Judex (Blu-ray + DVD)

Judex is an unusual film. It's based on an old silent serial created in 1916 by Lous Feuillade. Its character is arguably the first pulp style hero on screen, and the prototype for many of the masked avengers that would follow. Director Georges Franju was approached to make a film based on him. The results are not exactly what one would expect.Franju, as noted in the booklet accompanying this Criterion release, disliked the character and plot of the original serial. The film ends up being much more of a mediation on old French cinema, and the style and poetry of Judex. The plot and drama winds up playing second fiddle to the images and scenes. Things just happen; we never know the initial reason why Judex was wronged by Favreaux, and many things just happen; a subplot with one of the criminals appears with a deus ex machina resolution, a random acrobat shows up at the end, and there generally isn't a lot of action or drama.But the images! The film is famous for its party scene, where Judex enters wearing a stunning bird mask to carry out his vengeance. The villainess slinks through scenes wearing a black leotard, and the heroine is tossed into a river, only to float like Ophelia to safety downstream. Judex's minions (and he has minions) are menacing. It's a gorgeous film to watch, and feels at times like a languorous fairy tale. The closest thing I could compare it to is Ang Lee's The Hulk. The way Lee tries to work the visual language of comic books into the film with panels is similar to how Franju tries to work the aspects of Feuillade's work into his film. This film however is much better.The one downside is that the content doesn't really get the same treatment. If you were expecting something like The Shadow or a two-fisted hero, you won't get it. It has cliffhangers that are not cliffhangers; Franju said that since Judex is a hero, you automatically know how the story will end and there is no surprise, no humanity in it. So the film at times seems indifferent to the actual plot. It's just a vehicle to show images. It's a lovely one at that, but it's not a Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars where the plot of the old serials of the past is given as much care as the ideas.I enjoyed it a lot myself. The Criterion Collection release is packed with a thick insert book with essays on Franju and the film, as well as some of his own words and interviews. There are two extra short films, and many other interviews and bonuses. You get one blu-ray and 2 dvds, and the film comes in a clamshell case, not the cardboard style like other releases such as Scanners have.

I remember seeing this film late at night on a public TV station back in the early 70s, before VCRs, and then I saw it again at a university film club showing; it led me to find and watch other Franju films and to read critics' books about him. The Blu-Ray and DVD transfers are very good, as are the extras and the 36-page booklet. A huge improvement over the DVD-R version from 16 mm which was the only version available here in the U.S. to folks with Region 1 DVD players.This film will please new viewers, as it has always pleases me, with its atmosphere a nostalgic sense of "innocent fun' that channels some of the trappings of the Louis Feuillade's serials circa 1916 without following all of the plot points (One of the screenwriters of this verision of "Judex" was the grandson of Louis Feuillade). The central character of Judex is a a bit of a cipher in this film, and Franju pretty obviously did not care about fleshing out the character; what we need to see and know about Judex is conveyed adequately by the rather stiff performance of Channing Pollock, a professional magician who was later the mentor of a friend of mine (now also a professional magician).Above all, what makes this film work, if it "works" at all, are the surreal visuals (the ball at which all the guests and Judex himself wear bird masks, the black-garbed associates of Judex scaling the rough stone walls of an old building at night) and the amazing performance of Francine Berge as the wonderfully, wicked and scheming Diana Monti . . . her character is an homage to the femme fatale played by Musidora in Feuillade's Les Vampires. Jacques Jouanneau turns in a subtly comic performance as Cocantin, a private detective who stumbles onto scene after scene at nearly the right time, later with the help of a small boy who is smarter than he is.

This is a 1963 film by Georges Franju based the 1916 serial films by Louis Feuillade (Fantomas, Les Vampires, Judex).Calling himself Judex (judge or arbitrator), a man swears vengeance on the dishonest banker who destroyed his father years before. Having settled the score with the banker, Judex finds he must come to the aid of the banker's beautiful daughter who has been kidnapped by a gang to obtain her father's secret papers. Judex is a magician, so some of his exploits are done by magic as well as fantastic devices in his underground lair. It's all good fun, with little overt violence.Franju went to great lengths to mimic the look and feel of the original 1916 silent films, such as using filters to approximate the look of the orthochromatic film used in the originals before panchromatic film became available in the mid-1920s. Though the film has sound, the story is told visually with relatively little dialog.Criterion has given the film its usual fine cleanup - and it is a visual stunner with luminous outdoor photography. Highly recommended.

Judex reminds me of a good pulp story from the 30's. It is fun and intriguing. Franju was a director who used the camera to illustrate his stories. It really is almost a comic book put on film. The B&W photography is excellent. Superhero film collectors should at least give this film a look.The real treat is the second film Nuites Rouges aka Shadowman. I actually like this film better than Judex. Franju was forced to do more with a smaller budget and here he shines by being inventive and creating sets and camera shots that more than make up for the lack of a budget. Fun film all the way. both film will appeal to film fans of 60's adventure films.

I have enjoyed this film before but this is the first time a beautiful transfer has been done of it for our forma. I wish they had also done one with THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE a.k.a. SHADOWMAN the same way, as they did in England...in fact, both films were released in Britain as a 'double-bill' on dvd over there.JUDEX is a little ethereal in its pace, but I like it...the masquerade sequence stands on its own.

She liked it.

The 1963 version of Judex was a film I put off watching for a long time because of my disappointment with Georges Franju’s highly rated but rather lethargic and surprisingly flat Eyes Without a Face, and while it’s an improvement on that film’s clichéd take on the mad scientist genre it’s still not as much fun as a throwback to the golden days of silent French serials with a caped crusader with an underground bunker beneath a castle that’s filled with modern technology despite being set in la Belle Époque and a plot with the requisite kidnappings, disguises, long lost children, murder, incarceration, faked deaths, rooftop girl fights and a cute kid should be. In many ways Franju’s greatest talent was to make the magical look mundane, and much of the film has the feel of an exercise in style over substance that comes up surprisingly short on the style. Franju’s problems getting much of a performance out of some of his players (Francine Bergé’s duplicitous governess is particularly wooden, reduced to letting her wardrobe do her acting for her in her various incarnations as nun, nurse and Irma Vep-alike cat suited criminal) and his tendency to seem to lose interest in staging the necessary but at times clumsily pedantic bits between the scenes he wants to have fun with is much in evidence, as is his sketchy approach to most of his characters – even, most damagingly, his nominal lead.He may play the title role and get one of the best introductions in screen history – the camera slowly tracking up from his shoes and evening suit to reveal a giant bird’s head before he funereally walks through the revellers at a masquerade party like a pallbearer before silently producing real doves out of thin air – but real life magician Channing Pollock’s mysterious righter of wrongs who determines to make a crooked banker pay for his crimes is barely in the film and makes little impression when we do see his face. Franju made no secret that he had little interest in either the character or Louis Feuillade’s original 1914/16 serial – he originally wanted to do a 60s version of Fantomas, even having one supporting character reading about one plot development in a Fantomas novel - and it shows. Pollock may have the looks for a screen hero but he rarely gets the chance to demonstrate whether he has the talent, not even getting much of a scene until an hour into the film. Whereas in Feuillaude’s original Judex had a personal motive for his vendetta, here he’s a complete blank slate with neither motive nor personality. It doesn’t help that Franju’s lack of enthusiasm for the film’s nominal hero is so complete that he’s a particularly ineffectual figure who has to wait for his masked minions to break a door down or to be rescued by Sylva Koscina’s passing circus acrobat when the villainess captures him with absurd ease.He’s much more successful at creating something like the style of early silent French cinema, perhaps unsurprisingly since he was one of the founders of the Cinémathèque Française before he quickly lost interest in it. Unfortunately even that doesn’t extend to mirroring their moments of pace and urgency, his rather lazy approach to pacing even rendering the few moments of derring-do and the film’s sole cliffhanging moment rather perfunctory: Franju comes across as the kind of filmmaker who wants to do two or three big scenes and has little interest in anything else in the film. He even fails to make much of a scene where a kidnapping is foiled by some loyal dogs protecting their mistress. Worse, once the masked ball is over, it’s a film where he favours dialogue over action, constantly telling what he can’t be bothered to show rather than creating striking imagery to tell the story. The end result is a film that tends to drag and sadly never recaptures the bravura of its hero’s introduction.Included on Master’s of Cinema’s UK DVD is a 12-minute interview with Louis Feuillade’s grandson Jacques Champreux, who co-wrote the film, which goes a long way to explaining why the film fails to fulfil its potential (and includes extracts from the 1914/16 version, including its much more visually striking final scene), as do the booklet’s interviews with Franju and a poem he wrote to express his contempt for the character. The widescreen transfer is mostly very good though Maurice Jarre’s end title music seems to go mute rather abruptly before the picture ends.Also included is Franju’s final film, 1974’s Nuits Rouges aka Shadowman. It enjoys the worst reputation of his limited resume yet for all its shortcomings it’s surprisingly enjoyable and a much more successful homage than Judex. A troubled production, to put it mildly, it came out of an aborted attempt to do a faithful version of Fantomas that fell through when the rights proved too expensive. Not wanting the allocated budget to go to waste, screenwriter Jacques Champreux instead pitched a yarn inspired equally by Lon Chaney Sr. and the Republic cliffhanger fantasy serials of the 40s to be made simultaneously as a film (shot on 35mm) and a TV series (shot in 16mm as L’Homme sans Visage/The Man Without a Face in honour of Chaney’s French promotional billing), with Champreux himself taking the role of the ruthless villain with more than a hint of Diabolik and a thousand disguises, including a version of Chaney’s Unholy Three little old lady. Shooting in Belgrade to stretch the budget proved a bad decision as the local crew only turned up when they felt like working and would have endless union meetings about overtime, and things were complicated further on their return to France when they found out that much of the 35mm footage had been stolen and the cans filled with sand. With some scenes from the TV version filling in rather awkwardly, the result was a compromise at best, and one the few critics who saw it were largely unimpressed by. With much of France, the media included, on strike, the film’s box-office was pitiful and it sank without a trace.Yet despite all those calamities and more, it’s not the disaster you might expect, perhaps because, as Champreux says in an interview on Masters of Cinema’s DVD, the cheap makeshift feel of some of the film is so perfectly in keeping with the low-budget chapter plays that inspired it that it works in its favour (provided, of course, you have a nostalgia for the likes of The Mysterious Dr Satan and Daredevils of the Red Circle). All the ‘to be continued’ staples are there – a silly Maguffin (the lost treasure of the Knights Templars), a masked villain, a mad scientist creating an army of living dead assassins, secret passages, disguises, evil minions and Gayle Hunnicut’s catsuited murdress Irma Vepping it on the rooftop (the latter the only scene that feels lethargic as Franju draws it out for ages because rooftop prowling scenes were apparently one of his favourite things). True, many of those were in Judex, but Franju seems much more enthusiastic about them here, and being a truncated version of an eight x 50-minute episodes story at least ensures he can’t afford to be too lethargic this time round.Once again Franju favours an ineffectual hero (or rather trio of heroes and heroine in the form of Ugo Pagliai, Patrick Préjean and Josephine Chaplin) who have to be rescued by fortuitously passing minor characters, but unlike Judex at least they take an active part in trying to catch the killer and are centre stage in some of their failed attempts. Top-billed Gayle Hunnicut doesn’t appear until the 39-minute mark as the villain’s sidekick and never really becomes much of a character – Gert Froebe’s police detective gets more screen time – her drifting in and out of the film possibly a result of the lost footage and a more substantial role in the TV version. But it’s the surprisingly good Champreux who makes the biggest impression with his various, er, impressions and is clearly having a ball as the nefarious villain of the piece.Parts of it are very silly, as you might expect from a film whose hero doesn’t even notice that the driver of his taxi is a dummy, and its grab bag of influences is never far from the surface - you can’t help wondering if the murderous mannequins were inspired by the Doctor Who story Spearhead from Space four years earlier. Some good design and makeup can’t hide the cheapness at times, but cost cutting touches like all the British newspapers having exactly the same headline just adds to the surrealism. There’s no great standout sequence like the bravura filmmaking of Judex’s first appearance, but it’s a much more consistent film, with Franju seeming willing to embrace all the nonsense on display rather than just a couple of scenes. Only a disappointingly perfunctory ending that resolves little, presumably in the hope of a sequel/second series, disappoints.Lost masterpiece? Not even close. But it is surprisingly good fun in its shamelessly cheap and cheerful way.Masters of Cinema’s UK DVD offers a decent letterboxed transfer, though unlike Judex it’s non-anamorphic, giving it a bit of a postage stamp effect on widescreen TVs (zooming the frame tends to crop the picture too much), and an entertaining interview with Champreux.

In the realm of the off beat and different these two films offer a French taste of sixties odd. Georges Franju is the director of both films. His Judex is much better known and has been sought after by me for a while. Nuits Rouges or Shadowman a lesser known film is to me the prize in the pack.Both films are slow paced when compared to others of the crime genre from that time period but there is a cinematic quality that keeps you watching the movie.Most of the films set ups are well executed and eye catching. Judex is the more elaborate but Shadowman is more inventive due to Franju working with a lower budget, which I believe actually helped make the film more attractive as an action crime caper.Both movies deserve a look if you are a film buff as I am. I had read of Franju years ago in a magazine of French directors even tho I did not actually like his horror film I have seen it for the set ups and atmosphere. These two films I like a lot better.

If you have never seen Georges Franju's 1963 remake of Louis Feuillade's 1917 serial JUDEX then you owe it to yourself to catch this remarkable film. Franju (1912-1987) is best remembered for his poetic, much copied horror film EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1959) but he made a number of other movies including this pair as well as the shocking pre-PETA documentary THE BLOOD OF THE BEASTS (1949) which was filmed inside a French slaughterhouse. He was also a co-founder of France's Cinemateque Francaise and his movies bear the striking visual look of older films especially silents. Once you've seen one of Franju's film, it's unlikely that you'll forget it.After the international success of EYES, Franju decided to pay homage to France's great serial filmmaker Louis Feuillade (1873-1925) whose LES VAMPIRES (1916) would influence crime and crimefighter films for decades to come. He chose JUDEX because of it's BATMAN like qualities which he thought a modern audience (ca.1963) could relate to. Although set in 1917 and shot in stunning black & white, the film is deliberately anachronistic with contemporary fashions and make-up and an overall look of the French New Wave. American magician Channing Pollock makes a suitably imposing Judex although he's dubbed and the young Edith Scob (HOLY MOTORS) is a thoughtful if somewhat melancholy damsel-in-distress.The show, however, belongs to Francine Berge' (just as it did her predecessor Musidora) as the villainous Marie Verdier/Diana Monti. Her black outfit is straight out of THE AVENGERS although Diana Rigg's Emma Peel wouldn't show up until 2 years later. The story is essentially the same. An unscrupulous banker "dies" in the film's most remarkable set piece only to find himself captive of a black clad figure (complete with cape) intent on justice. Meanwhile a greedy governess plans to murder his daughter in the hopes of getting the family's money. After a series of abductions, rescues and narrow escapes, all works out for the best. This was reportedly illustrator Edward Gorey's favorite movie and you can clearly see why.The same cannot be said of the second feature NUITS ROUGE (Red Nights). It was made 10 years later (1973), was shot in color, and was nobody's favorite. Inspired by another Feuillade serial FANTOMAS (1913-14), it's also known as SHADOWMAN. While it's not nearly as good as JUDEX, it was shot on a miniscule TV budget so some allowances should be made. It isn't a complete waste of time as the story concerning the treasure of the Knights Templar is interesting and an international cast featuring Gert Frobe and Gayle Hunnicutt do their best with the material but the contemporary setting and the use of color work against it. Great classical music quotes, though. Still a remarkable 2 disc set and a must see for the first film (check out the DVD cover).

Franju certainly has a unique style, one that both apes the classic silent serials of the early 20th Century and also transcends their conventions by adding exuberant, modern touches. Of course, there is little logic, nor is the 'story' anything more than a wafer thin excuse for a series of increasingly outlandish plot twists and set-pieces. However, it is completed with such assured brio that we can but marvel at the ambition of this truly original cinematic mind.'Judex' in particular, is an aesthetic wonder and well worth your time. If you believe that French cinema is sometimes missing elements of adventure and ecstatic 'fun', then these two movies should impress.

I first saw Franju's Judex at an international film festival in the mid-60s and it has remained a core film experience for me ever since. Franju's certainty of phrasing, the faultless use of the medium of monochrome, the flow of the narrative, and the characterisations that all the leads bring to their roles in this mannerist morality fable work as perfectly now as they did then. I have moved from a home-recorded VHS version, to a bought VHS version, to a muddily unwatchable DVD cover, to this Masters of Cinema edition. This is the best-produced version by far: it should bring Judex to the wider audience many critics and film-lovers have long felt it has deserved.