Claude Chabrol.

Rohmer and Chabrol in the same year, 53 years after their pioneering book on Hitchcock.... RIP both!...

I just registered this news!
He couldnt go on forever of course, and I personally found the last two (at least) films extremely irritating and phoned in, as though channelled by the family.

But there were always late shocks like Ceremonie, to jolt you back into his universe, masterfully expressed. Of course he was, very much like Rohmer, a trieless worker. We're just so lucky to have ever had him.

Ellipsis, don't you fell terribly old, again? I sure do. (And am.)

Yes, David, it's all very sobering, reminder of our mortality etc.... JLG avec Oscar last man standing!...

Sad news.

I'm very surprised. It did seem like he could go on for many years to come.
Very sad.
Cinema is changing.

Don't forget Rivette.

God, how awful... a consistently wonderful director and author. Many of his films are bonafide masterworks, and he's been an influence to so many people in cinema.

Truly RIP.

That is immensely saddening news to hear. I've only seen a fraction of his output but love those films I've had the opportunity to catch. Wouldn't it be a wonderful tribute if in the wake of Chabrol's death Criterion would finally put together releases of his harder-to-obtain films...

RIP.

The world is a lesser place now that Chabrol can no longer contribute new films. Horrible, devastating news-- I thought he could keep going for another ten years

Quite terrible news -- my stomach twisted when I finally realized the "-2010" in the thread title. I agree that the rate with which he was developing new projects suggested he'd be going at least until 2020.

This is devastating, another nouvelle vague director gone. I always got the feeling he'd be around as long as de Oliveira.

Some English-language obits:

AP via NPR
The Guardian

I went through a Chabrol binge this summer and caught up on a fair amount of his rarer films such as Dr Popeul and The Breach. He was prolific and many of these films were quite bad on first glimpse, but he had a terrific, dark sense of humor that none of the other new wavers had. Godard comes closest with his puns, but Chabrol was really the funny one.

I'm always really interested in what the final shot in a directors career is (the two dancing boys in Salo, the young girl selling her virginity in Street of Shame, for example). Can anyone here remember the final shot of Bellamy?

A wonderful filmmaker and a great loss. Some of his films might have been bizarre or even outright failures but I can't imagine many other directors who would have so readily been prepared to commit to the ' throwing yourself in at the deep end' opportunities to work with Orson Welles or Anthony Perkins, or in Canada, and in so many genres (political thrillers, historical dramas, barbed comedies, relationship films, sci-fi neo-noirs, along with the murder mysteries) with such diverse ranges of source material, and made the most out of all these different kinds of opportunities. He also felt far more attuned to the contemporary times throughout his career, for better and worse, than any of the other new wavers, at least after Godard's departure in the late 60s.

I find something like Dr M, Nada or Masques as wonderfully fascinating, if more (enjoyably) uneven, as anything from the classic Stéphane Audran or Isabelle Huppert periods. He might lament in that Guardian piece that he didn't resolve his body of work, but that's also part of what gives Chabrol's films their unique charm as I get to see more of them.

I'm curious: what did he film in Canada?

How sad for us there won't be a new Claude Chabrol film every year. He was a refined and sophisticated storyteller who always appealed to the intelligence of his audience. Once you become attuned to Chabrol's style, his films are emotionally gripping. I've made quite a study of his work over the years. I have all the available DVD's. I wish the transfers were better quality on most of them. I find it interesting that his career started with, and was sustained by, private money. He got to make the films he wanted in the way he wanted because there was no committee telling him what to do or judging the value of him. If Chabrol had been dependent on the Horowitz organization in Beverly Hills, for example, he would never have had a career in the first place.


Richard

Jean Renoir was the same (or very similar), as I recall- he funded his first films by selling his dad's paintings, but he always kept the empty frame to remind him of what he'd sacrificed for his career.