User reviews

From reading other reviews this may be one of those movies that seems to be about whatever is most important to the viewer. To some it is mostly about capitalism and class / social castes. To others it is more a love story. To me the love story seemed central, with it feeling like a movie by gay men for gay men. We start with two decent looking guy roommates, one of which clearly is into the other, who seems to return friendship only. Both men are dating women. A working class love interest Mécir, played by Salim Kechiouche, comes into the life of the obviously conflicted gay lead, Paul. Paul is torn between apparently unreturned love for his male roommate, his sociality acceptable relationship with a woman, and an openly gay lover who doesn't easily fit into the life he feels expected to lead.

Being a French movie, English speakers must be prepared for subtitles. There is a fair amount of frontal male nudity in the film, and being a French film, yes the men are naturally uncircumcised. The nudity is always incidental and mostly in a single locker room scene, a scene which perfectly captured the discomfort I felt in gym class myself as a gay teen. The fear of being caught looking at the other guys contrasted against the potential delight of being surrounded by dozens of fit nude peers. It is tough to understand people being uncomfortable with the frontal nudity when it isn't used in a sexual way. Still, if frontal male nudity bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't watch. There is minimal female nudity. Since questions are raised about what is the perversion, homosexuality, or the insistence on fitting into societal norms despite one's feelings, it seems strange to find reviewers debating something as basic as casual nudity.

Stories of unrequited love and love triangles have been told many times before, and probably told better. But as a gay man, the conflicts Paul felt were very familiar and real to me, and the story took me back to an early time in my life. I could certainly sympathize with his situation. It was easy to be drawn to the character of Mécir. Not only is he a feast for the eyes, I also found myself trying to will Paul to wake up and realize that Mécir was the only choice of the three with a likelihood for long-term happiness. As in life though, nothing is quite so simple. If you want to know more, you might well enjoy the movie. Feedback on this review is welcome.

Paul (Gregori Baquet) is attending a prestigious university in France. He has a girlfriend named Agnes (Alice Taglioni) who is puzzled why he won't live with her. Paul becomes sexually attracted to handsome roommate Louis-Arnault (Jocelyn Quivrin) but won't admit it, while handsome Arab Mecir (Salim Kerchrouche) makes it clear that he loves Paul. What is Paul to do?

Has its moments. When it sticks to Paul, Mecir and Louis-Arnault and the sexual aspect it's absolutely fascinating. But they continuously keep throwing in long boring speeches about business and politics that bring things to a screeching halt. Also (with the sole exception of Mecir) most of the characters are very unlikable and cruel. Paul's girlfriend especially comes across badly and Paul himself is whiny. It ends in a very muddled way with an unsatisfying ending.

The acting is all pretty good. Baquet is a bit too whiny but Quivrin and especially Kerchrouch are very good. The one sex scene is done very tastefully and there is quite a bit of casual female and male nudity (this would get an NC-17 if it had been rated). All in all not too good but some bright moments and acting make it worth a look. I give it a 7.

It's seems impossible to not compare this type of French cinema with its American counterpart. As is usually the case, the French is just so much more interesting, faults and all. This may be an over ambitious project, but there is a message in there somewhere, (or rather too many messages). It's a bit frenetic at times, but this may be due to the director's lack of experience.

Director Robert Salis' technique is to hurl as much as possible onto the screen in the hope that something will stick. Many elements of the plot are not really thought through producing some confusing moments. It's also tends to be very wordy, which may work for those fortunate enough to understand the language, but makes for lots of subtitle reading.

However in the final analysis enough actually sticks, making this not an unmemorable film. Much has to do with an excellent performance by one Gregori Baquet who besides coasting on his abundant charisma, shows a wide dramatic range, controlled with intelligence.

A certain French eroticism pervades many of the scenes, but oddly enough, Salis' handling of the sex scenes (both hetero and homo) is less convincing. There is something decidedly mechanical about them.

However, one does get absorbed into the lives of this group of young Frenchmen coming to terms with society, their personal futures, their sexuality and life in general.

"Grand ecole" aspires to be the sort of existential drama that the French New Wave directors produced in the 1950s and 1960. It pours race, class, economic status, history and sexuality into a big martini shaker and pours out a heady concoction.

But just what the film is, in the end, is not clear at all.

Paul is the hunky son of a Marseilles contractor. Raised to be brilliant but also racist (snubbing Arabs) and classist (snubbing blue-collar workers and the poor), Paul is sent to an elite Parisian economics college where he is supposed to learn about management and marketing. But Paul isn't his father's son. He's artistically-minded (which should be your first clue about his inner life) and rejects his father's biases. Soon, Paul has taken up with Agnes, a young woman who is attending the liberal-arts university next door and who is an avid supporter of human rights.

One of Paul's roommates is Louis-Arnault, a hunky business major with a penchant for water polo (he comes from a legendarily wealthy background) and girls. The other is the materialistic, shallow, rich boy, Chouquet.

Paul has a stunning girlfriend, the beautiful Emeline, who also attends the school of economics. While Louis-Arnault's and Emeline's relationship seems stable and loving, Paul's relationship with Agnes seems a bit rockier. Paul loves Agnes, but is a little emotionally and physically withdrawn from her.

It's not long before Paul develops an intense homosexual crush on the handsome, athletic Louis-Arnault -- even going so far as to steal his boxers! Then the handsome Arabian blue-collar worker, Mecir, arrives on campus as part of the construction crew renovating buildings on the school grounds. Paul is equally attracted to Mecir.

Agnes is no dummy: She senses Paul's ambivalence and proposes a test. If Paul seduces Louis-Arnault first, Agnes will leave and never say a word. If Agnes seduces Louis-Arnault first, then Paul must give up his homosexual longings and be exclusively heterosexual and monogamous with her.

The great problem with the film is that it is not entirely clear why Agnes would suggest such a thing. For his part, Paul never agrees to Agnes' plan -- so just what does Agnes think she is doing?

After the first hour, Chouquet drops completely out of the picture -- which is frustrating. Mecir figures more and more prominently in Paul's sex life and emotions. But just as the viewer expects religion to become an issue (Mecir is clearly a practicing Muslim), it doesn't.

Much more satisfying is the film's extensive commentary on the emotional desert that is capitalism, greed and materialism. There is a tremendously important and well-written discussion during the film's climax that is a real wonder. The grand ideas fly fast and furious, and the writing and acting is pure gold there.

For the most part, however, the film's sexual themes -- which are ostensibly it's raison d'etre -- are muddy. The film's commentaries on race, class, materialism and the burden of history are much clearer and more satisfying.

Overall, the quality of the acting is rather good. Salim Kechiouche is superb, and Gregori Baquet has his moments. Also rising above the fray is Alice Taglioni, who is subtle and powerful as the put-upon Agnes.

The direction, cinematography and editing are nothing to write home about.

But "Grand ecole" is worth the effort, even if it is ultimately an exercise in frustration.

Credit the director with getting a cast of unknowns to give very credible performances--an ensemble of attractive young people who have certainly put themselves into these roles. The relationships seem real and all of the main actors acquit themselves well. The story basically follows the lives of five students and a construction worker as they explore truths about each other in a situation ruled by a strong-willed girl who decides to play a game of entrapment when she suspects her boyfriend is sexually interested in his roommate.

But the script is a talky one and goes in all directions trying to steer us into thinking homosexuality is clearly a question of choice or that a simple homoerotic experience for a man can change his whole perspective on life. It's a muddy theory that the author/director are striving to execute on film, but they end up with a story of unrequited passions that goes nowhere in the end.

A scene of sexual fulfillment between two men is artfully presented and tastefully photographed. But there is an artificial air whenever the sexual themes are being explored. The only exception is the shower room scene where the hero tries to hide his interest in the showering athletes.

The picture is actually one long-winded mind game that it plays upon the protagonist (and the audience) and nothing memorable or strong enough happens to give it a high recommendation.

You have to wonder who the target audience is for a film of this type which seems to be sending mixed messages.

As there are enough synopses already written, I'll just concentrate on the feel of the movie. It does have some very homoerotic scenes with full frontal. But it also has some very dysfunctional themes; such as a man who is obviously homosexual but who chooses to stay with a long-time girlfriend. Were he bisexual, this would be understandable and even acceptable. But it just comes off as one confused character taking advantage of anyone around him that will let him. I'm not sure if this was what the film was going for, but no one seemed particular sympathetic here.

Firstly, I am not quite sure what the issue of circumcision is. This is mainly an American abberation (under the pretension that it is more hygienic to be circumcised and is practised as a matter of course there) In Europe, it is usually performed only if it presents a problem to the individual man (eg. cases of phemosis for example) That aside, I enjoyed the naturalness of the film. I have no problem with human nudity and don't understand why anyone gets upset about it and besides Gregori is quite a cutie. The galling thing was the philosophical chat and the human rights dialogue which destroyed the whole essence of the film..basically the relationships between the members of the faculty. I would also like to have seen more raw emotion from Emeline and Paul when they witness their respective partners cheating on them. Agnes, one screwed up woman who lives in the fantasies of her head, annoyed the hell out of me (though she looked fabulous), but the story really belongs to Paul- and given what he had to do in the film, did admirably.

I saw this film at the New Festival in New York. It was by far the worst film there. It's use of uncircumcised full frontal nudity and a wishy-washy script and direction that neither commits to a re-make of 'Maurice' nor decides it's a Neil LaBute flick, left me feeling 'Why would anyone ruin a perfectly good cast like this?'. It lacks irony and fills the vacuum with sentiment, which causes the times when the movie turns on itself to make you want to wipe your face as your mind and heart search for what could be going on in the film but isn't. I wish the director and editor had re-edited the film because maybe there's more story there that could be released from an otherwise unpleasant experience.

The production values aren't the best in this film, but one rarely expects better of a film festival entry. Seeing beyond that is what festival fare is all about, in my opinion.

Tha said, I was easily taken in by Paul and his emotional struggle. At first, I was put off by the ambivalent and quirky behavior of Paul and the others, but I began to recognize that this was a representation of the nuances of real life, as opposed to the packaged fare that Hollywood usually dishes out. What another reviewer found confusing to me was an invitation to get inside the heads of characters who, like real people, weren't exactly sure what they wanted or who they were trying to be.

The relationships were complex and yes, frustrating to figure out at times. But the acting was good--complexity is mush harder to convey than the broad-brush emotion that Hollywood paints larger than life. I loved Mecir--superbly acted--his earnestness nearly brought me to tears. I thought the ultimate outcome of Paul's relationship with him (and with Agnes) mirrored real life as well. And just when I thought Arnault was a shallow caricature, the character surprised me with intelligence (if cynical) and depth.

I agree that the third roommate (name?) disappeared mysteriously in the middle of the film; it had seemed he would play a greater role at the outset. The peripheral characters were neither well developed nor exceptionally acted, but are no reason to dis the film.

The film was marred for me by the extremely self-conscious and forced 3-minute conversation near the end about class struggle, corporate greed, etc. I liked these themes in the film, but this Cliff-Notes style summation was so artificial that I--and the audience I was with--laughed out loud at every pontification, each more hysterical than the last. My immediate comment was "it's like a French parody of the French!" Profound thoughts and deep convictions, spewed with piercing emotion--ultimately lasting as long as a cigarette and washed away with a glass of Bordeaux.

Except for that camp exchange, I very much enjoyed the movie and would see it again.

I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10

I rented this film and just felt compelled to have to comment on it. This is one of those rare gems that stays with you for days. You can't help to admire the beauty of the Paul and Louis as you wish they got together. The music and men in this film are fantastic. The nude scenes and love making scenes are so beautifully done you wish you could join them and never leave and I'm straight!!!. The women were strong in their role and intelligently written. Everything about this film was artistically and beautifully made. The vision of the director certainly jumps out at you and grips you to the end. On the down side the movie does portray the sorrow of having to deal with feelings that sometimes are beyond your control. I applaud the director for using this cinematic language to describe the gut wrenching hurt you can suffer when you love someone so much when specially they don't seem to feel the same for you. I shall highly receommend this film and it should be one that every film lover should have in their collection.

This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an "art" movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead.

There's a touch of Rohmer in "Grande Ecole". Characters, set in unglamorous, surburban spaces, are just a little too intent and penetrating to be real. Their emotions are simple, yet surprisingly delicate. They experience no jealousy or revenge, but desire, self-doubt and tenderness. Like Rohmer's, Salis' movies feel too nostalgic and sweet to be topical, and that aestheticism is put to the use of tolerance and humanism. Sex scenes for example are remarkable. Homo- and heterosexual love become comparable because Salis makes caressing and enticing the cornerstone of every sexual encounter. The movie however becomes overtly theatrical towards the end, and does not tune in with the closure that Rohmer would have gone for. Salis resolves conflicts, by now difficult to disentangle, only by confusing the viewer to a point of no return and settling for the beauty of seeing all characters reunited finally, if not in the movie, at least on the screen: him and her, and him and her, and him.

I saw this film by chance, and I really didn't expect any type of theme or issue witch would be showned. I think it's the way to go, on this very particular film. You must experience it and not intellectualize it too much or you'll be completely lost. The catch here is that this film doesn't offer you a solution, it refers to several important question, both psychological and social, but doesn't teals you what you showed think about it, and that might be the reason that makes it so disturbing. One of the things that this film shows is that we end desiring that what it lacks in ourselves and what we can do with it when we find it. The film maker offers us an opportunity to think about important questions about one's identity, self realization, social awareness, but doesn't tells us what to do. All of this with good conversations between the actors, which are complex and unfinished. This film stimulates the mind and the search of the self. It's one of those films either you love it or you hate it, but it's a must see.

The title translates to "The Best of Schools," the school of life. This film really makes me wish I was fluent in French, including idioms and nuances that must be flowing every moment. Subtitles just can't cut it. But there's a great line in the film, which translates pretty well, I think: "You don't get it at all. Hetero, homo, all that's finished. It's outdated and it doesn't matter." In the "Making of..." feature, the director (Robert Salis) says, "...the theme is based on the notion of choice, or, actually, the disobeying of imposed choices...." and "crisscross desire" (which he insists is not the same as sex). He also said, "...it's like a dresser with drawers on top of one another. To find out the complete contents you have to open the drawers separately one after another." He does just that very skillfully.

Needless to say, it's a complex film, with happy parts, sad parts, sex galore (men with women, and a man with a man), sexy men showing full frontal nudity, and all that. About halfway through, it felt exactly like "Maurice," (and Salis even mentioned that film in the "Making of..."), but then it changed to something totally different after that. This isn't a Gay film. It's a "men who have sex with men" film. "MSM" is a term sex researchers use because most men would never self-identify as Gay, but usually will privately admit if they've had sex with men.

There's a lot more depth, but I'm not going to analyze it to death. Great movie! Watch it. Don't watch the trailer or the "Making of..." or anything else first though.

Back to "desire": Salis'closing line in the "Making of..." is, "There's only love and the lack of love. And desire naturally goes hand in hand with the lack and nourishes itself." I think I'll have to watch the movie all over again now to understand that.

A gorgeous story of unrequited love, with an added twist. Sexual desire, sexuality, unrequited love, and even themes such as racism are present in this beautiful french film. The acting leaves nothing to be desired. The writing is poetic--short and undeveloped conversations, that leave the audience wanting more, although its indubitable that more would have killed it. A true story with many aspects to it. The changing of human beings, the small-mindedness, the capacity of the human heart, the conflict between heart and head.

Paul's coming to terms with his own happiness, while we watch other's demise in morality is stunning. Every character changed in some way from the beginning of the movie to the end. Even better, the change was APPARENT. Not just a superficial coming of age (or deconstruction for that matter), but a realistic, touching process for each character. Paul developed, realizing his own desires, and understanding his situation. At the same time, Louis-Arnault falls from grace--a friend of Paul, lovely and intuitive, to a conniving machine driven by desire and society's guidelines. The aspect of social graces comes into the story many times, with racism and meeting expectations. Paul is expected to go to this prestigious school, however he soon discovers his disliked of what is planned out for him. Mécir meets with much conflict in terms of race--being discriminated against, and watching others be discriminated against. Every character is realistic in containing likable and unlikeable traits. They're each well-developed and continue to develop throughout the movie.

The movie itself is gorgeous. It's simply beautiful. I found it highly realistic and, though familiar, unique in its own way. The soundtrack is excellent as well.