Really Surprised!

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

An all-out attack on the repressive nature of Catholic boarding schools in the post-wwII period, this film examines the (platonic) love between two boys, two years apart, in the same school, and the attempts by the school to condemn homosexuality amid the burgeoning changes within society, which are embodied in the attitudes of the school's students. Beautifully acted, and a difficult subject deftly handled by both leads.

Many reviews of this film state that George is 16 or 17 (and he appears so in the film) which leads to all the comments that he is a pedophile. But in the book by the author, his age is given as 14 (page 1) when he enters the school. To me, this changes the dynamics completely about the story. It becomes one of puppy love--although deeply and profoundly felt. There is no doubt that early in the book, he feels attraction for a Lucien, a classmate, and that he is possibly gay. I challenge anyone to cite in the book where it says that George is 16 or 17.The movie is so beautifully made that the love between the two is totally believable. But I wish that it had been made as the author wrote it.

I have long wished to see this film and finally a DVD of it has been made available, so I watched it with enormous curiosity. I must say I am very much touched by LES AMITIÉS PARTICULIÈRES, for everything rings absolutely true in this film. The screenplay by Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost is perfection itself, rending Peyrefitte's autobiographical novel totally cinematic, visually striking and emotionally devastating. The acting by the two leading men is beyond anything I could have expected from such young performers. Didier Haudepin gives the best performance by a child actor I have ever seen in fifty-some years of film-going, standing alongside the likes of Patty Duke in THE MIRACLE WORKER, Brigitte Fossey in LES JEUX INTERDITS and Enzo Staiola in LADRI DI BICICLETTE. The supporting cast is equally to be praised, particularly the great Michel Bouquet. Frankly, Jean Delannoy deserves ample credit for having brought to the screen a film of such beauty and flawless artistry. I believe François Truffaut has never done anything that even approaches such a high level of film-making.

French cinema has always been, if not the most profound and analytic in the world, indeed, the one that sets the benchmark. In this beautifully shot film, Delanoy tackles a difficult subject matter (for our days) that wasn't so then. When I saw Les Amities Particulieres for the first time, I simply couldn't realise how important it was. Now, after many years, I find it much more interesting than it would have been in the sixties. Many others have already written about the story. I will delve into a different approach: today's reality, at the beginning of the 21st Century.The strength of our mediated world has increased exponentially and it will keep on growing. The way we look at our world today is consistently chiseled by the way information is provided, dissected, manipulated and delivered. We just consume it. With it, the apocalyptic view on pedophilia that, by the way, means affinity, love, for boys has been transformed completely.Maybe we're more than insane today than in the 40's or the 70's, but by then people were not scared at all by this kind of love, even when it was clearly seen as sin if sexuality was involved. For us, pedophile means stalker, assassin, assailant, or, as the media loves to call them: molester.It's a good idea to watch this film with an open mind. What happens has happened for centuries and will happen ever after, until the human race disappears. May this words imply that I defend pedophiles? Yes. I can't defend a criminal, but I can defend someone who loves another human being and is loved in response. Georges loves Alexandre and Alexandre is absolutely in love with him, despite the age gap (at that age, the gap is even more pronounced). Alexandre makes Georges swear his love for ever, his "special friendship", and writes him touching letters that only lovers can write. They simply can't help not loving each other, despite of the many obstacles in their way.In today's perspective, Georges is a pedophile, a stalker, a child molester who would never, ever molest a child... a stalker that is stalked by his prey because... he loves him. This bond grows so strong that is shared with close friends that encourage this relationship.What would the media say about something like this TODAY???? We all know the answer.This film can teach, too, a lot in cinematographic techniques. The use of the camera is unusual for its time. Maybe one of the most daring movements is when Georges arrives in one of the first scenes of the film. The unique way of depicting the corridors in the cloister is another "first", when the steadycam wasn't even in a dream.And, story-wise, we have to credit this film with one of the most powerful endings in cinema: after the "Fin" frames we discover the very last testament of Georges unread letter to Alexandre, which ends with the word "amour". All in all, a must-see.If you want to consider further what I said before (I know it will be hard for many people to swallow) I recommend watching "Wild Tigers I Have Known", a 2006 film made by Cam Archer, 26. It draws a similar scenario assuming life as it is now. I caution you that this film is very experimental (underline very), so it may be confusing and without a clear conclusion. That, is yours to make.