Synopsis:
Shortly after attending the funeral of his mother, a French clerk (Marcello Mastroianni) in 1930s Algeria befriends a shady neighbor (Georges Géret) and becomes inextricably involved in a life-altering crime.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Courtroom Drama
• Italian Films
• Luchino Visconti Films
• Marcello Mastroianni Films
• Morality Police

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary asserts that Luchino Visconti’s “adaptation of Albert Camus’s existential novel” is “reasonably well made but philosophically shallow.” He argues (and I agree, though not all do) that “Mastroianni is well cast as an alienated man whose great guilt — over his indifference as well as the murder he committed — cannot be decreased because to him God doesn’t exist and the hypocritical men who judge him cannot forgive an atheist anything.”

Peary writes that while Meursault (Mastroianni) “does have feelings and kindness,” “his contempt for the world and his meaningless existence serves to anesthetize his emotions almost entirely” — to the point where taking lethal action on the beach could be seen as “almost a positive act!” given that “he has finally moved out of passivity” (no, but I understand Peary’s point).

Peary adds (somewhat randomly) that “scenes with [a] scabrous old man and his scabrous dog are memorable.”

I don’t necessarily agree with Peary that this adaptation is “philosophically shallow.” While the film can’t — and doesn’t really — get into the novel’s meaty themes of the irrationality of the universe, the meaningless of human life, and the importance of the physical world, we are nonetheless presented with a sufficiently complicated and complex scenario: should a man be judged based on some of his perceived character flaws, such as not showing overt emotions at his mother’s funeral (how dare he smoke a cigarette!):

… going out with his girlfriend (Anna Karina) — who he admits he doesn’t love — the next day:

… befriending and staying loyal to a pimp:

… and not believing in God; and/or could (should) these very actions and attitudes easily be interpreted differently? And even more importantly, should they even matter? For what it’s worth, as pointed out by Meursault’s defense lawyer (Bernard Blier, who co-starred with Mastroianni in 1963’s The Organizer):

… Meursault was actually showing responsibility for his mother by sending her to a facility where she could socialize and receive sufficient care. Regarding his affect and actions at the funeral, people react very differently to grief; it’s incredibly dangerous to judge people based on how they look during a time of stress. Meanwhile, we see Meursault being friendly with the (socially unacceptable) “scabrous man” — and his friendship with the criminal could be seen as simply refusing to judge others for their lifestyle (by which I do NOT mean to condone or justify this man’s hideous treatment of a woman). While we do feel sad for Karina that Meursault won’t tell her he loves her, he is at least relentlessly honest with her — as he is about his lack of faith. This film remains worthy one-time viewing as an interesting adaptation of a morally challenging novel — though I would be curious to see an updated version in which colonial/racial tensions and injustices are given fair due.

Note: The Stranger has an unusual release history which bears noting. According to J. Hoberman’s 2017 review in The New York Times: “It has long been without an American distributor and, owing to complicated rights issues, was never released here on DVD… The movie was eagerly anticipated but suspiciously received when it opened in New York in December 1967.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

• Marcello Mastroianni as Meursault
  
• Anna Karina as Marie
  
• Giuseppe Rotunno’s cinematography
  
• Excellent use of naturalistic outdoor settings
  
  
• Mario Garbuglia’s production design
  
  

Must See?
Yes, once, as an effective adaptation.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Film Comment Review
• NY Times Review