Double bill of dread: Wages of Fear & Diabolique
Two thrillers directed by Clouzot, two opposite theories of dread: in one the threat is a bad road, in the other it's the person across the breakfast table.
The director Henri-Georges Clouzot made two of the great suspense films two years apart, and it's remarkable how little they appear to have in common.
The Wages of Fear (1953) is vast: four desperate men, two trucks of nitroglycerine, a mountain road in the South American heat. Diabolique (1955) is small enough to fit in a provincial boarding school and, eventually, a bathtub.
One is sun and dust and open sky; the other is dank corridors and a drained swimming pool. Watch them back to back and what you're really seeing is one director proving his range.
But there is a theme shared between them. It's duress. Clouzot liked to put his characters under extreme pressure and watch them buckle from the strain. Moreover, he structured each film so that they'd walked into the trap themselves.
You volunteered, the films say. You agreed. Now let's see what happens.
A warning before we start: here be spoilers. Both films turn on endings worth protecting, and this piece gives them away. If you haven't seen them, go watch them first and then come back.
The long lull, then the road
The first half of The Wages of Fear is almost languid. Heat, boredom, men stranded by poverty in a flyblown village. They're too broke to leave and too desperate to refuse the one job on offer.
But the job is suicidal: drive nitroglycerine over a road that will detonate it at the first hard jolt. The wages are hardly worth dying for. Clouzot spends an hour establishing how little choice they have before a single wheel turns.
And then the wheels do turn, and the film becomes one of the most punishing exercises in tension ever assembled. The danger has no malice in it. It could take the form of a rut, a rotten plank, a hairpin taken too fast. Physics is the enemy.
That's what makes it so unbearable: there's no one to outwit, nothing to negotiate with, only the road and the cargo and the slow discovery of who cracks first.
Some of the characters crumble physically, some mentally, and the power dynamics which are so carefully drawn in that languid first half — who's tough, who's a coward, who's in charge — get inverted entirely by the final reel.
The ending is the masterstroke. Mario, the last man alive, delivers the cargo, survives the unsurvivable, collects double pay, and drives home euphoric. But then, giddy from the release of tension, he loses control on an easy stretch of road and dies, all while the woman waiting for him at home dances in anticipation of his return.
Even though Mario passed the test, Clouzot killed him anyway. That's the tell: the endurance was never going to be rewarded. The film only let you believe survival was on the table, so that snatching it away would land even harder.
The small lull, then the bathtub
Diabolique runs the same trick at the opposite scale. Where Wages lulls you with heat and waiting, this one lulls you with domestic dread — a headmaster's wife and his mistress conspiring to murder him.
It's a plot that seems, for a while, to be working. Until the body of the victim disappears.
The setting shrinks to rooms: a school after dark, a corridor, a bathroom. The threat here is looming. There's a slow, sickening sense that the plan has been turned inside out and our characters are trapped inside someone else's plot.
Just before the film's famous ending there's a frightening stretch that carefully builds: co-conspirator Christina moving through the empty school in her nightgown, not quite sure what is happening to her, the dread accumulating in the silence.
And then the denouement arrives and Clouzot does what he does best: he pulls the rug so hard it could allegedly stop a weakened heart.
But there's also a moral rug pull underpinning the cinematic one. Christina is a victim; she's been manipulated, lied to, then frightened half to death. But she also agreed to a murder. She intended to kill. So is she innocent?
The director won't tell you. He gives you someone to pity and then quietly reminds you what she consented to, and leaves you to sit with both.
That refusal to paint in shades of black and white comes from the same director that, in Wages, won't let the survivor survive. Clouzot doesn't believe in innocence, and he won't pretend to for the comfort of his audience.
Clouzot's terrible muse
There's another thread that ties the two films together, and her name is Véra Clouzot. She plays Linda, the sole woman in Wages — a role her husband wrote into the film specifically for her, since she doesn't exist in the novel — and Christina, the doomed wife in Diabolique.
The director married her in 1950, directed her in every film she ever made, and named his production company after her.
In both of these films he puts her on screen to be terrorised: dancing and then fainting as her lover dies, or constricting in pure terror before crumpling to the floor. Her performance in Diabolique is extraordinary precisely because her fear is so physical — you watch it move through her body.
It gives "muse" a darker edge than usual. Véra was the person he reached for whenever he needed someone to suffer beautifully on camera. She was the recurring face he put under the screw, film after film.
Why you should watch both
A practical note: this is a lot of dread for one evening.
Two Clouzot films back to back can collapse into a single grey mood instead of two distinct experiences, so there's no shame in splitting them across consecutive nights, or a week apart. The contrast lands harder with a little air between them. But do watch both, and watch them as a pair, because the pairing makes an argument that neither film makes alone.
Most directors find one way to frighten you and spend a career refining it. Clouzot frightens you with an empty road and with a crowded conspiracy, at the scale of a mountain range and the scale of a bathroom, and does it by the identical method each time: lull you into believing someone might endure, then break them, then refuse you the comfort of thinking they deserved better or worse than they got.
We tend to file dread under the films of Alfred Hitchcock by reflex. Clouzot was working the same territory at the same time, and on the evidence of these two films, the reflex is too narrow. Watch them and see if you don't come away thinking the same.
