I had heard about this movie and wanted to see it for years, but it's one of that increasingly smaller handful of pictures featuring notable names and a world-class filmmaker (and based on such a book as it is) that is not available, and never has been, on home video (VHS/DVD/VoD, Beta, you name it). So to see it in 35mm is something of a major treat - the question is, how does it hold up almost 50 years later, adapting a book that is nearly 75 years old? Is it timeless? Well, yes... and sort of no, but I'll get to that.

What Visconti does is actually adapt the book quite closely, and even gets into the tone of not so much existential despair as existential don't-give-a-damn. Meursault (Mastroianni) is a character who is affected by the world around him, though that's not to say he's a cynic per-say or completely one to not connect with anyone; clearly he connects with Marie, who cares for him dearly, and he meets a 'friend' in a man who repeatedly hits his woman and has him write a letter for him under dubious circumstances. Oh, and his mother dies to begin with, which becomes a major point of contention later in the story.

The point is that through this story of a man who works as a clerk and keeps to himself and doesn't say much, unless he has something to say or has to, Visconti finds a tone that is curious and yet also distant, which is a kind of contradiction in terms that fits the Camus' style of absurdism. This is a world where there is underlying political strife; it's set in Algiers at a time when France still occupied it (though it's populated by Italians just buy into them being all French, ironic that Karina gets dubbed),and the centerpiece that sets this character heading to oblivion comes when he shoots an Arab for.... what reason? Was it because he and another guy were bothering his friend with a knife? No, no real intention that way. It was... the sun, maybe(?) Who knows?

Meursault is a particular kind of character to play who has such a worldview that is tricky to make into a compelling sight to want to be with for 105 minutes. He is even called, in almost polite terms, "peculiar", though at other times he's called worse when it comes time for those long (but totally engrossing and fascinating) courtroom scenes where it becomes almost a farce of pulling emotional-teeth. So who do you get to play him? Though he considered Alain Deleon (which would've been... not bad for sure),Mastroianni is so good a match that it's hard to picture anyone else. While he is older than one might've pictured the character in the book - not that we get too clear an idea of what he looks like based on his first person take on things, but he seems fairly young - it doesn't matter after a few minutes.

This is the Mastroianni from La Dolce Vita only *more* broken, like if he just decided 'f*** it' and went even further into just disconnecting from the world around him. Only it's not the world of the rich, on the contrary Meursault is surrounded by people of his own class - though some of course are white while others are the Arabs, as they're called - but it's not that he has any prejudice either way. He just doesn't care about things that he doesn't have to, and this includes religion and whether there's a God or not.

What's tricky for Mastroianni to play, but what he pulls off and makes palpable, is this sense of quiet desperation hidden under a calm demeanor. He can get emotional, he can even enjoy life and of course Marie by her side (and though we don't hear her actual speaking voice, by the way, Karina is very good here too, playing the opposite side as someone who is ALL emotions and vulnerability). But that is the key isn't it is the vulnerability factor; when reading the book, which is a little better (hard not to be when it's one of the greats... ever, arguably),there's an edge and a rawness to the narrative that is difficult to get on film, much less by someone like Visconti who usually in his movies thrives on high, operatic emotions.

What's intriguing is how Visconti pulls back in some ways, though he still keeps the camera moving when he can - one aspect that does date is is the over-use of zooms (sometimes it's fine, other times it's closer to 'we get it, move on, this device isn't engaging with the text like you think it is') - and gets certain set pieces and places to be effective and affecting in a purely cinematic way. When our (anti?)hero goes forward to do his killing, it's on a beach where Mastroianni moves like in a total daze with the music playing in such an eerie way that is both hypnotic and terrifying. And places like the jail cell in the last section of the film or even a stairwell that is at Geursalt's apartment, they feel like real places but also crafted for dramatic effect, if that makes sense.

Most memorable and one of Visconti's highlights as a filmmaker in his career are those final scenes in the prison where a discussion about God and a place in the world happens that is so incredible words can't do it justice.

A naked room, a dead old woman lies on a wooden coffin, across the coffin we see her son. His head down, his face slightly contorted. We move in to notice with a chill that he's just trying to get some dirt from under his fingernails. Mersault. Visconti's Mersault inspired by Camus's Mersault. The film was attacked in its day and the Albert Camus's purists shouted blue murder or worse, they didn't say a word. Visconti knew what he was doing. He chose Marcelo Mastroianni to play Mersault. By that choice alone he was departing from Camus's intentions and yet, if you read the book today and see the film today, Mastroianni is Camus's Mersault. It is the driest of all Visconti films. His toughest. Mastroianni gives a performance that defies description. If you've seen more than once,"XXX" by choice, I don't promise you that you'll surrender, automatically, to the power of this film, but I can assure you that both films belong to the same Universe, yours, ours. Give it a try. Then, you tell me.

I've just finished watching Luchino Visconti's 1967 adaptation of Albert Camus novel The Stranger (aka The Outsider) and I want to share my thoughts. I'll start by saying that it's been a few years since I read the book but a review of the film I skimmed before watching it and my own surprisingly thorough recollection indicates that Visconti's film is a rather close adaptation.

The central premise of The Stranger is that Mersault, a normal man, commits a crime accidentally and is punished ostensibly for that crime but actually for his inability to fit in with the absurd society that he is a part of. This society is apparently bent on upholding traditions with no regard for the differences in individuals: Meursault is often emotionless when society expects him to be most emotional.

At the beginning of the film Meursault goes to his mother's funeral and appears rather stoic. We learn later that he sees death as a natural part of life; just as she has lived she must die. For Meursault mourning his mother's death would be like mourning a sunrise. Meursault and his mother's relationship had actually ended on good terms when she was alive and there was no reason for him to heap honors on her when she could no longer benefit from them. Unlike most people, Meursault isn't willing to show off emotionally for others.

Next we see Meursault having a relationship with an attractive woman about his own age. Society expects these two to fall in love and get married; this is something that the woman never thinks twice about. Our hero just doesn't see the point, however: he's happy enough to enjoy this woman's company but he doesn't feel like committing himself to her for the rest of his life. It's logical: why should he change things when they are going well already? Once again he isn't willing to pretend in order to conform to society's expectations.

The central event in the film is the a murder committed by Meursault. Due to his friend's indiscretion with a young woman Meursault is drawn into a fight with that woman's brother and some other men. One of the men has a knife and Meursault's friend produces a gun: fearing a hasty murder he takes the gun away from the man and sticks it into his pocket. Later, by chance, he runs into the knife wielding man again: he thinks he sees the knife (its ambiguous whether it's actually there or just some other object that reflects the sun) and shoots the man several times.

At his trial Meursault once again refuses to conform to expectations: he doesn't care what the judge or jury thinks of him. The trial is utterly absurd; more is said about his lack of emotion at his mother's funeral than his actual crime. Essentially, he is on trial for being a noncomformist.

In prison we see that he doesn't regret what he's done though he may regret the absurd world he lives in. In fact he gets most emotional when he runs across his opposite: a man who is so caught up in conformity that he is little more than a shadow of a man. That man is of course a priest and it's obvious that the story is meant to show contempt for this non thinker. The utter absurdity of a man who shuns logic preaching to a logical man is almost too much for both of them but it's the priest who must retreat from the cell.

The Stranger successfully portrays the difficulty a logical, self aware man has living in an absurd conformist society thus encapsulating Camus' Existentialist philosophy.

Visconti's film is a bit hard to separate from the source; the film has some brilliant ideas but they're just copied over. Still, I think even copying these ideas successfully into a new medium is pretty impressive. The film also does a really excellent job with lighting. Someone could surely write a nice essay about the lighting in this film but I won't bore you further with an attempt to do so, I know this is a bit long. Still, this was my first Visconti and I was pretty impressed. I find it a bit inexplicable that many people dislike this and don't think it expresses the novel's ideas very well.