La femme nue (1932) Review: A messy, sad French drama

Is it worth the watch?

If you are into those old black-and-white French movies where everyone looks like they need a nap and a cigarette, then yes. You should watch it today.

People who love messy relationship dramas will probably get a kick out of this. But if you hate slow movies where people just talk in rooms? You are going to hate it. Truly.

The title La femme nue makes it sound like it’s going to be some scandalous thing. It really isn't.

It is mostly about a guy named Pierre who is a painter. He has a wife, Lolette, who used to be his model. She’s played by Alice Field and she is basically the only reason to keep watching when things get slow.

Pierre gets famous and suddenly he thinks he is too good for his life. He meets this Princess and decides to throw everything away. It is a tale as old as time, really.

I found myself getting really annoyed with Pierre. Raymond Rouleau plays him with this kind of smug look that makes you want to reach into the screen and shake him.

There is a scene early on where they are in the studio. The lighting is actually really nice for such an old film. You can see the dust floating in the air near the easel.

I like those little details. It makes the world feel lived in, unlike some of those super polished movies from the same era like Madame Mystery.

The movie is based on a play, and you can definitely tell. People enter and exit rooms like they are waiting for their cue behind a curtain. It feels a bit stiff sometimes.

But then Lolette does something small. Like the way she touches a piece of furniture when she realizes her marriage is over. That felt real.

I noticed the sound quality is a bit rough. There is this constant hiss in the background. It’s like the movie is breathing at you.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of La femme nue (1932) through its definitive frames.

It reminded me a bit of the quietness you get in Den starkaste, but with more shouting. French people in movies from the 30s sure love to shout when they are sad.

The Princess character is interesting because she isn't a cartoon villain. She’s just... bored? And Pierre is a new toy for her. It’s actually kind of pathetic to watch him fall for it.

I think the middle part of the movie drags quite a bit. There are these long conversations about art and status that just go on and on. I actually checked my phone twice.

But the ending hits pretty hard. It’s not a happy movie. Don't go in expecting a bubbly romance.

One thing that bothered me was a secondary character, I think it was the Prince? He has this mustache that looks like it was glued on sideways. I couldn't stop looking at it during a very serious scene.

It’s funny how a small thing like a bad mustache can totally ruin a dramatic moment. But that’s the charm of these old films, I guess.

If you compare it to something like Zeinab, you can see how different the acting styles were across borders back then. This one feels very theatrical, almost like they are playing to the back row of a theater.

I did appreciate the costumes. The hats Lolette wears are absolutely massive. I don't know how she kept her head upright.

Actually, there is one shot where she is walking down a hallway and her hat almost hits the top of the door frame. I wonder if they had to do a second take for that.

The movie gets much better once the painter stops being the focus and we just watch Lolette deal with her life. Alice Field has this way of looking completely destroyed without saying a word.

It’s a bit like the emotional weight you find in Wolfblood, even though that’s a totally different kind of story. Just that raw, human sadness.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of La femme nue (1932) through its definitive frames.

A few things I noticed:

• The way they drink wine looks like they are actually drinking real wine.
• The sets are very cluttered, which I loved.
• There is a dog in one scene that looks very confused to be there.
• The subtitles I had were a bit wonky, using words like "pshaw" which nobody says.

Is it a masterpiece? Probably not. It feels a little too much like a recorded stage play in the second act.

But for a movie from 1932, it handles the idea of a toxic relationship pretty well. It doesn't try to make Pierre look like a hero at the end, which I respected.

He’s a jerk. And the movie knows he’s a jerk. That makes it easier to stomach.

The pacing is definitely an issue. About an hour in, I felt like the story had already told me everything it needed to say. But then it kept going for another thirty minutes.

They could have cut some of the party scenes. We get it, the rich people are shallow. We don't need five scenes of them holding glasses and laughing awkwardly.

I also kept thinking about Tiger True for some reason while watching this. Maybe it's just the way the film stock looks. That grainy, silver quality.

It’s a lonely movie. It makes you feel like you are sitting in a cold room with the characters. Which, depending on your mood, might be exactly what you want.

I wouldn't watch it again soon. It’s too heavy for a rewatch. But I’m glad I saw it once.

It’s a weirdly personal film. It feels like the writers had their hearts broken and decided to take it out on the audience. In a good way.

Anyway, if you find a copy, give it a shot. Just keep an eye out for that mustache. It’s a riot.