Mon 15 Dec 2014
A Movie Review by Dan Stumpf: PARIS WHEN IT SIZZLES (1964).
Posted by Steve under Films: Comedy/Musicals , Reviews[10] Comments
PARIS WHEN IT SIZZLES. Paramount, 1964. William Holden, Audrey Hepburn, Noel Coward, with appearances by Marlene Dietrich, Mel Ferrer, Frank Sinatra and Tony Curtis. Written by George Axelrod, based on the film Holiday for Henrietta (La fête à Henriette, 1952) written by Julien Duvivier and Henri Jeanson. Directed by Richard Quine.
Someone’s going to have to help me with this; I’ve seen Paris When It Sizzles a bunch of times and I still can’t figure out whether it’s a sophisticated bit of avant-garde filmmaking that slipped in under the Hollywood radar — or a complete flop.
It’s certainly a styish affair, with guest stars, location shooting in Paris and Antibes, lavish sets and two mega-stars. The photography is lush, the colors bright and the music bouncy, but at times all the Paramount splendour mitigates against the intimacy of what is essentially a two-character/one-set story.
Said story is set (unsteadily) on the premise of an overpaid, boozy, middle-aged screenwriter (guess who?) who, having run through the exorbitant fee paid him to write a screenplay, is holed up in a luxury hotel in Paris trying desperately to churn out a story. Enter Audrey Hepburn as his day-job typist tuned amanuensis and we’re launched into a knowing duologue about film theory that turns into a love story.
Only there’s a bit more to it than that; as Holden and Hepburn craft their tale, the movie suddenly turns into the film they’re writing, a slick caper-flick (starring Holden & Hepburn, natch) about international thieves, dogged cops and …
… and then we suddenly cut back to our stars in the hotel room, re-writing the story as they hedge their emotional bets, hearts on sleeves but cards close to the vest….
… and then back to the film-in-the film, as the characters flirt with danger and each other, bluffing about their motives and feelings as they get closer to the big score and the police move in on them….
I don’t know how Holiday for Henrietta (the film this was based on) handled all this, but the notion was sufficiently off-beat at the time that when Robbe-Grillet used it a few years later in Trans-Europ Express (1966) the critics called it avant-garde. Paramount was so nervous about the concept as to hold off releasing the film for two years, and when it finally escaped it was roundly razzed by critics who couldn’t resist rhyming sizzle and fizzle.
And in fact, some of the most elaborate gags in the film fall totally flat. Writer George Axelrod (The Manchurian Candidate, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter) is wonderfully trenchant when dissecting pop culture and the movies, but someone (I hope it wasn’t he) decided to inject lethal doses of broad slapstick and overdone excess. (*)
(*) “overdone excess†Isn’t that a bit redundant? Well I’ve always felt that excess serves an aesthetic function in some movies, but you have to be careful not to overdo it.
Anyway, I should mention in passing that Tony Curtis is screamingly funny as a sulky bit-player, and though the biggest moments of Paris/Sizzles deflate themselves, the quieter bits sneak pleasantly up on one. Shaw once observed that our faults and our virtues don’t come in matched sets like bookends, and perhaps this is true of films as well as people. This film anyway.
December 15th, 2014 at 4:33 pm
It’s an avant garde flop, one of those over indulgent films they used to make in Hollywood when they forgot they were actors and started thinking they were artists.
It’s one thing for a Robbe-Grillett to do it with Jean Louis Trignant and another thing to attempt it with William Holden and Aubrey Hepburn. All I could think was how much I would have enjoyed actually seeing a caper film or comedy romance in Paris with the two and not this mess.
I’ve never been able to get past the part when he considers turning the script into a western and dons cowboy garb, so I’ve never seen the ending — or does it just peter out?
Ironic touch, if you read Peter Stone’s book of the film CHARADE the hero played by Cary Grant opposite Hepburn is described as looking like William Holden in the book.
You can’t actually do avant garde if you are old garde to begin with. It isn’t something a group of seasoned pros can get away with by its very nature.
Never were more attractive people in a more lovely film in a lovingly filmed Paris so bad. What next, WAITING FOR GODOT with Seth Rogan and Ben Stiller?
December 16th, 2014 at 10:58 am
When I was a young teenager I had a major puppy love crush on Audrey Hepburn. Even so, I was aware that this movie was a leaden soufflé, though I wasn’t really familiar with that expression. Still, I’ve seen this at least six or seven times, because…you know…Audrey.
I saw it most recently about five years ago and like many “far-out” Sixties films it’s not aging well–especially since it wasn’t very good to begin with.
I do like some things in it.
I like Tony Curtis in the unannounced large supporting part.
Audrey (Gaby) and Bill Holden (Rick) have some charming moments together such as the “parcheesi game on the bed” sex metaphor (Rick, “Can I trust you Gaby, really trust you?”; Gaby, “How can you doubt me after our parcheesi game together!””.
I like Noel Coward’s over-the-top movie producer cameo.
Hepburn and Holden’s chemistry is strong–she had almost married him years before but had finally refused because even then he was an alcoholic. Audrey’s agreeing to co-star was the only thing that saved the film from being cancelled before production began. Drink had shockingly eroded his good looks from just a couple of years before…
It does have a favorite film biz line of mine: Rick to Gaby, “I’m really excited about this. It’s the first good idea I’ve had in months. Well that’s not true. I had an idea to give up drinking, but it didn’t photograph.”.
I couldn’t in good conscience recommend this film to anyone but Hepburn completists though.
December 16th, 2014 at 2:25 pm
As a long time fan of Audrey Hepburn also, but not particularly of William Holden, I’ve always been on the fence about watching this movie, and so far I haven’t.
Nothing’s been said to change my mind, except for maybe the positive comments about Tony Curtis, whose comedy performances I have begun to enjoy more and more as I’ve matured, or at least have gotten older.
December 16th, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Individual parts have some charm, and I could almost watch a film of nothing but Hepburn changing clothes and a rather funny/sexy bath and seduction scene, but it’s not enough.
There is a good line, I think quoted in the trailer, where Hepburn tells Holden “I’m not that sort of girl,” then pauses, kisses him passionately anyway and adds, “I hate the sort of girl who says I’m not that sort of girl.”
But the charm doesn’t add up to something like CHARADE or HOW TO STEAL A MILLION, it adds up to self indulgent and painfully not funny.
One thing I do recall about La Fete la Henrietta is that it was extremely light and never trod on its own toes. Rather than silly and desperate as they seem here the creative sequences had something of the feel of an actual creative mind at work where this is never less than heavy handed.
It’s not that either of the leads or supporting cast fail it’s a total lack of anything to work with. It’s not enough just for movie stars to be movie stars. They have to do something interesting on screen.
December 17th, 2014 at 4:05 am
David, when/where did you ever see “La Fete a la Henriette”?
December 17th, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Dan
I lived in Paris for seven years and was married to a French girl. We saw many films that never played in the US.
December 17th, 2014 at 7:04 pm
and so the legend grows….
Hey–just thought of something: Did you ever see the French film “La fille aux yeux d’or” (1961)
December 17th, 2014 at 7:19 pm
No, but I did see the brilliant noir exercise UN ROI SANS DIVERTISEMENT by Letterier based on the Jean Giono novel. It was a revival and Henrietta was on television.
Luckily anything I didn’t understand my wife translated — if I could only have found someone to translate her English.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:50 pm
Although I usually catapult myself in here when I think a MysteryFile reviewer has done a classic flick an unjust review; in this case I will wholeheartedly agree with the negative reception give to ‘Paris When it Sizzles’. William Holden is my #1 fave actor (all-time) but this film is just not worth one’s attention even for Holden completists. Holden is at his best in movies where he has to punch someone in the jaw. He’ll punch anyone in the jaw and even the person being punched would gaze at him gratefully. Just like Jimmy Stewart, I kinda don’t even believe that Holden himself ever turned in a bad performance–but there are a few flicks he starred in which were just not worth bothering over. He shouldn’t have wasted his time with some roles. This one, in particular. Yes, I’ll take Peter O’Toole in ‘How to Steal a Million’ any day. ‘Sizzles’ is such a lightweight, empty, dingbat movie–I almost wonder why anyone would single it out for review, at this late date. Or, spend so much time mulling over its flaws? What made the reviewer choose it? Its a throwaway..the kindest gesture is to just let it careen off the edge of the cliff into oblivion. I *sure* wouldn’t judge anyone who participated in this movie by the dopey result–I *sure* wouldn’t judge anyone’s career or their talent–by what wound up on these reels. Despite all the good ingredients, sometimes it just happened that way; sometimes the players and producers just “flounced their way” through a project..oh well. Good job this time, MysteryFile guys..
p.s. I have no idea who ‘Seth Rogan’ is but he sounds like someone I’d want to belt in the mouth..
December 20th, 2014 at 6:23 am
Well, like I said Felicks, I think the film deserves some points for its off-beat (if not entirely successful) story-telling, some very perceptive dialogue about Hollywood filmmaking of the day, the radiant presence of Audrey Hepburn, a smooth perf by Holden, and a hilarious appearance by Tony Curtis.
But you’re right; aside from that,there’s just not much you can like about it. I guess once again I’ll have to wait for fashion and critical consensus to catch up with me.