Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.

When I was a kid, my favorite television show for a time was Alfred Hitchcock Presents. I can still conjure up the theme song in my mind’s ear and the Hitchcock silhouette in my mind’s eye. I got pretty good, after a while, at guessing the twists in advance for, maybe, half the episode. Although I’ve always respected some of the classic horror films like Psycho, Vertigo, and The Exorcist, I lost my taste for horror films when they took on what seemed to me to be a disgustingly graphic quality. I think I saw part of The Silence of the Lambs once on television and shut it off – not because of lack of “quality” but because I just didn’t care for the emotional response it was invoking.

Tonight, I picked out Diabolique from my little stack of yet-to-be-watched films. Not the reputedly pathetic 1996 remake, but the original black-and-white 1955 classic by director Henri-Georges Clouzot, often regarded as Hitchcock’s source of inspiration. I watched it and then read a dozen of so reviews of the film from around the country and I’m left with a bit of a problem. Every review I’ve read falls over itself in admiration and praise for this film but, for me, it was pretty mediocre stuff. I will say that I wasn’t bored with the film at any point. No, the problems for me were that (1) it never felt particularly thrilling or tense; (2) the “twists” at the end were too obvious; and (3) my credulity kept tumbling into oversized plot-holes.

Historical Background: There’s certainly no denying the significance of this film as an influence on later filmmaking. First off, the Fichet character in Diabolique, a former commissioner, is clearly the model on which Peter Falk’s Columbo character was based. Secondly, Diabolique was based on a novel by authors Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac entitled Celle Qui N’Etait Pas. Hitchcock sought the rights to the book but Clouzot had already beat him to it. The authors then obliged Hitchcock with another book entitled D’Entre Les Mortes, which Hitchcock made into the famous film, Vertigo. Small world! Thirdly, Diabolique has been remade twice for television (Reflections of a Murder (1974) with Joan Hackett and House of Secrets (1993) with Melissa Gilbert) and once for theaters (the miserable 1996 remake Diabolique with Sharon Stone). Fourthly, it is fair to argue that Diabolique was the model on which the entire genre of psychological thrillers was based, from Psycho (1960) and Nightmare (1963) down to present times.

The Set-Up: Like every other reviewer of this film, I feel compelled to honor Clouzot’s express request (in the end frame of the film) not to reveal the ending to those who have not yet seen the film. Like other reviewers, I’ll limit my synopsis to the set-up portion of the story. Michel Delasalle (Paul Meurisse) is not a nice man. He is the principal at a boys’ school who is so miserly that the fish purchased for dinner is barely edible. He abuses his wife, Christina (éra Clouzot), despite the fact that she is the one who owns the school. Christina has a heart condition and Michel appears to be basically waiting for her to expire. Christina cannot divorce Michel because it is against her Catholic religion. Michel is openly having an affair with a blond, female teacher of the school, Nicole (Simone Signoret), but he abuses her as well. When we first meet Nicole, she is wearing sunglasses to hide a black eye that he had given her the night before. Michel is hated by the students at the school, by the teachers, and by virtually everyone who has to deal with him.

Nicole and Christina have finally had enough of Michel’s abuse and have hatched a plot to kill him off. A three day vacation is approaching and Nicole and Christina have planned a trip to Nicole's hometown without Michel’s knowledge. The idea is for Christina to lure Michel there by informing him over the phone that she has decided to divorce him. They know Michel well enough to know that he will immediately come, planning to intimidate her out of any such action. When he arrives, they will drug him and then drown him in the tub. Then, they will take his body back to the school, dump it in the swimming pool, and wait for it to be found.

Their plan is executed but not without a few dramatic hitches along the way. Michel’s body is loaded into a wicker basket for transport back to the school. The basket almost pops open while a neighbor is helping them load the basket into their vehicle. Later, during the trip, a drunken soldier starts to climb into the back of their car. He is ousted by the gas station attendant but not before the attendant spots water in the vehicle and offers to clean it up. Back at the school, a light goes on in one of the rooms of the school as they are dumping Michel’s body into the pool in the middle of the night. Later, a retired former police commissioner, Inspector Fichet (Charles Vanel), takes an interest in Michel’s disappearance and begins to doggedly snoop around. He shuffles about and repeats questions as if he were not too bright as a tactic to entrap witnesses and perpetrators into inconsistencies in their stories.

Production Values: In fairness to readers, I want to again repeat that my response to this film is a distinctly minority viewpoint. How thrilling is it? Well, the collection of reviews that I’ve looked at include comments such as “gripping”, “an occasional shiver of dread”, “truly frightening”, “macabre”, “suspenseful”, etc. Well, add my ho-hum and yawn to that stack of accolades.

How surprising are the twists? Reviewers use such descriptions as “surprise climax”, “the twist ending is very shocking”, and “keeps the viewer guessing.” Roger Ebert does own that “the final revelations are somewhat disappointing.” The ending is basically a double-twist. I don’t consider myself clairvoyant about these things but twist #1 I had narrowed down to two possibilities (one of which eventuated and the other of which, I’m convinced, would have been better) and twist #2 was blatantly obvious other than the exact timing. It was just all too evident in advance!

How credible is the plot? The same collection of reviews describe it as a “believable scenario” and applaud the film for “never pushing the film’s more contrived aspects to excess.” I’m trapped here, in trying to explain most of the potholes without introducing a spoiler, but I can mention a couple within the set-up part of the story. If mousy Christina can’t even stand up to mean old Michel because it might cause her weak heart to fail, how could she anticipate surviving the stress of helping to murder the guy? If divorce is against her religion, isn't murder as well? What’s going on, here? And why would Nicole want to have an affair with a man as unrelentingly mean-spirited as Michel? It’s one thing to be stuck in a marriage with the guy but another to begin or continue an affair with him.

The performances in this film aren’t so very special either. Paul Meurisse as Michel was completely one dimensional. I don’t recall a single word or action on his part that was not villainous. Vera Clouzot, the director’s wife, had the most challenging role and was a generally convincing shrieker in the “horror” scenes, but her emotional instability (agreeing to the murder plot then backing out, participating in the cover-up then repeatedly being unable to control impulses sure to blow their plot wide open) was not very credible. Vera Clouzot’s other most significant role was in Wages of Fear (1952), also directed by her husband. Simone Signoret was undoubtedly the biggest bit of star-power in this film, but she plays her part without a lot of real feeling. Her resume includes La Ronde (1950), Room at the Top (1959), Ship of Fools (1965), The Sleeping Car Murder (1965), The Deadly Affair (1966), The Confession (1970), and Madame Rosa (1977). I thought she was utterly brilliant in the last mentioned of those films, at a much later stage of her career.

The little French boys school was marvelously atmospheric and provided an ideal venue for both the murder mystery and some humorous business involving the boys of the school. One poor lad who is something of a pathological liar ends up standing in the corner repeatedly. Some of the boys come from wealthy families and are a good deal more well-heeled than the teachers of the school. The cinematography was properly evocative and suspense-generating.

Bottom-Line: Diabolique shared the New York Film Critics Award for Best Foreign Film in 1955 with the highly regarded Umberto D. (which Vittorio De Sica considered to be his best film). Diabolique is in French with English subtitles and has a running time of 116 minutes. It might be suitable for older teens but not children. I recommend this film, but only for those with an established taste for Hitchcock-like suspense yarns.

Recommended: Yes

Video Occasion: Fit for Friday Evening
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age