his films and this one's ending was based upon a news item he had read. Very cleverly he has taken the eternal triangle and turned it on its head. Pierre Lacheney, a professor of French literature, is far from being a serial womaniser. His lover Dominique is neither an opportunist nor a marriage breaker but eventually ends the affair because she realises there is no future in it. Lacheney's sultry and sensual wife Franca is not a woman to whom most husbands would even consider being unfaithful.

Jean Desailly took the traditional route to cinema via the theatre and on paper would not be Truffaut's ideal type of actor. He is excellent as Pierre. As Franca this is undoubtedly Nelly Benedetti's finest hour. Dominique is played by the splendid Francoise Dorleac who seemed to have the world at her feet but perished in a car accident at only twenty-five.

From the age of eight when he saw Abel Gance's 'Paradise Lost', film had provided the young Truffaut with an escape from an unhappy childhood and he came to live and breathe cinema. Very few directors have put as much of themselves into their films and at the time he made this his own marriage was troubled and the Lacheney's apartment was in fact his own. Technically of course his films show a debt to his two acknowledged masters: Renoir and Hitchcock.

A first class piece of film-making and one that gains resonance with each viewing.

This is not one of the best Truffaut but it is nevertheless a precise portrait of a "little" man, passive, without courage and unable to really choose: he will pay for that. Best sides of the movie: the rapid sketch of a small town's wealthy people, trying to be acculturate, and Francoise Dorleac really charming as the protagonist's young lover