I would have enjoyed this more had it had all of her videos from the era on it - most notably, it's missing the very memorable "Erotica" (according to rumor, in order to avoid a Parental Advisory label.) However, the DVD is still very much worth owning for any Madonna fan - her genius for visuals is at its peak during the videos from "Ray of Light," especially in "The Power of Goodbye" and "Frozen." This collection definitely showcases her at her best, during her later years, and the visual effects are superceded only by the music.


A sensitive and deeply moving film. We follow the life in silence of the monks in the Grande Chartreuse Monastery in the French Alps. Only once a week are the monks aloud to talk when they go for a walk in the woods or glide in the snow during winter. The photography is magnificent as the camera respectfully observes the monks quiet life of prayer and daily tasks. At certain intervals we see close-up of the monks whose faces impact us by simply being present. During two hours we become part of the monastery, the routines and the beauty of the mountains that surround us. After seeing fifty films at the Sundance Film Festival, this is the film that has stayed with me. The filmmaker waited 16 years before he got permission to shoot in the monastery and it was well worth waiting.


If you begin watching this film expecting an explanatory documentary about monastic life in La Grande Chartreuse, you may soon become bored and fed up. If you begin watching this film expecting to be taken into the monastic way of life, you will soon find yourself there. The movie takes the pace of the slow, quiet atmosphere of the monastery. Long periods of silence broken by the occasional creak of floorboards or chanting or bells, and very little dialogue. It is like each shot is a photograph. A moving photograph.

It is not entirely what one expects, however. Keep an eye out for the odd object seemingly out of place: the highlighter, the keyboard, the laptop; the odd conversation on a monk's departure for Seoul, South Korea; the shot of monks sliding down a snowy bank on their bums.

I wanted more explanation - how the individuals chose this way of life; how they sustain their community; what contact they have with secular people. But it is not that kind of documentary. As long as you're prepared for that, it is a film worth watching.


Winter, spring, summer, fall...and winter. No, this is not the quasi-eponymous Korean movie. It is the period of time over which the film was shot, around 2002. It is a documentary on the Grande Chartreuse cloister situated in a deep valley above the city of Grenoble, France. A couple of dozen monks live there. There are novices on probation and seniors long having made their vow of permanent ascetic life. The rhythm of their daily cloistered routines is the backbone of the film: frequent prayers, meals eaten alone in individual private apartments, execution of assigned chores, etc. From Monday to Saturday few words are exchanged. The only sounds are those of human movement, work activities, church bells and chirps from the surrounding forest. The only music to be heard is that of liturgical evening chants.

Not every aspect of monastic life is covered. As the director explains, this is not an informational film. It is a long contemplation on ascetic life. It may seem too long after two hours. The tedious repetitiveness is purposeful however. Even on-the-screen quotes are shown multiple times throughout the movie accentuating that repetitiveness. It is enough to convince us that it takes a special individual to commit to such constrained existence, one modulated only by the moods of the seasons. We are presented with snapshots of odd moments: monks frolicking in the snow; preparing a vegetable garden for spring seeding; a summer Sunday outing when monks are free to socialize and, on this day, they discuss the appropriateness of washing one's hands before meals (a contrarian monk has a simple solution: don't get your hands dirty).

Despite the isolation, there are signs the outside world is not too far. Fruits are served with supermarket produce number stickers still attached, correspondence and bills arrive and managed with a laptop computer (no evidence of an Internet connection), and some of the tools are distinctly modern.

It's a quiet film. Too long and soporific for some, possibly inspiring to others. What stayed with me after watching 162 minutes of this is the plain beauty of the cloister and the reminder of a life style that we may have thought extinct in the West.


Very beautiful and original pictures in this movie. You can also enjoy such simple things as the sound of the snow falling or a scissors cutting a wool cloth...

In my opinion, the movie is not repetitious. I think the intention of the director is to introduce you in the monks' everyday life, and therefore you have to understand the routine and discipline they are attached to. It is just the silence that illuminates these people.

And I didn't know there were such really sweet monks in the catholic church!

At the cinema everybody were staying till the very end, although I have to say that someone was sleeping behind me ;-)


I am glad that I saw Die Grosse Stille. It was deeply touching. The silence somehow allowed one to witness the deeply private lives and experiences of these meditators. I saw this film a few days before. My girlfriend wanted dearly to see it but I had been put off by some critical comments posted on these pages. I am glad that I overcame my doubts. The views of both the inside of the monastery and the outer surroundings enhanced the feelings of the 'separateness'of the mountainside retreat. I have been a meditator for quite a few years and I lived among the Tibetan communities in India for some years. There also one can find a 'Great Stillness'. Are you prepared to set aside conventional standards and expectations of a film 'experience'? If 'yes,', then I recommend this film to you.


If you want to see the contemplative, Roman Catholic view of Christ's teachings, this is for your. If you want to see a truly natural and realistic movie without artificial lighting (except the electric lights already at the monastery) this is for you. This movie is an absolute must for people who want to see what can been done just by taking a camera into the field and shooting. The message is simple and repeated over and over again because the contemplative life is simple and they spend their days trying to "grasp that which cannot be grasped": "Grace" and God. This movie is a must for those who think that Catholicism is too mystical. It clearly describes the simple beliefs of the contemplative life: that as one abandons one's attachments to things and the material world, one is seduced into the nirvana of religious enlightenment. During the final scene with the blind monk, an interesting comment is made on body sculpting, plastic surgery and other techniques that make one appear younger than one is. Incidentally, a Hindu or Buddhist would find the Christian view of nirvana described in this movie very interesting and the contemplative Christian path astonishingly similar to the contemplative Hindu and Buddhist paths.


This almost silent three hour documentary tracks the daily lives of Carthusian monks living at the Chartreuse Monastery in the French Alps, as they live in a way that seems to be in such contrast with the modern world. It's a fascinating movie if you are able to get into the slow rhythm of the film (if you are still in the movie theater after an hour, you will probably made it to the third hour). By the same token, it would be almost impossible to see it in your house on DVD, since there are so many possible distractions that would make you want to stop the film. Remarkably, given that European filmmakers tend to be among the most secular people in the world, the movie is also surprisingly respectful of the choices made by the monks in living in this particular way.


This movie provides a real escape from the routine drivel we see coming from Hollywood.

Yes, the movie is over 2 hours in length and there is very little dialog. One really wouldn't expect much dialog from a Religious Order, like these Carthusians, who observe silence whenever and wherever possible. These Hermit/Monks are not walking through their Cloister with Stereo Earphones, while their cowled heads bob up and down in rhythm with the latest HIP-HOP Beat!! If one does his homework PRIOR to viewing this movie, they will know that it IS A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENTARY dealing with the daily life of the Hermit/Monks in the Roman Catholic Church's strictest Order.

Time has practically stood still for the Hermit/Monks of this Monastery - the Motherhouse of the Carthusian Order - LE GRANDE CHARTREUSE.

In a World filled with noise, distractions, violence, and insecurity, sitting for a few hours and enjoying the Carthusian Life-style is a breath of very fresh air.

This Documentary offers that rare glimpse into a very obscure and hidden Religious Order.

Hopefully the DVD of this masterpiece will be released soon in the U.S.A. It will make a wonderful companion to Nancy Klein Maguire's Book: "AN INFINITY OF LITTLE HOURS".


When you're going to see 'Into great Silence', do bear in mind that is is a nearly three hour documentary about a hermit order. Don't expect anything sensational. The life of these monks isn't sensational. It's quiet. It's about small things and a lot of prayer. Furthermore it is a good idea to read up a little, find some information about the Cartusians and their way of life. The film itself will not give much facts and figures about its subject matter - it's an experience more than a film. But when you do have the right frame of mind, an open and patient mind, you're in for something extraordinary.

Although the Cartusians have the reputation of being the most strickt and austere of religious orders, I was pleasantly surprised by the 'lightness' of the film. One one hand there is the silence and the long hours of prayer and labour. One the others hand there's the cats, the cows, the Sunday afternoon conversations and the snowy slopes ideal for sliding down on your bum. Both sides of the monks life are being presented with pleasant serenity.

These men are happy, you can tell. And I was happy when I left the cinema these afternoon.


In 1984, novice filmmaker Philip Gröning asked the Carthusian monks of the Grand Chartreuse if he could film them. They said it was too soon, and thus, 16 years later, Gröning received a call: they were ready. A sublime mix of transcendence and cinéma vérité, the result, Into Great Silence, is a masterful trip inside the monastery, a 162 minute voyage that spellbinds, entrances, and makes you become one with the film itself.

Filming by himself on hi-definition video and Super 8 for only a few hours a day, using only available light and sound, Gröning was required to live and work among the monks, both observing them and becoming one with them. He structures the film in an unscathed and natural way, both accurately capturing the monks' daily routines yet also flowing by seasons. Each season has its own pleasures, which range from the playful walks of the monks in spring and summer to the moody yet harmonious mise-en-scene of the winter. Sublime to its very hushed core, Into Great Silence does take some getting used to, specifically because the monks hardly utter a word; the beginning of the film is a four minute opening shot of a monk praying in his solitary room. It is after this, however, that the film resembles true life itself: rarely have documentaries portrayed such an unhurried sense of time, yet all of the film passes faster than you wish it to, each minute counting to the very last.

Gröning's masterful shots of the Grand Chartreuse are let alone one reason that elates the film, yet more than a placed and planned camera, the shots almost resemble spying. It is undeniably true, as weird as it may sound, that the monks have gotten used to the camera. Months go on, and they blatantly ignore it, which only goes for the better. In what follows, Gröning takes us through more than just the random praying of the monks, but also of them playing (there's a scene of the monks going sledding), cooking, eating and sewing, all daily activities of the monks (excluding the playing aspect.) One need not be religious, or even agree with the existence of god and the fact of locking oneself in a monastery, to enjoy a film of this caliber. Nevertheless, Gröning has created a film of its kind: the type that will keep you thinking and enjoying its quiet pleasuresonly through simple imagesfor a long time, yet also one that could gratify film lovers without a limit to its quiet sense of aptness.


I've often pondered which sense would I rather lose: sight or hearing. I had decided sight would be the one to live without since music has the power to make me weep (often). But "Die Große Stille" has made me rethink all of that. It's a pointless game anyway, but I reexamined the importance of sound in my life versus the magnificent, ravishing images put forth in this film.

Like the works of Frederick Wiseman, it's less a work of cinema than a window that Gröning offers. We watch seemingly arbitrary action both mundane and ecstatic. We're not "told" who these people are as individuals nor why they have chosen to wall themselves off from the world's joy and suffering. But as we watch, the pace of the film is slowed so that we enter this world and test our own thoughts about human contact as well as faith. But only if you're so inclined. There's no proselytizing.

At one point late in the film one monk chides the world for living without God, and you immediately think, "How would YOU know?" And immediately we see the value of silence. In silence we don't argue or plead, complain or preach. We simply live with our thoughts, and here the brothers seem very comfortable with whatever it is they are thinking.

Through repetition and ceremony, we enter the serenity these men have found. And while there's beauty in the physical aspects of both the natural world in its changing seasons as well as the cloistered setting, it's the tranquil beauty of faces that rivet. We meet them as individuals only in a series of live portraits where their eyes stare into the lens, through the camera, and into our souls. If I didn't have my sight, I would have missed that and been lesser for it.

For me, this was an amazing experience. But for others in the theater it was tough evidenced by squirming and the occasional snore. Surprisingly, it was the younger members of the audience who seemed most entranced.


I've just awakened from a beautiful dream. Before I slept I came from an Italian restaurant in which I was with my business manager and we talked about various subjects and we gossiped about our personal lives and feasted upon a sumptuous meal. Before we went to that Italian restaurant we were in Santa Monica's Nuart Theater and feasted upon a very poetic, mesmerizing, entrancing, seductive and breathtaking film.

INTO GREAT SILENCE is not for the popcorn flick fan. If you're into blockbusters and that's your taste then you probably won't like this film. You must be a staunch art house film-goer. You must be a sophisticated film watcher to truly appreciate this film. Your taste level for film must be at a higher level to enjoy this film with little ease. But if you're not any of those and you surrender to this film you will have no doubt a poetic, mesmerizing, hypnotic, sensual, introspective and breathtaking experience.

As the story goes, in the early 1980s Philip Groning contacted the Roman Catholic Monks of the Carthusian Order, which was founded in 1084 by St. Bruno of Cologne. The Carthusian Order is reportedly one of the strictest orders of the Roman Catholic church. Although they don't take a vow of silence, the Monks speak only when absolutely necessary and once weekly on walks outside their monastery. The Monks told Groning it was premature and that they would contact him when the time was right. They got back to him nearly a decade and a half and told him they were ready. He was told that only he could enter the monastery and that he could only use natural light. He was also told that there be no musical score or soundtrack. And on top of all that he was told that there would be no interviews and commentaries. With all those restrictions, however, Philip Groning says that those did not affect his intentions for the film. So he spent several months living, working, and filming over 120 hours of life in the French Alps in the Great Charterhouse of the Carthusian Order.

"Lord you have seduced me, and I was seduced." I wouldn't call INTO GREAT SILENCE a documentary, because the film INTO GREAT SILENCE is an experience. It plays on every sense and it entrances you into using your intangible senses as well. It lives up to its name as there is hardly any dialogue and interviews. And there are absolutely no commentaries and voice-overs. You don't hear a human voice until 20 minutes into the film. But the rare human voice in the film makes you appreciate the sounds of nature that surround that quiet place in the French Alps. You experience the poetry of the sound of the snow falling, melting, and dripping. The sound of bells tolling and rain dropping creates a melody. And the sound of Monks footsteps are like a serenade. But the Gregorian chants sung by these Monks are so hypnotic, haunting, and entrancing that it seduces you to surrender to their world.

And the film supplies a cinematic visual buffet. This film must be seen on the big screen. There is not one single frame in the film that can't be a featured photograph in some art museum. Every shot stimulates the eye, which in turn stimulates your heartbeat to a rhythm, which makes your body participate in that GREAT SILENCE. The occasional flashes of Bible verses, "Lord you have seduced me, and I was seduced" and "Anyone who does not give up all he has cannot be my disciple." Create a time of pause for one to reflect.

The narrative of the film follows several Monks. One of them an African novice who gives up everything he has to join the order. Another, a young Monk who has given up everything he owns and is new to the order. But how much did they really give up? We are reminded of the outside world by a single airliner flying above. And to contrast the silence of the Monks we glimpse tourists or pilgrims from afar. The film also follows an elderly Monk who takes care of the garden and grounds and a blind elderly Monk at the end of his life. When one watches these Monks and is drawn into their life one sees the "joyfulness" of their penitence. The rhythm of their life is as entrancing as the Gregorian chants they sing. The peaceful serenity of their world and surroundings does indeed seduce one.

The film does not aim to preach or teach. The film entrances you to experience the world of these Monks as they honestly are. Weather you agree with them or not one sees the sincerity of their prayer, work, mass, rituals, and meal as poetic innocence. One cannot help but experience personal joy as these Monks slide down snowy slopes with their shoes. And while these Monks do give up everything they own, the nature that surrounds them are so breathtakingly priceless that one longs to stay in that peaceful serene place in the French Alps.

INTO GREAT SILENCE is indeed a cinematic experience much more than a film documentary for entertainment or educational purposes. The almost three hours of rare dialogue had a very loud and clear point of view. This is how the Monks gave up everything so that they can be God's disciples. And this is how God seduced them and why they are seduced. This is the world of the Monks of the Carthusian Order. The almost three hours, although slow, were needed so that one could immerse in those French Alps with those faithful Monks. And admittedly in the later part of the almost three hour film I was fidgeting. But when it was done. I had wanted to experience it all over again. "Lord you have seduced me, and I was seduced."


If you can sit still for the nearly three hours of this film, it's almost guaranteed to bring down your heart rate, maybe make you want to spend more time in the high mountains or in the snow or contemplating spring flowers in some isolated place. Into Great Silence (Die Große Stille) is a documentary of unusual austerity and beauty, like La Grande Chartreuse itself, the Carthusian order's central monastery high in the French Alps that German filmmaker Philip Gröning has recorded. His film is steeped in a unique atmosphere; there is no narration. To have provided any would have interrupted the prevailing silence that is characteristic of the place. This method -- the withholding of all commentary -- can work fine for a documentary, especially where there is a lot of dialogue, as in the recent, highly admired Iraq in Fragments; or where the activities shown are familiar, such as the classroom scenes so meticulously filmed in Être et avoir (To Be and to Have), an un-narrated chronicle of a rural French elementary school. But lovely and calming as Into Great Silence is, it preserves the atmosphere at the cost of failing to penetrate its subjects' inner lives. How well can we ever understand spirituality? But above all, how well can we understand it from visuals, without any words describing the inner experience?

There are other specifics that Gröning, who was forced to work virtually alone and without any artificial light, chooses not to detail. A monk's life is rigorously organized, but here that schedule isn't specified. Editing flits about arbitrarily between shots of monks praying alone or in the chapel, external landscape shots; shots of wood being chopped, food being prepared or delivered to cells, snow being shoveled, robes being made, heads being shaved, books being read at cell desks. And there's an initiation ritual, plain chants, poetically blurry close-ups of candle flames or fruit. There's even a moment of laughter and high spirits when a group of younger monks slide down a hillside in the snow (in their boots, without skis or snowboards). Bells sound, and the monks bustle about from one activity to another, but according to what system is left to the imagination. In one shot a monk sits in front of a big desk strewn with bills and documents. He just stares at them. What does it mean? Several times the succession of scenes is interrupted with a short series of shots of individual monks staring into the camera, wordlessly, of course. There is one long shot of a monk who may be dying. He too stares into the camera. These moments are rather spooky. Despite the presence of prescription eyeglasses, shoe goo, electricity for lights and an electric razor in the "Razora" room -- even, despite wood stoves in the cells, the sighting of a single radiator -- the place has a thoroughly medieval feel, and that's spooky too. Every so often in large letters there is a saying of Jesus, such as "He among you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple," flashed in French on the screen, as in a silent film, and these are repeated, randomly. But again, is this randomness appropriate in depicting a life that is anything but haphazard in its structure?

After an hour the film shows that the monks, though they lead daily lives that are silent and isolated except for chapel services, do also get together on Sundays for a communal meal followed by a walk and a chat, rain or shine. When given this opportunity, they don't analyze the world situation. They discuss minutiae of the order's regulations. Later, a blind old monk with impressive down-drooping eyebrows is the only one to address the camera directly. He speaks of blindness and death, describing both as welcome gifts from God, one received, another still to come.

There is a significant omission. This place, begun in the early eleventh century, rebuilt in the seventeenth, produces a famous liqueur whose sale supports it; but we don't see the monks doing this work. Gröning says the process is too complicated and would distract from the rest. Distract from what? From the effect he wants to create; not from a picture of what the place is about.

Gröning underlines the uniquely rare opportunity he's sharing with us by explaining at the end that he asked for permission to film in 1984, but was held off from doing so till 2000. Maybe he thought since he had to wait so long, he should make a long film. But the extra time doesn't mean deeper insight. At most it is the prolongation of a mood. Rather it seems an outgrowth of the random editing system, an unwillingness or inability to cut or to organize. Off-putting and tight-lipped though this film is, it will no doubt stand as one of the more distinctive of recent documentaries. But it inspires as much irritation as reverence. It's not utterly clear that Gröning is the ultimate guide to this world -- or to any world, for that matter.

There are many paradoxes and ambiguities in a monastic existence. The Carthusian order is austere. Its life is one of renunciation and penitence. In this austerity there is a certain luxury. The monks choose it willingly. If they can stick with it (many apparently don't), it is what they want, an ideal setting for the uninterrupted contemplation of God. And it is a peaceful life, a safe life, a life cut off from the worries of cities and families and all uncertainty. Monks don't prepare their weekday meals in their cells any more; they're brought on a cart. Bare and spare and strict though it is, La Grande Chartreuse is in some sense the most spectacular of grand hotels.


I always wanted to know what Monasteries are like. Quiet, Peaceful places of Contemplation and Compassion? And in today's time where almost everybody writes a book about almost everything, it shouldn't be a problem to find out. But I had no luck so far; until I have seen this movie (it's really a documentary).

This movie was shot on a single small camera (I'm no expert) using the light that was available at location. Some of the shots are very grainy (see above, I'm no expert), those make a very dramatic effect. And apparently, it took 16 years for the monks to grant the filmmaker permission to film. And even then, only on his own, no artificial lights.

The film has almost no dialogue (no need to learn Latin to understand the movie) and is almost 3 hours long. The camera freezes on a certain scene (like somebody in prayer) and stays there for a few minutes and then it goes to a different scene. I was especially impressed by the recording of the changes in the seasons. The beautiful location somewhere in France is highly suitable for that type of movie. Large amounts of snow followed by birdsong and lots of greenery in summer. Combine that with a tremendous ability by the filmmaker to compose the pictures and you are in for sensational treat.

But it doesn't stop there, for the film takes you into the Monastery,i doesn't look in from the outside, it tries to look in from the inside. This is not a documentary telling us "How to be a Monk in 10 easy to follow steps". It rather explores the silence and the solitude. One of the repeated shots is of a red candle flickering inside a glass, no noises whatsoever, just the red glow using a tele lens. Other shots are of monks in deep prayer or engaged in their other activities.

The film doesn't explain why these people choose to live a life like that. Nor does it explain the level of self-sufficiency. But what it does explain is the material sacrifice and the related spiritual freedom.

I know that I am not the only one in today's society to suffer from the stresses of 21-first century life and the constant noises of our cities. And probably from the breakdown of moral and ethical values in our society. I admire the monks that they are able and committed to that kind of life. It certainly appears to be a lot more difficult than to choose which TV channel to switch on (or other mundane tasks).

I always considered going into monastery as a step too far. Not anymore now, but I fear it is still a step too big for me.

A final note: this movie lasts for about 3 hours, and it is a very encouraging way to assess your levels of patience and consideration, and several people walked out when I watched it. But the reward is exceptional, I came out a slightly different person. And even if you are not interested in Religion or Monasteries, the photographic value of this movie is more than anything I have ever seen before. The shot selection and composition is outstanding !


To the average spectator this is agonising viewing that requires concentration, open-mindedness and above all, diligence. But give, and you shall receive, as Philip Groning's monumental production demonstrates. For a monk of the Grande Chartreuse Monastery, located in the French Alps, his chosen life is about seclusion, silence, contemplation, routine, repetition and prayer. Not to mention the daily chores and regular haircuts. The rhythms of life are slowed right down for these holy men of the church, and their devotion to their God, combined with Groning's majestical photography, is utterly awe-inspiring. This astounding documentary challenges the viewer's patience, but, in return, purifies their soul.


I don't usually write reviews but this film is an exception. No storyline, no character development, no facts, and virtually no sound: This film is purged of everything, leaving only a simplicity which is as beautiful as it is tedious. This film is an empty canvas and allows the viewer to fill in the details and meanings. If the viewer doesn't do that, he's just staring at the blank canvas; if he does, he may discover something very profound.

It took me three sittings to finish this film. If you are planning on watching it, clear your mind of any preoccupations and focus on the movie. The experience will probably be well worth the three hours.


I was ready to stop watching "Into Great Silence" after forty minutes.

I did not have a problem with the film's slowness, although it is slow. I did not have a problem with the religious topic, or the arty shots. I was uncomfortable being a voyeur.

"Into Great Silence" has no voice-over narration, no explanation of monastery life, and no narrative structure. Much of the time, the viewer is staring at monks attending to their daily functions: praying, eating, doing manual labor.

Given that nothing comes between us and them, I felt uncomfortable -- that I was staring at strangers. So, I stopped watching.

I thought about it for a while, and reminded myself that the monks had agreed to be filmed, and were not being filmed surreptitiously.

I began watching the film again, and liked it better. While watching it, I moved into its slow pace. My expectation level meshed with the film's pace.

This is the best film I've seen for capturing the kind of life one lives in primitive isolation -- a life I was lucky enough to live for a while myself. Motes of dust in shafts of sunlight, the sound a pair of scissors make while cutting through cloth, the physical stamina needed to complete labor, the taste of the most common repasts: all become all-encompassing, without addictive modern society to suck at one's soul.

that the film also conveys the monks' commitment to Christ is a bonus. The more people who come to understand what Christianity is, the better. The monastery life is not the only expression of Christianity, but it is a significant one. Monks, as historians remind us, created the foundations of Europe, not just in their scholarship and their faith, but also in their industry and agriculture.

I hope viewers will give the film a chance, including viewers who might become impatient with its slowness and its difference at first.


The first comment absolutely missed the point of the movie. Apparently the poster does not make the distinction between a documentary about monastic life and the last James Bond movie. Die Grosse Stille is the only movie ever shot in the Grande Chartreuse monastery - no visitors being allowed there, not even monks families. No chance that a friend of yours may ever shoot a movie there. I guess that the director decided to provide almost raw material so that the spectator can come to her own feelings and conclusions. For more informative documents about the Chartreux, one can go to the Correrie museum (1 mile from the monastery).


I saw "Into Great Silence" the other day. I was frustrated, in no small measure by its length. (DVT is a worrisome byproduct.) OK, to the degree that the film provoked me to think and question and puzzle about my frustration and the silent life of these monks, it succeeded. But, I'm not convinced it's an important contribution to any deeper understanding of the solitude and great silence that is the life force of Grande Chartreuse. And that, I feel, is a failing.

On reflection, solitude is what this "meditation" is attempting to get at. Yes, silence is key to solitude. But the title of the film misleads. And because there is no attempt to explain the Carthusian vocation/way of life, viewers are left to learn this on their own. In the end, the film short-changes viewers  and the monks. It's way too personal to have the impact that the filmmaker apparently intended. Understanding monastic life, especially early in the 21st century, would be a welcome antidote to the barrage of messages, sounds, and images that assault us daily. But this film misses the mark. So, I'm not ungrateful  just disappointed.


I may just be a philistine, but this examination of the lives of European monks ultimately struck me as pointless. The film simply follows the monks through their daily routines, without any back story on the individual monks or narration to give viewers any context. Occasionally, quotes from the Bible will appear on the screen, with the same quotes repeating frequently and offering no real insight into what is going on.

To a certain extent, the film assumes either a familiarity with Catholic belief, or an overall sympathy with the contemplative way of life. To someone who does not embrace a mystical outlook, the film will come across as alien, or an exercise in boredom.

This is not to say the film is without its good points. The cinematography is superb, capturing the breathtaking beauty of the Alps. However, this is ultimately not worth watching a nearly three hour film.


This week marks the release, at least in the U.S., of the documentary Into Great Silence, which takes us inside of the Grande Chartreuse Monastery in the French Alps and is the home of a group of Carthusian monks.

Thankfully, filmmaker Phillip Gronig, has ignored every "rule" when it comes to making a documentary. Not counting the monks chanting of the Divine Office, in the 164 minutes of the film scarcely 10 minutes worth is devoted to dialog. There are no expository narrations nor even the customary music soundtrack that one would expect. Instead one is made privy to the rare opportunity to glimpse a world seldom seen outside of the order itself. It is deep, wonderful journey into the Great Silence of the monks life. A silence where the still, small voice of God can be heard.

Modern lives, like ours, are often so full of noise, that the silence that we experience here can almost be overwhelming at times. After all, most of us try to fill each waking hour it seems with some distraction. Just look at the time we spend watching television or listening to the radio. It's almost, at least in my case, that we fear what the silence will say to us. Even our prayers are often so full of words that we can drown out what God has to say back to us. This film has echoed some of the feelings that I have been trying to come to grips with recently. It has reinforced that great need in me to listen. I am beginning to understand, slowly I might add, that the more I listen, both to God and to others around me, the more they have to say to me. So often I get caught up in trying to "say the right thing" that I end up using the time that other people are talking trying to think what I should say next. This is no more true than in my prayer life.

The watching of this film has been something of a retreat for me. Where all of my desires, pleadings, and static that normally occupies my time with God was replaced. Replaced by the Great Silence.

"Oh Lord, you have seduced me. And I was seduced."

Just as a side note, there is a second disc that accompanies the movie which has more background on the order along with a wonderful segment of the Night Office. The "extras" on this disc tell you just enough to where you will probably want to know more. A couple of excellent books in English that I can recommend are Halfway to Heaven by Robin Bruce Lockhart, the recent An Infinity of Little Hours by Nancy Klein Maguire, and Carthusian Spirituality the writings of Hugh of Balma and Guido De Ponte.


My wife and I had our first Sundance Cinema experience this week with a showing of Die Grosse Stille. The theater (brand new) is equipped with unbelievably comfortable chairs (not seats) that support the body with wonderful and relaxing ease. The film was, undoubtedly, our finest cinema experience ever. The almost three hour running time seem to slip by totally unnoticed as we were immersed in the lives of the Carthusian monks. Unfortunately for movie attendees in Madison (WI), this film played only one week and was gone. At our showing there were 12 persons in the theater; all were completely quiet and no outside sounds were heard. The best atmosphere to view this film. It was simply superb...all aspects of the monastery life were there for us to share. We will eagerly look forward to the DVD (US version) when it comes out later this year. Definitely not a movie for everyone but for those in the right frame of mind, a must see!!


I wasn't quite ready for the film to start when it did, as I was agitated with other concerns, but as soon as it began my whole inner world was exposed and eventually the quiet drew me in, literally transformed me. This is an experience, not just a film. One that I'd like very much to repeat again.

The filming is absolutely stunning, and the contemplative life of the monks is captured by the filmmaker beautifully. Apparently he spent six months among the monks, during which time he explored and suffered for himself alongside them and in private, becoming quiet enough himself to establish the right mood. Having read this, I now understand why this film re-created the atmosphere so successfully.

I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in this film should view it for him or herself, leaving behind the reviews of others.


INTO GREAT SILENCE is more a sleep aid than a documentary. I think a more appropriate title would've been Into Great Boredom. Not for the men that chose to go to the Grand Chartreuse Monastery, but for how long, how slow, and how incredibly uninteresting this film was.

The only positives are some beautiful shots of the monastery with the French Alps as a backdrop, and how completely immersed the camera gets the viewer into the life of solitude and silence that these men purposely confine themselves.

But that's it.

Running well over two-and-a-half hours, the film could've easily been cut by half and still held the same level of immersion. Too many lingering shots on monks kneeling in prayer, monks praying in the dark (with the red candle of God ever-present), monks walking through hallways, monks sitting near windows, and just an otherwise tremendous amount of overly indulgent quiet (from the production standpoint). I know that the title has the word "silence" in it, and that these men take a vow as such when they enter the monastery, but I think a bit of interaction, explanation, or some sort of definitive purpose would've made the film much more enjoyable.

Before I get plowed asunder by those that enjoyed this film, let me make it clear that I understood the nature of it. The silence. The length of the film in order to show the dedication one must have to go into the monastery. The unquestioning loyalty you must have in "the divine spirit."

I get it.

It's just that it's not that interesting on film.


Okay, this one was 11 minutes less than 3 hours, but if you include the trailers etc. beforehand it's 3 hours plus. It felt like an eternity to watch.

It's a doc about the repetitive daily lives of European monks who have taken a vow of silence. That's it. Almost three hours of it. They should show it to prisoners as a form of psychological torment.

When the camera is pointed at the faces of individual monks I wanted to scream: "Where's the narration?!! Sure, you show us their daily routines but what about some analysis?"-- I wanted to leave before it was finished. Total asceticism doesn't translate as a film-able or interesting subject.


Each frame of the film is thought about very carefully. Its almost as if you watch a living painting a piece of art. The film was designed. They had the courage to show an image with just one small red dot in it. I don't know about the filters used on some parts of the film it looks a bit strange.

The only comment I can make is that the short stories never got an end. At a certain moment you see a monk cutting cloth for a new coat. It would be better to have seen the process of making the coat and who it had to wear. I would have liked to see how they lived in that small room, how they slept and how they survived without speaking. What the effect is of little communication on their personality. And how they teach each other? There must have been some form of communication.

But a fantastic film thanks for making it.


This is not a movie it's a photo. It should be framed and hung in a gallery where it belongs. Thanks Sundance for showing your true colors. If this is what passes for a great documentary at Sundance then I hate to tell you but the emperor has no clothes. Pretentious, ponderous, sanctimonious. An art film in the worst sense of the word. It got me in touch with my spiritual side but only to pray for Borat to show up with a couple of hookers. I was so bored I can't believe people on here gave this thing high ratings. Oh, well, it takes all kinds. I'm still not sure what these monks do for their community. It seems to me they do everything for themselves.


Your friend goes to Bulgaria on a holiday and visits a monastery in the Rhodopi mountains. So enamoured with the monastery's quiet beauty, your friend films endless walks down corridors and close-ups of candles burning in the sacristie. Like most home videos, there is no commentary, no editing, shots wobble, frequently out of focus, and low light causes grainy images.

Your friend's video would be better than "Into Great Silence" because no friend would make you sit through three hours of a bad holiday video.

If people say that this movie provides a glimpse into a different lifestyle, do not believe them. If you want to understand monastic life, kneel for three hours on a stone floor instead - and keep your eyes closed. This movie pretends to be insightful but it's not. Some may find God in silence but if you haven't found God yet, you are unlikely to find the Supreme Being sitting comfortably in a cinema seat for three excruciatingly boring hours.


I expected to get a minimum of understanding of life in the Grande Chartreuse, of what brings people there, of why they are so few, of how they maintain this immense edifice, of their role in the making and selling of their famous liquor, a good dose of Gregorian singing, an appreciation of the architecture. Instead I got 3 hours of sketchy, incoherent and repetitive shots. Three close ups of faces were repeated 4 times, the rope of the main bell was activated many times, a dark screen with flickering candles was seen too often, the shaving of monks heads is shot at length, including several minutes showing the barber (not shaved) looking flabbergasted ! Oh ! yes, they sell the liquor, because on the left of the monk using a laptop there is a letter in French from a Wines and Liquors company (seen for 5 seconds). The movie also had too many shots purposely and gratuitously out of focus. In short, an exercise in artiness leaving much to be desired. Two thumbs down.


It's a shame that a movie with such beautiful pictures and a really fascinating insight into monastic life just turns out to be extremely boring due to endless repetitions and 160 minutes length! It pretends to be a meditative movie but in my opinion, seeing others meditate is just simply very tiring, especially after 2 hours or so...initially I thought, wow, there is so much beauty to be seen here (and I really love silent movies or movies with a slow pace) but this one just goes way to far. I caught myself at wanting this to finish, much earlier than it actually did. I had read about something at the end of the movie which I was curious to see, otherwise I would have left the theater much earlier. Really a pity!


Here is a very, very tense thriller about a New Orleans cop (Clint Eastwood) finding a serial killer.....and vice-versa.

This is a very dark (literally) film with a big film-noir look and feel. Neo-noir, I guess, is what they call post-1950 gritty crime films like these.

Eastwood's character in "Tightrope" is a complex one. On one hand, he's a wonderfully loving father of two sweet girls (one played by his actual daughter, and played well), and yet he is a weak man when it comes to prostitutes. But, whatever side he shows - light or dark - he's interesting, as always. So is the female star of this movie, Genevieve Bujold, a woman with a very intriguing face and just a trace of her French accent. Dan Heyada contributes strongly in a low- key performance.

Yes, this film is a bit too much on the seedy side for my normal tastes, definitely sordid, but very well done. It's a story that grabs you early and locks you in all the way.


...in a dark and unsettling psychological thriller. Directed by Clint's protégé Richard Tuggle (who wrote the screenplay to the earlier Siegel-Eastwood classic ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ (1979), the film's first half is uncertain and suffers from clichéd (albeit well staged and visualised) New Orleans locations - shady whorehouse dives, red light tinged bars and over officious police procedural rooms and locker-room banter.

The plot itself is functional but nothing special: a serial killer with a penchant for young, pretty blondes, is terrorising the city by disposing of prostitutes by strangling them and dumping the bodies all over the city. The twist in TIGHTROPE is that the killer is also dogging the footsteps of kinky cop Detective Wes Block (Eastwood), a lonely divorcée with two young children. Block eases off the shackles of a tough day job by frequenting the very same sleazy dives that his thoroughly unpleasant nemesis does.

A predictable game of cat and mouse ensues, but the film's stock film noir origins are transcended by Eastwood's continual playing with his own star status and by a very interesting exploration of his character's private obsessions and genuinely touching relationship with his two young daughters. Special mention here for real-life daughter Alison Eastwood, quite superb as the older and more perceptive girl, who clearly suspects her troubled father is up to more than just "looking for something" on his late night travels through New Orleans's seamier districts.

The more conventional opening section of TIGHTROPE is distinctly misleading, largely because about half way through, the film's most interesting character (played by the truly excellent GENEVIEVE BUJOLD) comes much more to the fore. As the feisty and fiercely intelligent Rape Crisis Center head Beryl Thibodeaux (nice use of Bujold's French-Canadian heritage here for a movie set in New Orleans!) Bujold's sharp dialogue exchanges with ultra macho Detective Wes Block-Clint Eastwood are a constant joy, and, of course, edge us deeper into film noir territory as Block's kinky sexual practise and failed marriage become the focus of the investigation.

Tuggle does a generally excellent job of keeping the material visually interesting, although he pays less attention to the minor characters, wasting a great character actor like Dan Hedaya for the role of Block's sidekick on the investigation. Overall though, this is an underrated film in the Eastwood canon and worthy of your attention. It's a slick genre piece with a surprising ability to probe the areas of Eastwood's star persona not normally explored in the Dirty Harry series.


I truly consider Tightrope to be by far one of Eastwood's best acting performances. He definitely DID deserve, that year, at least an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. And don't be mistaken, Wes Block has nothing to do with Dirty Harry ... true, these two cops both have their "dark side" -an aspect that Eastwood has learned to exploit in a number of his pictures, BUT Wes Block appears to be much more "human" than Harry. This single father is struggling with his own demons, persuaded that until now he has screwed up about everything in his life, beginning with his marriage ... he's trying real hard to be a good father, as well as a good cop, that is until this killer comes along and threatens all he's been fighting for to preserve.

Here we get to know a guy who's extremely vulnerable, hurt, un-self confident, haunted and whose relationship with women remains ambiguous, based on control, kind of as if he was afraid of them, of what they could do to him, seeing them as a threat ... hence his resort to the services of prostitutes and his use of handcuffs on them.

As usual in Eastwood's movies, we wanna know what's underneath this front his characters put on ... -like in Pale Rider, Josey Wales, The Bridges of Madison County ... the silences, the puzzling, haunting, deep looks, that tell us far more about a character than any word would. "Less is more" is definitely a guideline of this movie. Most of the time, Eastwood's characters reveal themselves through their silences, and it's particularly true here.

I believe there's a line in Tightrope that sums up pretty accurately what Eastwood's movies are really about: "I'm not sure how close I wanna get ..." They're about very private men struggling with life.

This movie is simply one of his best.


Wes Block (Clint Eastwood) is a New Orleans Homicide detective who's investigating a series of sex murders involving prostitutes and the further he delves into this seedy world. He finds out his own impulses are just like that of the killer's. This is when the killer starts to play around with Wes and he starts to believe he is his own chief suspect in these murders.

Totally different territory for Eastwood in this very slow and sordidly, dark thriller. It's maybe nothing new (and been repeated quite a bit) in its genre, but because of first-rate performances and it being sinisterly edgy. For me it lifts the film above the rest. Or maybe it's just my Eastwood fan-boy nature kicking in? Anyhow, this lowlife thriller is (extremely) HIGH on atmosphere, with it having an overwhelming sense of glum and intrusion. This is because most of the picture takes place during the nightlife, amongst the sleazy locations of New Orleans with indistinct lighting and prowling figures hanging around in the shadows. There's a great eye for detail in capturing the seedy lifestyle, with a lot of sexual desire, tension and gratuitous nudity flowing. Where our protagonist becomes attached to this lifestyle to compensate for his loneliness and heartache for companionship. This is because the more he gets close to the killer, the more he slowly learns they have much in common and the sleazy ways start to get the better of him. It sounds like we've been down this road before, with the cop getting closer to the killer, who's stalking and playing around with the detective. But hold on, what made the difference was the rough, raw and biting dialogue and the appealing characters were fleshed out rather nicely. Well, maybe with the exception of the killer. A lot of the story's focus, is more on Eastwood's character spending time with his daughters or fighting his lustful temptations. While, the killer uses that to his advantage, rather than actually delving into the killer's psyche, which I actually wanted to learn more about.

The cast are at the top of their game. Eastwood plays a laid back detective / dag of a dad. He brings to his character a man that's fighting the two different traits of his life. Eastwood portrays this insecure character superbly that you truly care for him and feel his pain and effort to be a perfect father figure to his two girls after the divorce. Genevieve Bujold is excellent as a crisis counsellor Beryl Thibodeaux. There are strong support roles from the likes of Dan Hedaya, Alison Eastwood and Jenny Beck also.

Story wise; some holes show up in the plot and it kind of falls by the wayside towards the end, but the excitement levels don't. At least the cracking finale was incredibly well-staged. For most part, it's incredibly taut and it never drifts away from being sombrely downbeat, well maybe with a couple exceptions involving family (with clichéd) moments, but saying that, it also had some of those moments that made you squirm in your seat. It's not-so graphic or hard-hitting in showing the killer's actions, which it could've been and probably gain more if so. It kind of stuck to just showing us the aftermath, with one murder investigation after another. But the material and the striking performances had some disquieting effect on me, even if it did feel like it was copping out and became your standard fare during the second half of the film. Unsettling moments occurred, but again nothing that graphically shocking. Backing it all up is a tantalising score that buzzes with such urgency and tensity. Also helping the mood is a jazz soundtrack that oozes with exoticism. Cinematography was well-arranged and its skewed and gliding angles went in hand-to-hand with the ill-natured style, though there was a lot shots focusing on the characters shoes.

Starts off, good enough, but you could say it probably does goes on for too long and head into familiar territory. It doesn't reach any great heights, but hey, I kept on watching and I was rather entertained. So, it did its job. In my opinion it's an above average, on the edge thriller, despite it's formulaic plot.


The screen icon is a police detective with a difference in this very moody and formidable thriller from writer / director Richard Tuggle. He portrays Wes Block, a loving and responsible father on one hand, and on the other a sex addict with a yen for prostitutes. He's on the trail of a sex murderer, and realizes that he's really not too different from this deviant.

Tuggle illustrates the darkness inside many of us quite literally in this movie, to which anyone who's seen this can agree. There's even a line to that effect spoken by a minor character. It's definitely a daring project for the actor, who's solid and believable as always; he has an especially potent scene where he trashes a room in rage and frustration as he realizes the consequences of his actions.

The movie doesn't play out as one might expect. There's not much of a sense of urgency, even as the bodies pile up. It takes a real psychological approach as we witness the deterioration of our central character, who at least gets a strong female character to relate to as Genevieve Bujolds' role is introduced into the plot. She does a creditable job as well, creating a kind of moral center and giving the movie a solid anchor.

Eastwoods' own daughter Alison plays one of his two daughters in the movie, and she's very good, foregoing any sort of "cutesy" routines that child performers can fall into. Also appearing in a supporting role is Dan Hedaya as a fellow detective, although he's a little under-utilized.

The killer himself is barely established as a character in the film, seen almost exclusively in the act of stalking and murdering his victims. We learn almost nothing about him, he has barely any dialog, and the end reveal is very fleeting, making him quite a mysterious entity indeed.

The jazz score and the location shooting in New Orleans add a highly appropriate and engaging amount of flavor, and there's a great climactic chase lit by a helicopter.

It wasn't altogether satisfying for me, but it's an intriguing and steamy thriller and is certainly worth a watch.

7/10


As usual, Clint Eastwood gives an excellent performance as a detective in charge of finding a serial killer. This movie was made prior to the glamorization of "serial killers" in which the focus is on the weird, whacked-out antics of the deranged killer rather on normal people. Clint is also a single father of two young girls and the growing similarities between the haunts of the killer and the cop becomes a cause for concern.


Clint Eastwood is Wes Block, a detective with what is pretty much a triple lifestyle. In one he is a cop, even a good cop. In the second he is father to his two daughters left to him by a wife that found another man. In the third, he is guy who like to visit prostitutes and get dirty. The three largely different sides of Wes Block come dangerously close to one another when he starts to investigate a serial killer who frequents the red light district. The killer is not only likely to be a former cop familiar with police procedure, but he also knows Wes Block.

Clint Eastwood gives a very fine performance as a man troubled on many fronts and trying to come to grips with it all. He has his signature emotionless face, but Eastwood has almost always made his characters plain, but only on the surface. He packs in many subtleties into a dark role which is nicely directed into a gritty film, by an obviously talented director/writer who has made surprisingly too few films. If this is a his debut, and it is very good for a first directorial effort capturing the noir atmosphere very effectively, I am almost itching to see what Richard Tuggle could come up with next, whether in this genre or not. 8/10

Rated R for grim violence and sexual content


Even Eastwood can't save this one. Yet another killer-who-knows-everything-and-is-everywhere-at-all-times thriller. This time we are supposed to believe it because the killer was a cop. So...? Doesn't mean that he has to be incredibly clever and know all the tricks in the book, now does it? At times I had a feeling I was watching a De Palma film - and that is the ultimate insult I can give to a thriller; coincidences, all-knowing criminal, etc. Now why did the criminal not kill Eastwood's older daughter (or both) when he had the chance? Once he was out of jail why didn't he start with killing Eastwood instead of those prostitutes (after all, it turned out that Eastwood had arrested him years before)? How did the killer manage to find a shovel on a grave yard, while Eastwood was chasing him? Are we supposed to believe that shovels simply lie around on graveyards just like that? "Okay, boys, digging's finished... Damn, I'm tired; think I'll just leave my shovel lying around here so that perverts have easier access to the corpses, not to mention so that chased criminals can use it in self-defense against tough cops...". Certainly not as bad as de Palma's most notorious thrillers, but it should have been a lot better.


I don't know exactly how many movies did Clint Eastwood make as a director and/or actor with basically playing the same role in also almost the same story every time, detective who makes no excuses and goes in hunt for a serial killer...sounds more than familiar? And 'Tightrope' is exactly that kind of movie, although atmosphere is a bit darker than usual in Clint Eastwood's detective movies, which is a very good thing because the more darker the atmosphere in these kind of crime-mystery-thriller movies gets they get more exciting to watch. Other than slightly different atmosphere, 'Tightrope' is same as every other Clint Eastwood's detective film, it doesn't matter what his character's name is, Wes Block or Harry Callahan, it's the same personality and work approach. Fans of 'Dirty Harry' could love this, everyone else who is into investigative-thrillers should watch this movie.

7/10


So, the killer is crushed by a train and Block is left holding his arm? Almost laughable. Were they over budget and rushed for time? They should have examined more the relationship between Block and the killer who he arrested years before for 2 rapes as stated in the later part of the movie.

Good acting by Alison Eastwood. The New Orleans skyline looked spectacular.

I am a huge Eastwood fan, but this ranks toward the bottom. Very predictable, and seemed to drag in some parts. Why the Wes Block character anyway? I kept waiting for them to refer to him as "Callahan" the whole time.


When Clint Eastwood was making his Dirty Harry films we never did get to see too much of the private life of Harry Callahan. In Tightrope playing New Orleans detective Wes Block that lack is more than made up for.

Clint's a family man in this one raising two small girls one of them played by his real life daughter Alyson on his own. But he's also indulging himself with a lot of prostitutes who can give him a bit of variety in turn-ons. But then these same women keep winding up dead in some terribly gruesome manners and of course Eastwood is starting to think he could be the ultimate target.

Director Richard Tuggle kept an even tighter rein on Clint's emotions than normal. Only at a certain dramatic point that I won't reveal do we see Clint revert to a Dirty Harry type character. In the end it's really the minute details found in forensic science that identifies the killer, but even with that the killer does not go down easy. In fact the final struggle between Eastwood and the perpetrator ends quite unforgettably.

Clint's leading lady is Genevieve Bujold who plays a rape crisis counselor who believes in a pro-active type of counseling with her victims. It's by no means certain these two will get together in the end though they both spark some interest in each other.

In Tightrope the accent is on suspense more than action, though when the action comes it explodes. There is by the way one very good reason for this killer to be so tough for the police to take down, but you'll have to see Tightrope for that. Clint Eastwood's legion of fans should be pleased enough with this film.


There is nothing original in this 1984 film in New Orleans. We have seen it all. The ex-cop turned serial killer after a long sojourn in prison for rape. The woman activist who is teaching self defense to other women. The divorced father who is taking care of two girls. The victims chosen among the female haphazard or not of the main cop who arrested him a long time ago, in order to get even with him, to get his revenge. The Mardi Gras turned into crime peddling. The three cops keeping one woman under surveillance and protection killed one after the other and the woman assaulted. Etc. So what makes this film special? The cool character of the inspector, slow and fast at the same time, Pondering and following his instinct at some other time. Professional and yet yielding to prostitutes a little too easily and too often, and forgetting his ties on the place of intercourse. Having a problem explaining his younger daughter what a hard-on is. And the word is used twice in the film. There is also the perfect well built suspense founded and built on the shoes and the color of the shoelaces of the criminal. The absolute ruthlessness of this killer who enjoys raping his victims before they die by strangulation and then even eating a cookie and having a cup of coffee. That nonchalance is rarely expected nor found in a serial killer, though he may become so used to his deeds that follow a strict scenario that he may become easy-going about it. That's why the film is perfectly entertaining and Bourbon street on Mardi Gras is so colorful and fascinating. We would like every day to be a Mardi Gras, even if that is the paradise of murderers who can disguise the way they want and be absolutely unseen, invisible. And it all holds with a red silk ribbon. Marvelous detail that makes the film nearly sentimental, like the red badge of courage turned perverse and sociopathic.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID


Troubled divorced Detective Wes Block (a bold and impressive performance by Clint Eastwood) investigates a brutal series of hooker murders in New Orleans. Said killings uncomfortably correspond with Block's own unsavory penchant for having kinky sex with prostitutes. Pretty soon Block is forced to confront head-on the more base and unappealing aspects of his own tormented psyche. Writer/director Richard Tuggle relates the compellingly sordid plot at a gradual, yet steady pace, develops a good deal of tension, delivers a vivid and intriguing evocation of the seamy Big Easy red light district, and, most of all, offers a strong and provocative exploration of the extremely warped and disturbing aspects of severely aberrant male sexuality and perversity (for example, Block likes to handcuff woman while making love to them in order to have a sense of control). Eastwood's Wes Block makes for a fascinatingly flawed and complex character: While he's a loving father to his two daughters (well played by Jennifer Beck and Clint's real-life daughter Alison), he nonetheless suffers from some seriously messed-up carnal hang-ups. Genevieve Bujold lends winningly sparky support as gutsy and hard-nosed rape-crisis therapist Beryl Thibodeaux; her witty exchanges with the macho Block are quite lively and amusing. Dan Hedaya also does well as Block's partner Detective Molinari. Ravishing redhead Jamie Rose, buxom blonde Randi Brooks, and equally busty blonde Rebecca Perle are very sexy and gorgeous as three of the killer's victims. The scenes between Block and his daughters are both funny and touching. Moreover, the nice sprinkling of tasty female nudity and deviant sex give this feature an extra seedy and twisted edge. The climactic confrontation between Block and the psycho is highly exciting and suspenseful. Bruce Surtees's sharp'n'shadowy cinematography gives the picture a suitably garish look. Lennie Niehaus' supremely bluesy and jazzy score likewise hits the spot. Moody and atmospheric, this seedy thriller rates as one of Clint Eastwood's most audacious and praiseworthy 80's films.


Excellent film, Dark side we all have mixed with the Wes Block's warm heart at times was well placed to go with the Film's tone. I would highly recommend this to anyone into murder Mystery's. Eastwood is able to bring this character to life, his character Wes Block is a man on a mission, and he won't stop until he's got his man. To me the twists in this story can't be seen ahead of time, with just hints of foreshadowing, one is now taken along for the ride...

Some may feel this film is dated, I would have to agree, it's like taking a journey back in time 25 years to New Orleans, Bourbon street during Halloween which was perfectly weaved into the story, simply brilliant,if you're looking for some high action "Make my day" shoot em up type of film this would not be the one for you. However if you have patience and a bit of a dark side I believe this film will satisfy your murder mystery cravings. 9/10

Rated R for sexual content & violence


There can be a deal of ambivalence in the relationship between cop and prostitute.Being a prostitute is not in itself an offence.Soliciting for the purpose of prostitution is an offence,running a brothel is an offence,living off immoral earnings is an offence.Nonetheless a cop can have a lot of power over a streetwalker.He can arrest her,hassle her,keep her moving on,blackmail her for freebies,even take money from her.And she has little recourse.Most cops chose to turn a blind eye to all but the most blatant soliciting unless under pressure from above or from concerned citizens.The same goes for sex shows and massage parlours.A few,like Detective Wes Block,are attracted by their defiant sexuality and availability and the freedom they represent to have random uncomplicated sexual relief on tap.Like Block these men are usually separated or divorced,middle - aged and wary of intimacy and commitment. Mr Clint Eastwood gives a first - rate performance as Block,father of two daughters,ashamed of his needs,sometimes loathing what they have turned him into.Only with his kids or his dogs - all capable of unconditional love - does he appear even remotely human. As a serial killer begins to mirror his movements,Block is forced to recognise what he has become. The movie is set in New Orleans which gives Mr Eastwood a chance to commission Mr Lennie Niehaus - former Stan Kenton alumnus - to compose a jazz - heavy score. It is not a movie full of snappy one - liners,dialogue is sparse and significant.Miss Genevieve Bujold is also excellent as the Rape Crisis Centre boss,outwardly a ball - breaker,but wanting to trust this odd cop who offers so many contradictions. Arguably the best performance comes from Alison Eastwood as Block's cusp - of - adolescence daughter. "Tightrope"is a strange rather disturbing movie,but,if you can take it, a rewarding one.


A terribly conventional thriller that dilutes Dirty Harry with two parts Hitchcock and forty parts nighttime New Orleans. The story is so thin you can strain jam through it and is padded out with a couple of tension-building sequences. One, during evening Mardi Gras is partially effective but the others are simply padding, chase sequences.

Clint Eastwood is as ever, although he seems rather restrained. This may be something to do with having two motherless daughters urging to him on with an indecent assault case worker, played above averagely by Geneviève Bujold. In addition to Bujold, Eastwood has support from Lennie Niehaus' score and Den Hadaya as his colleague Molinari. However the first is overwrought and the second underused. There are too many non sequitur cuts to allow Eastwood to rush off alone and the subplot that someone may be trying to frame him for the murders that he's investigating is abandoned before it even gets going.

The film's too short but not if you're actually watching it... 3/10


Interesting premise, the "tightrope" all people walk between normal life and their darker sides. But there is no real script. There is no plot, and the whole disjointed mess needs to be edited down so that it can make sense. Poorly written and clumsily executed. Who was that guy at the end? We just see a pair of runners all movie, and the end, he's revealed as the killer but who the hell was he? Bujold's character was awful, a ball breaking man hater who swoons for Clint's misogynistic sweaty balls as he exercises hovering his crotch in her face at the gym. His "I wanna lick the sweat off your body" line delivered over oysters in his "Go Ahead, make my day" inflection set her heart and panties aflame. Yeah, that happens a lot. It would have been a better film if Clint WERE the killer. Then we'd have a person in a responsible job, maintaining the facade of an upright father in order to hide his violent kink. Very poor writing throughout. The choking severed arm at the end is just icing on a half baked idea. There's a lot of nudity delivered in a very dark and nasty feeling style, so that's a plus for the film, but the whole film needed a writer and an editor.


Richard Tuggle's got plenty of ambition in his script, but for some reason he actually fares even better as a director. He tries to mix around maybe too much in his way of making a dark psychological thriller for his star, Clint Eastwood, but there's at least some very interesting set-ups he puts together in the middle of all the constant "crime scene" scenes (and there are MANY in this film, probably too much unless a fan of CSI). On the one hand, Tightrope tells the story of a divorced father of two girls who, as he says, are the only two things he hasn't screwed up. He's also into really getting into his work, i.e. going into the red-light districts of New Orleans and finding prostitutes at night. This comes out of the other story, which is about a serial killer who only kills women- said prostitutes and other ladies of the night- and leaves a red ribbon and some saliva as his only markers. This latter one, in all actuality, isn't even the story with more interest, even though that's the one most fans of Eastwood and of serial killer movies will want to see. On that end, Tuggle just pulls through with adequate marks, albeit with nothing too wrong or stupid to make it unbearable.

But this storyline does provide an intersection into the one with Eastwood's Detective as he becomes embroiled in this case up to his neck- or groin maybe- and it's fascinating seeing Eastwood in such a sexually charged thriller for once, not to mention without the tongue-in-cheek lines and machismo turned to 11. He's a working cop with more than his share of flaws, but he loves his kids and tries to go at his job as a professional, and Eastwood plays him that way, but in doing this, and in the typical love interest angle that develops ever so subtly with a sex crimes expert, there's some complexities here. Tuggle provides some of the freshest psychological thrills I've seen in any neo-noir, either in just atmosphere (Eastwood walking through a warehouse filled with carnival-like animatronics, very nightmarish) or in how his perceptions of the case get to his head (a dream scene where he's the killer sounds too easy, but Tuggle isn't out to make it easy for him). When it starts to get personal, as the killer goes after the Detective, there's even an effective moment when Eastwood finally cracks through emotionally, and one realizes what's under all of that intense, cynical gruff. Meanwhile, Tuggle doesn't stop as a director in giving this about as dark a look as possible, and with the sexuality, while sleazy (where else will you see women wrestling all oiled up and refereed by a midget named Shorty), is also effective for the mood.

All of this makes for some intriguing viewing, in many parts, however the more standard parts of the plot, the kind that may or may not bring some who want to seek out Eastwood's more obscure starring vehicles, lack the spark of what's unexpected. Eastwood's scenes with his own kid, Alison, are part of the intrigue. When we see them in very down-to-earth moments where the ex-wife/mother, a distant figure in this New Orleans world, pops up there's some things that don't need to be said, but get conveyed anyway. How much is there truth-wise in this for the real father/daughter dynamic, or is it just for show by a consummate professional and his equally apt offspring? I can't say for sure, but it makes for what might make for a better movie, if only the red-ribbon killer angle got some extra lift. That's not to say Tuggle doesn't end it on a high-note for thriller-fans, including a big laugh at what happens at the end of the train tracks tussle.


Hard to fault a Clint Eastwood movie; he is so versatile. Interesting to see his daughter Allison at such a young age, as previously the only thing i ever saw her in was "Midnight in the Garden of Good an Evil", which he put together around a set of Johnny Mercer songs. Interesting to see him so young too; he looks like a kid in this movie. Also cool to see New Orleans in the 80's, "pre-Katrina"..Pretty risqué for an "80's" movie; lots of nudity for such an old movie. The one thing i didn't like about it was that it was so dark; a lot of it was filmed at night or in the cat houses. Also after seeing current "CSI" shows regularly, it does seem a little primitive in their investigative methods.


Dirty Harry film that is a n improvement on th enforcer. The company bucked up there ideas probably as the previous film dragged on due to slow plotting and style of filming which was popular in the 70's to try to suggest to mean something. This time the story and pacing are tighter and sharper. A new device is presenting him with a family which shows his character with a more humane side and also gives greater responsibility which makes him more vulnerable to the killer he is pursuing. This vulnerability is a contrast to his usual invincibility as a loner who has nothing to lose if he is killed. With a family to care for his every action must be taken with this responsibility in mind and a killer is able to manipulate this vulnerability. This same vulnerability makes Eastwood's character stronger as he is must take into account this personal duty as well as his police duty.


I love this movie, Clint Eastwood is fantastic. It's a very dark, mysterious movie set mostly at night. Within the adult scene in 80's New Orleans. With Clints character's sexual cravings he begins to cross the killers domain and realises the killer is not only very much in touch with him, but similar to his desires in many ways. It's a great story, simple stalker type movie but done superbly. Twists and turns throughout the film. It's a forgotten or perhaps not known very well Eastwood gem, not a dirty harry shoot em up though, a more dark, personal film involving Clints life orientating between father to his girls and his seedy sexual desires in the night of New Orleans, to his non stop crusade to bring a dark and mysterious stalker to justice. A wonderful film, great acting and suspense throughout. Very enjoyable. 10 out of 10


Clint Eastwood plays the typical tough cop this time around in New Orleans but has secrets. What starts as an interesting crime case and a question of Clint's character drags into an overlong boring venture as the same thing that happens at the beginning continues after 90 of the 115 minutes. TIGHTROPE may add a new dimension to the typical Clint Eastwood character, but it is anything but beneficial.

A girl from the red light district is murdered. As night cop and detective, but supporting single father of two, Wes Block is on the case, but his weaknesses may also tie into the murder as the bodies are starting to pile up.

Exploring the dark side of human nature is a natural thing in Hollywood. A cop on the edge as much as Block is is a basic and easy way to convey the message. Very little to no artistic quality or direction in TIGHTROPE. The dark settings and scenery are reminiscent stuff of the early 80s (THE TERMINATOR, BLADE RUNNER). If TIGHTROPE was far more straight to the point instead of a terrible bore, it might be a bit more watchable than it is.


Clint Eastwood stars as Wes Block a police officer who hunts a serial killer who targets prostitutes who he handcuffs. However Eastwood finds it hard to be a police officer in the red light district because his urges get the better of him. Some good acting from Eastwood and Bujold elevate this one above mediocrity, but some interest still remains especially since the serial killer plot angle offers some good ideas.


A good example of what you get when a successful actor directs his own movie with himself as the star. It works on occasion, but here you get the distinct feeling that some input from the outside would have helped that film along a long way.


While I don't understand how in 1932 a movie could be made sympathizing with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, I do understand that Scarlet Dawn is a pre-Code film. Like most movies made between 1928 and 1934 (six of the best years in moviemaking, if you ask me), the lighting, sets, and photography are flawless. The print that is on video has perfect sound and picture quality. The costumes are delightfully ornate. Doug Jr. as Nikita Krasnoff is perfect, probably because he was the only actor on the Warners lot in 1932 with enough sex appeal to get away with what he got away with in the movie (i.e. sexual harassment). Nancy Carroll is his faithful servant and, later on in the film, wife. Lilyan Tashman plays a gossipy, scheming, glamour-gal mistress. While Lil and Nan sort of steal the show, their talents are slightly wasted. It's Doug who really captivates throughout, and considering how absolutely luscious he looks, the already short movie (just under an hour) flies by effortlessly. Scarlet Dawn is underrated, but extremely interesting, and the vintage 1917 war footage is a cute touch.


A Russian baron evades the violent SCARLET DAWN of the Revolution by escaping Moscow with his faithful serving maid.

Here is an excellent little film, from Warner Bros. and director William Dieterle, full of excitement, drama and pre-Code libidinousness. The production values--sets, costumes, score--are all first rate and the acting is of a high quality. The picture's only major drawback is its too-brief conclusion, perhaps necessitated by its short overall running time of under an hour, but this does not explain why the film should be so unjustly obscure today. It is a small gem awaiting discovery by viewers appreciative of quality cinema.

Douglas Fairbanks Jr is properly dashing as the young nobleman whose life is suddenly tilted upside down by the political upheaval. The actor revels in giving a full-bodied portrayal, presenting a character both wantonly licentious and daringly brave. The sequence in which he dashes into the streets of Constantinople in search of Christian witnesses to his impromptu wedding is delightful in its unexpected sense of frolic & fun. Fairbanks is ably matched by Nancy Carroll, deftly underplaying her role as his adoring servant. The sweetness of her character's simple nature shines through, as well as a steely resolve, as she endures dangers and hardships to be with the man she loves.

Lovely Lilyan Tashman, in one of her final roles before her early death, plays the scheming Russian courtesan who hopes to use Fairbanks as her ticket to the good life in Paris. Guy Kibbee, a very popular character actor at Warner's, appears for only a few moments at the end of the movie as a wealthy American visiting the Levant.

Movie mavens will recognize Mischa Auer as a Russian cavalry officer; beefy Dewey Robinson as a Bolshevik thug; nervous Frank Reicher as a duplicitous pawnbroker; as well as Mae Busch & Lee Kohlmar as the wedding witnesses--all uncredited.


This movie has lots of action and little heart. Let's forget for a minute that it gets just about every aspect of the Russian Revolution wrong - after all we only have only under an hour here to tell our story. In fact, the czar abdicated after World War I proved a disaster for the country, and a provisional government tried to rule as a pseudo-democracy until the Leninists took power nine months later, mainly because they promised to immediately withdraw Russia from the war. Now, back to our story.

Here we have the revolution being "rumored" in Russian newspapers in what appears to still be a functioning country until violence erupts suddenly and upends the life of nobleman Baron Nikita 'Nikki' Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.). He flees his home with his former servant girl Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) in tow, and they start to make a new life in Constantinople. Before the revolution the Baron made a regular habit out of making a play for the girl, not out of any real passion, but out of boredom as a diversion of sorts. The revolution doesn't change this, and he continues to try to take advantage of what is obviously a very simple girl. It certainly doesn't make the audience like this guy to see him toying with her so. Tanyusha follows the Baron because she literally has no place to go after the revolutionaries take over the Baron's home, and she has known no other life other than waiting on Nikki hand and foot. Once in Constantinople, Nikki quickly wearies of life as a penniless laborer, and that is when he meets up with his former lover, Russian aristocrat Vera Zimina, who has a plan for getting them to Paris where the Tsarists have congregated after the revolution. Unfortunately for Tanyusha, Vera's plan does not include her.

This film manages to completely waste the considerable acting talents of early talkie actress Nancy Carroll. She does a good job with what little she is given to do, but that is not much. Lilyan Tashman is the standout here, even though she has only a small role as Russian vamp Vera. Lilyan was so often given supporting roles just as she is here, but her earthy voice and glamorous looks make her the center of attention in every scene in which she appears. Guy Kibbee even shows up in a humorous bit as an American tourist who is curious about the Russian royalty that has been forcefully ejected from their homeland.


Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work.

Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.

But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry.

Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.

What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.

I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.


Asked to give his assessment of Umberto Nobile's leadership in the Italia airship disaster of 1927, his friend and colleague, Samoilovich, offers this sage advice, "Men are judged by their actions and their actions by their success". What exactly are the qualities needed for leadership? "The Red Tent" is a wonderful meditation on that question. At the time Nobile was disgraced, he was accused of abandoning his men, and made a scapegoat for the disaster by Benito Mussolini's Fascist government. Forty years after the event his rest is still disturbed by doubts he has about the leadership he exercised. Could the tragedy have been averted? Was it his vanity to be the first to cross the pole by air, that led to the calamity? These and other questions are tackled in this thoughtful film.

The entire film actually takes place in the General's mind. He calls back various participants to the event, to re-live what happened, and ultimately to pass judgment on him. It is this framing device that makes the film unique, for it examines Nobile's leadership from a divergent points of view, allowing the viewers to make their own judgment as well. It is a theatrical device to be sure, but it works in this film. In time we come to learn that truth often walks on two legs and has a left and right hand. "Yet we must have judgment", says one of the participants, and so they do. These scenes which all take place in Nobile's apartment in Rome with it's warmth and comfort, provide a wonderful contrast to the stark reality of the struggle for survival at the Arctic Pole.

The film is beautifully written and the acting is of a high level throughout. Sean Connery, ridding himself of his Bond image, plays Roald Amundsen, the great Arctic explorer at the end of his days. It is Amundsen who exemplifies the qualities a great leader should have. It is the first and in some ways still the best of Connery's wise old man performances. He is also the one participant Nobile has most conspicuously not brought back. After intruding on the proceedings like some force of nature, he describes how he had reached the wreak of the Italia, only to crash land and be stranded. With nothing to do but wait to freeze to death he finds solace in his final moments of life with a book he has found strewn among the wreckage. The cynical Lundborg scornfully rejects this "final touch" as "theatrical" "But who would I be acting for?" Amundsen asks. "Yourself" Lundborg replies. "But that isn't acting," Connery wisely replies, "That's necessary. The trick is to choose the right part." The film is filled with great lines like this. Claudia Cardinale, as Nurse Valaria, provides the emotional center of the film. She resents the good people of King's Bay capitalizing on the disaster, yet she has no misgivings whatever in playing on Amundsen's sense of guilt to get him to mount a rescue attempt. After all he had introduced her lover, the Meteorologist, Finn Malgrem to Arctic exploration. She is also willing to offer herself to Lundborg if he will risk his life to fly in unsafe weather conditions. It is her bitter confrontation with Nobile after he has been safely brought back to King's Bay while the others were left freezing on the ice, that is the beginning of his sleepless nights. His inability to stop Zampi, his ambitious second in command from leaving the red tent with Mariano and Malgrem in a vain attempt to reach help, would result in the Meteorologist being lost on the ice. "You cracked like the ice." she tells the General. "We shall never meet again I hope. And I hope you never forget." He doesn't.

Peter Finch as Nobile carries the film, and he is in every way up to the task. He manages to convey the intelligence, courage, vanity and despair of this self-doubting individual. He is a man who both admires Amundsen and resents always being compared with him. Hardy Kruger plays the dashing Aviator Lundborg with a nice blend of charm and hard edge cynicism. He is the first to reach the survivors. His motives for rescuing the Nobile over the General's objections that he take the other members of his expedition first, some of whom are badly injured, may have been less than admirable, but it is this act that will ultimately save the others. Lundborg finally persuades the General to go with a combination of threats,(he will leave him and the others behind), reassurance,(six quick trips and it will be over), and finally reason, (the General is badly needed at King's Bay to organize the rescue). The others also agree the General must go. It is only when he is safely back at King's Bay, that he realizes his actions have been badly misconstrued as an act of desertion. By that time weather conditions have changed again and it is impossible to go back and rescue the others by air. "What do they think I've done?" he asks Captain Romagna, the ineffectual rescue coordinator, after reading a cable from Rome placing him under arrest. "They think you have done what you have done, I suppose." Romagna lamely replies. While aboard ship, Nobile radios his friend Samoilovitch to use the icebreaker Krassin to rescue the others. This he does. "Men are judged by their actions and their actions by their success." The General's decision to leave his men led to his being able to radio the Krassin which in turn led to the rescue of his men. "His actions, therefor were correct."

Lastly, Ennio Morricone's lush score captures both the romance of a great endeavor being undertaken and the desolate, ethereal beauty of the Arctic. This film deserves to be seen and heard, and one can only hope that one day it will be restored.


"The Red Tent", as it was called when released in most of the world, is a fascinating historical epic of Arctic exploration. In the 1920's, Italian General Nobile sought to be the first to fly over the North Pole in a dirigible, of all things! Much of the movie focuses on these efforts; unfortunately, the winds kick up and the air ship is ripped apart. Surviving crewmen end up in various locations on the ice and then procede to battle the elements and polar bears. The great arctic explorer Raoul Amundsen is called in as are the Soviets who pick up radio messages of the disaster; an ice breaker is then dispatched to assist in the rescue. Yes, it is an involved and realistiuc spectacle.

Peter Finch is very good as Nobile, and so is Connery as Amundsen - and it's an historic well-known fact that the first man to reach the South Pole, Amundsen, vanished in his attempt to save Nobile.

Of note is that the story is recounted in flashback much later in a sort of trial of Nobile in his home in Rome, as characters living and dead appear to confront or defend him. Whether or not Nobile was reckless or had bad luck, or just over reached himself, is for the viewer to determine from putting the stories together.

Somewhat long and overinvolved this is still an engrossing account of an epic Arctic disaster and the heroic rescue attempts that followed. If you see it, GRAB it.


Since viewing this film 35 years ago I have been in awe of it, it is certainly my all-time favorite and would most likely get my nomination for best film ever. On this point I probably stand in splendid isolation (or to quote Finn Malmgren: "emptiness, loneliness, beauty, and purity"). I mention this in the hope that this will encourage readers to view the film. If you are seeking a comparison, "Krasnaya Palatka" ("The Red Tent") is most like the original "Flight of the Phoenix"; both are superficially action adventure films, with deep allegorical elements about the dynamics behind the functioning of a civilized society. "The Red Tent" even gets a little philosophical along the lines of life as a journey and not a destination.

This is Director Mikheil Kalatozishvili's tribute to Sergei Eisenstein, a disorienting yet organized montage of vast scale juxtaposed with claustrophobic confinement (its worth watching again just to focus on the scene transitions-the editing is brilliant). The scenes inside the dirigible and the red tent (the title character) are carefully cut into spectacular exterior shots of arctic landscapes and the dynamic energy of crowds in the Russian countryside and city.

There is a fusion of European expressionism with Hollywood realism in this film unlike anything I have ever seen before. This is possible because of the storytelling device of having everything unfold in flashbacks by the main character General Nobile (Peter Finch). Nobile was the organizer and commander of Italy's ill-fated attempt to reach the North Pole by dirigible. This generally true (certain historical liberties are taken to simplify things) story is told entirely from his point of view.

Forty years after the expedition Nobile is a disgraced figure living in Rome and burdened by guilt and sleeplessness. You learn that on sleepless nights he conjures up participants in the expedition fiasco (both members and rescuers), letting them judge him for his actions 40 years ago. These sessions have been largely inconclusive but this night he pulls out all stops and convenes a full trial in his living room-with almost all the central figures present. More importantly, for the first time he names the ruthless Lundborg (Hardy Kruger) as his prosecutor-a move that Lundborg assures him will mean that the jury will reach a verdict for the first time. These are not ghosts but rather figments of Nobile's imagination and they behave according to his perception of how they would behave.

This storytelling device allows the film to have its own commentary, making it not just an exciting adventure film with wonderful visuals, but an examination of the concept of leadership (much like "Command Decision", "A Gathering of Eagles", and "They Came to Cordura"). More importantly it becomes an allegorical study about free will and destiny, as careful planning and good judgment are just two factors in any complex operation; subject to luck and unforeseen events.

The many characters are a representative cross section of society; with heroes, opportunists, martinets, dreamers, and average Joes. Ultimately, things happen (both good and bad) not because of the challenge of man versus nature, but because of the placement and misplacement of human resources (i.e. the right or wrong person assigned to a particular role in the expedition and the rescue efforts).

From the events portrayed in the "The Rent Tent" it is difficult to fault Nobile as a leader. He wisely turns back to Kings Bay when the weather gets bad, he is genuinely devastated at the loss of some of his men, and his actions after the crash are all reasonable. He can be blamed for allowing Lundborg to bring him out before his men but under the circumstances it was a sensible decision if not a politically correct one. As Samoilovich, Captain of the Russian Icebreaker Krassin points out, a leader is judged by their actions, and their actions by their results, Nobile's early rescue is the reason the other surviving crewmen are ultimately rescued.

Nobile's fantasy trial eventually dredges from his subconscious the realization of why he choose to leave with Lundborg (1000 reasons to stay-1001 to leave). That such a trivial and self-indulgent reason was the difference maker accounts for his continuing guilt. This realization, along with the belief that Amundsen (his peer) is the only one fit to judge him, allows Nobile to finally forgive himself for being human. They go out with Amundsen's advice to reflect not on their failures but on the things they attempted and the wondrous things they saw. There is no guilt in not achieving an ambitious goal, making the attempt is more important than succeeding.

The music is also great.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.