As happens on occasion with subtitled foreign films I become confused and perplexed at what appears to be the discrepancy between what the characters are doing and/or involved with and what the subtitles have them saying. Such was the case in spades with Coup de Torchon. In this instance the result was to make the characters, particularly the main one, even less accessible as far as trying to understand why they/he did what they were shown doing. I gave this movie 2 stars because of this disembodiment. *I was told some time ago that if a foreign film (or an English speaking one) is not wildly popular when first released, but has something appealing that a distributor thinks might make a few bucks then, in some cases, the bottom line rule gets applied and the subtitling job goes out for bids to companies that don't apply standards that are usually applied to movies with more popular pedigree. Such might be the case with 'Coup de Torchon'.

In general the Criterion Collection has been pretty reliable for me, and while I'm glad I came across this film, I see it as a somewhat ambitious failure. I have not read the Thompson novel from which it was drawn, but transplanting a story from the American South to crumbling colonial West Africa alone is inspired.If the film is a comedy, then it did not work me. The melding of slapstick with social commentary ran thin for me, but again it could just be that I lack le bone funny. At least I recognized parts here that likely were intended to be ribald (as opposed to some Japanese humor, where I'm often completely lost).Perhaps it is not that the humor is stupid (although the recurring dimwit incest interlude and the outhouse surprise...surely push it), but that the characters are stupid. That being said, the lead character it is of course crucial that you see him as a bozo of sorts, but behind his broad caricature of indolence, is there some intuition or even initiative stashed away? Again, an ambitious choice to have an apparent laggard as your lead character. He's seen as perpetually exhausted and at the same time amazingly lazy. An inept if not corrupt sheriff, but potentially very fair-minded. A slothful yet irresistible sex machine? That character alone was worth the watch for me, especially a couple of more serious discussions he has.But ultimately what does the film do? Take us from the joys of a meaningless existence to the tragedy of a meaningless existence. The directors sets up some of the early kills as somewhat justified, only to move through less and less "necessary" slaughter ending abruptly with the image of innocence being as wantonly wasted? And that image is meant to tie back visually to the films start, as if to imply this is just the way of the world. A cycle of violence.Does this excuse our pot-bellied peculiar policeman? Do his messianic delusions even make sense, as he plots to seduce the "pure" schoolteacher? And do the three women intentionally seem to similar, as if they are plots along the same curve and that curve is a circle.I don't know, and regrettably I did not care as much as I should have. Perhaps the clumsiness of the film that might pass as charm for other viewers? Perhaps the predictable randiness, that even a few decades ago felt like a use of sex as cheap titillation.Is it just a parable of despair? Is it just a jokey eulogy for the colonial ways, saying adieu to its greed, stupidity and savagery? I don't know, that's why it gets a 5/10 for me... I do know that it makes me want to read the Thompson novel to see what inspired Tavernier to take on this.See what you think, but if you think I'm too harsh on the stupidity of the film, I hope you get the DVD that offers the proposed alternate ending with two monkeys... Ugh...that would have got a 3/10.

The story is pure trash and that is where the film gets its charm and class from: In a French colony in Africa in 1938, Lucien Cordier (Philippe Noiret) is a policeman in a village which is mostly inhabited by Africans and only a few racist, empty-headed Europeans. He is abased by everybody and always looks away when something illegal happens. On one day, Lucien is fed up with the humiliation and starts to take revenge on his humblers.The characters have as much depth as the ones in a Disney comic book, and the break in Lucien's behavior from the friendly, jerky cop to the murdering, planning ahead thinker seems to be quite odd, but not only for that, the story never bores. It is actually very witty with many hilarious situations: All the deeply macabre murder scenes and shot downs, a blind man who yells: "Get out of my sight!", or the dodgy relationship between Lucien, his wife, her lover, and Lucien's two mistresses, in addition to the documentary-style steady-cam, makes the whole scenery, admittedly unrealistic and bizarre, but very entertaining and, at the end, a bit thoughtful. Also, it's always a tremendous delight to watch the grand Philippe Noiret, who sadly passed away not a long time ago.

This film is an adaptation of an U.S. novel of Jim Tompson. All his novels are precious like that of Chandler and, almost,of the Great Dashiell HAMMET!The novel is situed in the Kansas, but the film in old french Africa just before the War II. The characters are so bad as racist without any pity for the black like for each other.To my opinion we must read whole the opus of Jim Tompson and of course Larry Beinheart: "an american hero" or "Wag the dog" with De Niro and Dustin Hoffman . In Europe the "polard in french" ( novel of investigation) is the best way to know the U.S.A.But it's my opinion, no more!