A MONOLOGUEconcerning the declining situation in europe with regard to its lost life-world of smog, smoke and otherwise cool-industrialityxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Looking in the mir oire is not the EXISTENTIAL point on the bourgeoisie thaet he thinks it WAS at the time when PARIS was so loveable I CANNOT BELIEVE some douche!like ROHMER!and his credibility on COOL(i.e.,"take the photos if you like them") is not whaet it appears on the SURFACE to actually mask.

That is to state it clearly thaet he is a BUSINESS CLASS person gettingINTO a whole PLETHORA of cool-shit?NO:people on account of his SERIOUS MOVIE-MAKING abilities(which not only requiresWORKING-with-OTHERS;But, also, working-together with REGARD to what is cool which DOES allow a person meets a bunch of cool strangers to FACTOR their ideas into the movie-screen. The correct interpretation of this slight scene outside getting into the only legit cool-car on thaet street is a GO-along strategic play on people's mentality at thaet time and THAET IS A TRULY french insight(i.e., that they are UP!for something/or:up-toNOgood at all, AS. an .academic.). It is a placate to please situation thaet the BOURGEOISE was in at thaet time.

SO: how to make sense then, of what the film DEPICTS? The streets are FULL of super-fuckin' SWANK ladies no doubt; full-of bustle; and, the coolest of all:haphazard traffic and SMOG. The place oozes with the sultry of whaet made european LIFE WHAT IT NO LONGER IS any more almost anywhere on earth BARRING sarajevo and a few small enclaves of locations around the globe almost not-even anylonger, BUENOES AIRES? YEAH, it is also getting the 'GREEN TREATMENT'. And the lib-tard STANDARD? WHat else could it possibly get.

In any case: the streets are full and the opportunity for the MARRIED MAN(or, more generally for MAN itself) is everywhere presenting OPPORTUNITIES for betrayal of whatever it is thaet structures the world in which these people are all living(which is a worka-day life? A working-class LIVING STANDARD that smacks of the intellectual CONTRIBUTIONS of a group of philosophy people in thaet country(france)?NOPE: that simultaneously telegraphs the 1990s clinging-to-this-feeling(it is there, in the '90s, strangely enough but not too much when you think it's only 20-years on. these shopping-malls, essentially, are this time-period just the same;) and also casual connection to the BELLE epoque, thaet preceded industrialization(i.e. the table caraffe. juxtaposed with a sensible manifestation of private-enterprise in the ashtrays) which is also whaet thaet workin-life STANDArDis all about(and it DOES communicate the finalization of it as LIBERALLY meaningless(i.e. the mirror-doors of the COURT? please, I doubt a real knowledge of the law was preserved much or even with these people themselves already preparing simple cut-and-paste DOSSIERS.), although the behavior of the secretaries in it still do seem more AMERICAN thaen otherwise in their casual freedom-decisionMAKING(as opposed to Rohmer's later films where they are all RATIONALIZATIONATED) ). And so, what about the central premise thaet the missing ingredient in all of the problems facing the BOURgeois-person are attributable to their UN-up-for-anything business?

Well, on thaet count, Rohmer has what one can only describe as a mutt, for us to contemplate as if it were ITSELF:the total perversity of cheating on your married-life situation-and-what-it-would-be-in-the-person-led-you-astray(i.e., IT IS THE MUTT thaet in the END you went to far with cause she is JUST A MUTT(which nobody needs to realize in this thing, the only thing they do realize is thaet, fair-enough, the MUTT HAS THIS ONE LITTLE SOMETHING.): and thaet "one little something"? THE DERILICTION of standards themselves(smoking like trash; "i like to suck dick on the subway" essentially); and, yet, in her libertine attitude is something a person seems to CLAMOUR FOR itself as a way to get through to a more realistic version of life(that she apparently has with all her friends and people she meets in bars and WITH THE PROTAGONIST in the film, now.). WHICH, in actual, philosophical terms(and ROHMER DOES make a seriously CONSIDERED appraisal of this problem when he says "yeah, but I DON't LIVE in thaet society of polygamy, but this one, and in this one, it is just a bit too dishonest.") WHICH IS: the transgressive NORM of libertarian-society that can only manifest itself in a denser urban CONGLOMERATION(where nobody needs to settle-down, choose a mate, work-it-out etc and life can just flux between people a provisionality! that itselfis the target of ROHMER HIMSELF, although not the woman he is married to(because she is a trad hooker, with barely a consciousness really::::because she IS willing to pretend to trade on the vacuity of their suburban-diasporizatedLIFE, as if it really means something other thaen her own lurking desire to BETRAY THIS MOTHER FUCKER made her WELL-and-TRULY *aware he had something else going on, which is only whaet a truly insightfulEXPERIENED knowledge of these types of EUROPEAN-people can pontificate about as if you need only trust what is written here but in reality we all know it is what the truth of the bourgeoise, actually, is all about.)