Enclaves, exclaves, counter-exclaves… Lost yet?

Trivia of the week. Amaze you friends. Bore your family. Drone on and on.  See below. 

When is an international border not a border at all? There are enclaves, oh hum, yes, we all know that. But do we all know about exclaves, yes, and counter-exclaves.  Fascinating, yes?  

Belgium and the Netherlands were once a single entity called the Spanish Netherlands. Within that unity there were all sorts of medieval fiefdoms compounded by political matrimony and varied laws of inheritance, Papal territories, duchies, principalities, free cities, much of it tracing back to Charlemagne. Spanish hegemony had left all those pieces alone to concentrate on collecting taxes and flanking the French. In the centuries the lords and ladies had swapped acres here and there, bought and sold some, left others as inheritances, and traded land back and forth in their domains. Then in a long series of conflicts the Spanish left and later at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 Belgium and the Netherlands divided into two distinct, sovereign nations – one a monarchy and one a republic – with an international border between them.  Almost….

In 1815 not all of the rival claims to territory could be resolved and the great powers of the day, having divided the two, had no interest in such fine details in a couple of brand-new minor countries and left them dangling. Despite repeated efforts since then, a few of them continue to dangle to this day. Read on for enlightenment.

Baarle-Nassau is an incorporated municipality in the southern Netherlands near the border with Belgium, but NOT on the border.  It is about sixteen (16) kilometres from the border.  Yet some of it is in Belgium, yet it is wholly within the Netherlands and yet I repeat: some of it is ‘of’ though not ‘in’ Belgium. Sit down and take a deep breath. 

+ marks the border

Quiet in the back! It has nothing to do with diplomatic territory. There is no embassy in this hicksville. 

Based on medieval practice, royal decree, rule of law, sanctified by the Roman Catholic Church, there were numerous exclaves (look it up as above) of a Belgian municipality called Baarle-Hertog within Baarle-Nassau. For the purposes of this exposition from now on let us refer to the Dutch community as Nassau and the Belgian one as Hertog. Make a note of that for the final examination. The fraternity brothers will want to copy that later when they recover from Saturday’s hangover before starting on Sunday’s after chapel. 

With a similar basis in ancient ritual, church law, taxation, and inheritance Hertog in its turn contains within its constituents counter-exclaves of Nassau.  While there are several maps that show this situation, none that I found make it especially clear. But I have included the best of the ones I found.  

There are 22 separate Belgian exclaves in Nassau, some consist of a single residence, others are grassland, or one side of a street of shops. Within these 22 Belgian exclaves there are in turn 7 separate Dutch counter-exclaves, each within a Belgian exclave. Following so far?  If not go back to the beginning and move your finger along the text very slowly. The border of these claves, en-, ex-, and counter-ex, run through buildings, between houses on the same side of street, and along the loading dock of a wine shop, and so on. In one frequently mentioned case the border bisects the front door of a private home, which accordingly has two street numbers, one on each side, 7 for Dutch and 22 for Belgian.  

The total population of the two mingled communities is about 12,000, and these days its main source income is tourism as people come there to see the oddities. Selfies abound. A zig-zag international border runs down the main street so that two shops side-by-side are in different countries, complying with different tax laws, labor legislation, opening hours, social laws that define pornography, and so on.  

The town has one bank and the border runs through it! Business is shifted from one side of the border inside the bank to the other as required.  And, yes, before the Euro all the commerce took place in two currencies, Belgian Francs and Dutch Guilders. Daylight saving times also differed. For the literal minded that meant it could be 7:00 am in the bedroom and 8:00 am in the kitchen.  

A stamped letter to a Dutch address 20 meters down the street mailed in a Hertog letterbox goes to Brussels to be sorted, then to Amsterdam, and then back to Nassau in a week. In contrast the Dutch postal system is not centralised and a letter from Nassau to a Hertog address with a Dutch stamp put in a Dutch letter box is sorted locally and delivered that day to the Belgian postoffice which then delivers it to the door.  

Albeit a jigsaw puzzle, surface jurisdiction is clear, but underground is another matter.  If a new apartment building is put in a Dutch counter-exclave within a Belgian exclave, the apartment building will produce more sewage, must the Belgians in the surrounding exclave pay for the pipes to be upgraded too carry it?  And if they do, then the pipes must meet Dutch standards at both ends to integrate from the apartment house to the surrounding Nassau.  And so on. The same would apply to an apartment block built in a Belgian exclave.  

As to standards, the Dutch have strict zoning laws that lead to architectural uniformity, whereas the Belgians have no such scruples. One street will be Dutch uniform up to the border and then the houses will be ranch style next to terrace next to mock Tudor and so on. Then there is the state religion in Belgian but not so in the Netherlands. That effects church bells, church levies, Sunday opening laws, film censorship, and charity laws. 

If a builder’s project straddles a boundary, then the building must satisfy two sets of building codes, labour laws, taxation…  The result is that builders try to avoid that.  The wine shop mentioned above is a case in point. The building is regulated by Nassau while loading dock comes under Hertog.  In the case the bank both sets of regulations apply since the border bisects the bank rather than dividing into front and back.  And you thought a development application for the local council was a pain.    

There have been two mayors, two high schools, two of everything in this small town. 

By convention, the location of the front door of a house, shop, building determines its nationality (and hence exposure to property tax, access to services, etc). If the front door is in a Belgian exclave though bulk of the house behind it is in the Netherlands, the whole property is treated as Belgian. Some property owners have arranged the front door(s) to be flexible so that it can shifted from one side to the other when taxes change. 

During recent COVID lockdowns the Belgian and Dutch governments made slightly different rules, and they were dutifully reflected within the borders of Hertog and of Nassau.  A Dutch restaurant was closed but the Belgian one next door remained open.  

To deal with all the anomalies, at town hall they do a lot of talking at a conference table with the border drawn down the middle. But in what language do they talk, a question that became in whose language do they talk?  Though local Belgians are Flemish and speak that language, the officials representing them have long insisted on speaking French. That insistence on French is partly a retaliation against the Dutch snobbery about Flemish as a dialect (of Dutch) that they cannot understand, so crude is it.  After a time, the two sides settled on negotiating in English. 

The European Union has avoided this problem, leaving it to the locals. Evidently they have found a way to deal with the blind-eyes of the central governments.  

One wonders about the role those exclaves played in World War I when Belgian was conquered by Germany while the Netherlands remained neutral. When both countries were occupied in World War II, it unlikely that the Occupier paid any attention to these niceties, but…  Well, maybe. And as soon as the uniformity imposed by the Occupier was removed, no doubt both parties reverted to their old ways. (I had long been convinced by the argument of the [Louis] Brandeis Brief that if people’s behaviour was changed by law, over generations their thinking would change. The laboratory of Yugoslavia demolished that belief where the old ways emerged.) And today one might wonder how policing occurs in this divided jurisdiction.

On the lighter side, a sit-com set in this burg would have endless possibilities for canned laughter from one side or the other.  

Homework starts with the entry in Wikipedia. Then try B. R. Whyte,  ‘En territories belge et à quarantie centimètres de la frontière (2004),’ a study of the Belgian and Dutch enclaves of Baarle-Hertog and Baarle-Nassau.  

There are many videos on You Tube but the most informative is Stefan’s from History Hustle. Search for ‘The world’s Strangest Borders between Belgium and the Netherlands: Baarle-Hertog and Baarle-Nassau.’ 

P.S. There are many other oddities, I since discovered in Central Asia among the one-time Soviet republics and in the Gulf of Persia between Oman and the United Arab Emirates.  You have been warned!  Maritime boundaries are even more vexed. 

A Three Dog Problem (2021) by S. J. Bennett

GoodReads metadata is pages 288 rated 4.23 by 48 litizens.  

Genre: Krimi.

Verdict: Deft.  

A very disagreeable housekeeper trips over a whiskey bottle and dies.  Good riddance and all that.  The tabloid press goes even more bonkers than usual.  In distant Sydney the sanctimonious tones of the ABC are sounded since this housekeeper once talked to a Strine. It’s world news because the house the victim kept was Buckingham Palace and her employer is one Mrs Elizabeth Mountbatten née Windsor, Queen of all the Englands, and more.  

All those Buck House officials lift the carpet to sweep the housekeeper (deceased) under it on the way to their knighthoods.  Trouble is someone is standing on the carpet. Indeed, it is Her Self the Majesty who would like to know just how one trips over a whiskey bottle in a place where one has no business and one is not a drinker of spirits, and one is roundly disliked by so many.  What really did happen?  Of course, this one cannot be so direct. Circumspection is thy name, Queenie. 

And while she is about it, HM would also like to know how a painting given to her personally many years ago by an obscure Tasmania artist went from her bedroom wall to a Royal Navy wardroom. Drinking tea there after cutting yet another ribbon (must 50 this year already!) when she noticed it.  Too polite too inquire then and there, she went back home to check. Sure enough, not where it used to be.  So hard to keep track of one’s 7,000+ paintings.  

Do these two mysteries intertwine, the errant painting and the corpsed keeper? All those prim and proper (blinkered) officials in Buck House will never notice. Still something is not quite right about either the wandering painting or terminated housekeeper. No, this is a job for someone who cannot say ‘no,’ the junior Assistant Private Secretary (APS), late of the Royal Horse Artillery, gets the assignment. The instruction are ‘Find the route that painting took from the royal bedroom to the naval wardroom, and find out who put the whiskey bottle there to fall over (if that is what happened). And do so with such deft discretion that no one knows you have done it. Should keep you busy a day on two on top of all your other duties.’   

QEII cannot do anything herself since she is scheduled twenty-four hours a day and under scrutiny from staff every one of those hours. Any deviation would be an earthquake. The portrayals of royal life are many and fascinating in these pages. The gravities on Her Britannic Majesty exceed those borne by most astronauts. The pecking order among the Buckingham Palace staff is positively Byzantine with invisible lines of demarcation guarded day-and-night by fanatics. The buck-passing and blame-shifting are constant. Is this is the incubus of McKinsey management.  

The Palace officials (all stiff upper-lipped chaps) seem relieved that the obnoxious housekeeper is no more, and are happy to move on with no further unpleasantness. That is in the great tradition of McKinsey Management, blame the victim. Absent fuel, the tabloids find something else to lie about. Check Pox News or the Moloch Press for the latest in fiction. The chaps have even less interest in an odd painting of no market value that does not belong to the nation but to Elizabeth Mountbatten. No, to achieve satisfaction, HM will have to see to it herself, but – of course – she cannot be seen to be seeing to it. Good thing she has had years of practice of not being seen to be seeing to things, and getting them done. They call it reigning rather than ruling.

That there seems to be a systematic and extensive campaign of stalking and harassing women employed in Buck House soon becomes apparent to everyone except those stiff-lipped chaps who run the place. Even the none-too-perceptive police officer who had a look at the house keeper’s cadaver grasps that and says so, but the chaps don’t hear what they do not want to know. What happens under the carpet, stays under the carpet, that seems to be their mantra. Once under the carpet, everything is under control.   

S J Bennett

This is the second in this series I have read and lapped up. Though I admit there is far too much padding with descriptions of clothes, furnishings, and food. When that description is in Buck House it is part of the atmosphere but it carries on as the APS goes out and about and it does go on. And on. Every where she goes, we get the full-IKEA, full-Elle, and full-Gourmet accounts. Treacle.

While whingeing I add that I found the plot tangled beyond my comprehension. Still I enjoyed the ride and the insight into the life of Buckingham Palace. HM’s affection for the valueless painting is explained in a charming aside. The title, by the way, refers to the appropriate number of dogs to take on a walk if one wants to think through a problem. Fewer than three and they expect to be entertained by ball throwing; more than three and one spends the whole time minding them.  Three is just right: Enough to entertain themselves but not so many as to distract one from cogitation. This is just one of the many charming nostrums to be found in the book.  

Maigret and the Coroner (1949) by Georges Simenon.  

Maigret and the Coroner (1949) by Georges Simenon.  

GoodReads metadata is 176 pages, rated 3.61 by 544 litizens.  

Genus: krimi; species Maigret.

Verdict: Fresh though #32 in the series.

While on a busman’s holiday travelling the United States to observe policing, Detective Chief Inspector Maigret finds himself in Tucson (Arizona). Wherever he has gone on this study tour a local law enforcement officer has been assigned to squire him around. While each officer does the duty, none particularly wants to be a tour guide, nor did Maigret himself welcome that task when Inspector Pike from Scotland Yard came calling. Sympathising with his host(s), he tries to be agreeable.  

In Tucson the FBI agent who picks him from the train station soon parks him in a coroner’s court to observe the American way, while the agent goes back to work. In his European suit and necktie with pipe Maigret is one conspicuous fish out of water. As he watches and listens, he finds it difficult not to interrupt with his own questions.  He knows enough English to follow the testimony but, well, he probably could not formulate his questions properly anyway.  

The first half or more of the book is the parade of witnesses giving contradictory statements related to the night Bessie Mitchell died, mangled by a railway train out in the desert. Was her death suicide, accident, manslaughter, or murder? That is the question.

The inquest continues and Maigret is soon hooked, and that pleases his host.  At night in his hotel room Maigret writes summaries of the day’s testimony for review, a task usually left to Lucas back in the office on the Île de la cité.  Even so there remain questions that have not yet been asked.  

Maigret observes the natives with an anthropological eye: they are clean, polite, addicted to Coca Cola, and there is the racial variety of white, black, red, and yellow among the jurors, witnesses, and audience. He is also painfully aware that others are observing him, too. But he simply cannot appear in a courtroom without a necktie and coat!  Despite the 45C temperature which has killed the AC. (At least he is not wearing the sweater Madame Maigret insisted he take.)

Five young air force men were with Bessie at one time or another during the night she died, and they are much in evidence with their shaved heads and stiff posture. Maigret is surprised that the inquiry does not focus directly on them, but every now and then he senses an underlying pattern in the interrogations that reassures him that there is purpose within the apparently haphazard proceedings. 

His efforts to strike up conversations during recesses with others in the audience do not take, and he mutters to himself. The usual masterful Maigret is treading water.  

The end is ambiguous and this reader felt that a number of the threads, like the dented car, were not resolved. Yet the trip was so much fun for being different that there are no complaints.   

Simenon spent months in Arizona where he lived in a rented house and typed his Maigret stories more than once. Perhaps while there in residence he did attend a coroner’s court.  It is certainly a change of pace for both Maigret (and Simenon) to observe, comment on, and participate in American life.  

Maigret’s World (2017) by Murielle Wenger and Stephen Trusell.

Maigret’s World (2017) by Murielle Wenger and Stephen Trusell.

Good Reads meta-data is 245 pages rated 2.83 by 6.  

Genre: Manual.

Verdict: Frequent Readers of Maigret only.

Georges Simenon (1903-1989) wrote 75 novels and 28 short stories featuring Maigret from the first in 1929 to the last in 1972. At the height of his powers, he published six novels and more stories in a year. Whew! The Maigrets were not his only fiction. He also wrote what he called romans durs, numbering more than a dozen along with scores of short stories. Double whew! But wait there is more!  He also published more than a score of other novels under several pseudonyms. That brings the total of novels to a 100+!  Is there is such a thing as ‘Triple whew!’ Then there are the volumes of an autobiography! Wikipedia suggests that 500 publications bear his name. (I have read a couple of the romans durs and they are memorable but that is for another time. Suffice it to say that these are his ‘hard’ [in the sense of durable] novels. We might say ‘serious novels.’ Or in the language of bookstores these days ‘literary fiction.’)  

Readers of Maigret often comment on the atmosphere Simenon creates in each story, usually but not always set in a Paris enclave. Indeed it is the central motif of the Maigret stories that he enters a (nearly) closed world and gradually learns to navigate it so as to understand the attitudes and motivations of its inhabitants. He comes to discern first the wind waves on the surface of the locale, the tides, and then the underlying reefs and shoals and later the wreckage now submerged, to extend the metaphor. That microcosm may be a stable at the Longchamps race course, a dilapidated mansion in Ivry, a nightclub in Pigalle, a flotilla of canal boats plying the River Seine, an automobile factory shop floor in Belleville, a brothel in Montmarte, a private clinic near hôpital Val de Grace, a cul de sac like Rue Mouffetard (where I stayed once up a time), a student boarding house at Montsouris, a luxurious apartment in St Germain, and so on. Each time Simenon stamps the reader’s visa for this world.  

He draws these places with such economy that most of the novels run to 150 pages in a Penguin edition. The style is impressionistic not descriptive. Often the reader has no reason to know what a character is wearing, eating, sitting on, or even looks like. Those Ikea, Elle, and Gourmet details that deaden while inflating so many krimis are often absent. It is true that sometimes he does describe a character and place in these terms to reveal character and situation. It is not done mechanically but rather as an organic part of Maigret’s immersion into the cast, costume, and the play that is performed in that milieu. The handbag Louise Laboine carried was carefully described and later that proved decisive. A reader learns to trust Simenon. If he describes something, it will prove to be relevant to the story, not a mere ornament to fill pages.  

Liège

In each case the novels are deeply rooted in the geography and culture of France. The aroma of aioli is in the air. That is Piaf on the radio in the background. Cloudy Pernod is the drink. 

Yet after his early successes Simenon wrote nearly all of his novels abroad. A few were written just over the Jura mountains in Switzerland, but a great many (scores) of these very French novels were written either in Vermont or Arizona in the United States. In each state he hired a cabin and set up a typewriter. Snowed-in among the White Mountains in Vermont, or sun-struck in the Sonora scrub of Arizona, he evoked the streets of a rainy Paris, a bone chilling winter near the Ardenne forest, a seedy bar in Montmartre, a dentist’s immaculate mansion in Neuilly, a flop house in Pigalle, a respectable bourgeoisie home on the banks of the Marne, or a small hotel for commercial travellers in the banlieues…   

Reminded of his preference for visiting the States puts me in mind of another Yankeephile, Jean-Pierre Melville, the film director, who likewise had an affection for the USA.  I wonder if Melville ever filmed any Maigret story. Certainly the stories have been filmed by some of the greats in French cinema, Jean Renoir, Julien Duvivier, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Marcel Carné, Bernard Tavernier, Henri Verneuil, and – yes – Jean-Pierre Melville. 

Everything from the size of Maigret’s shoes to the colour of his neckties and preferred pipe tobacco is to be found in this catalogue raisonné of les chose de Maigret. What a spreadsheet of facts these two über-nerds have compiled from the Maigret oeuvre. After objects they move onto Madame Maigret, including her wardrobe, and his only friend, Dr Pardon. Then onto the Quai des Orfevres where we meet the quatre fidèle: Lucas, Janiver, LaPointe, and Torrence.  Maigret’s relationship with each is discussed, particularly through the use of tutoiment. Yet the more such fine distinctions are magnified, the more they blur. Voilà, Simenon was not consistent throughout the oeuvre. He did not work from a spreadsheet it seems. 

While Simenon and Maigret have been subjected to much examination, this volume is not a commentary on the stories, but a catalogue of details.  For the some of the scholarship try the Centre d’ètudes Georges Simenon at the Université de Liège.  

In the Maigret oeuvre English characters occur now and again, and I am sure some PhD has been devoted to dissecting them, but I cannot locate it right now.  Among the English (speakers) I count Inspector Pike who visited Quai des Orfevres, the deceased Mister Brown, the vanishing Monsieur Owens, the seldom sober Sir Walter Lampson on the canal boat, the likeable rouge James in the two-sous bar, the wastrel Oswald Cark, the elusive Colonel Ward, the mental Miss Simpson, and, well, there are probably others.  

Madame Quatre et ses enfants (1991) 

IMDb meta-data is 1 hour and 31 minutes of runtime, rated 7.6 by 78 cinematizens.  

Genre: Krimi, sub-species: Maigret.

Verdict: Different. 

Set-up:  Maigret is about to go on vacation with his colleague Inspector Vaimber and the latter’s brood, when an odd inquiry arrives.  To handle it, Vaimber will have to put off his departure, disappointing his wife and numerous children. Knowing that Madame Maigret was not that keen on a fishing holiday, Maigret volunteers to look into the matter so that Vaimber can continue with his clan.  

Thus, Maigret meets the enigmatic Madame Quatre, so called for the room number of her hideout in a boarding house.  Her two tweenage boys are a brat pack of the first rank. She has fled the family home with them after seeing – she claims – the corpse of woman on the floor of the conservatory late one night while her very, very handsome husband was digging in the garden.  

What follows is more Hitchcock than the usual Maigret.  First and foremost is the ambiguity of Madame Quatre, played with screen-cracking intensity by Marianne Basler. Did she see what she said that she saw?  Is she perhaps the villain, shifting the blame on to her husband, who now has himself vanished?  Has he become her victim?  Is she the villain?  Slowly the mystery peels away.  

Marianne Basler

To find out, stretching credulity, Maigret goes undercover taking a room at the boarding house.  The atmosphere and inhabitants of the house conjure that the Henri-Georges Clouzet classic L’assassin habit au 21 (1942). Ensconced Maigret observes Madame Quatre unobtrusively (as if this bear of a man could be anything but obtrusive).  

Maigret is outside his milieu and on his own to protect her and the children while ascertaining the truth of the matter. As he follows her narrative it seems ever more credible despite the lack of tangible evidence, but then he draws back, is he succumbing to a folie à deux?  Has he become infected by her psychosis?  She is so very convincing because she is so very convinced herself but is that enough? To gain some distance he brings another, younger officer into the house and this latter’s questions snap Maigret out of his trance. In this story he is even more passive than usual.  

For three-quarters of the film, we just don’t know whom to believe and neither does he. Both the body count and the tension rises. Nor are we quite sure whether there will be another victim, or who it might be, until ….  The villain emerges from the fish tank.  Well, sort of.  

The direction by Phillippe Berenger is excellent. Even the staircase contributes to the plot when the ankle bracelet is spotted. The screenplay is twisted but sustains interest, and the obvious turns out to be true all along. The number “4” is crucial in a way.  If it had been done by Claude Chabrol the cinemaistas would be shouting it from the rooftops.  

I cannot identify the title of the original Simenon work (short story or novel). Maigret Takes a Room is not it.  

Dominique Roulet is credited with writing dialogue whose work from other films is excellent.  I wonder if this was an original story?  She did the adaptation of eight of the films in this Maigret series. The screen credit is ambiguous in the attribution about whether it is an adaptation or an original.   

P.S.

I have watched several others upon which I may comment later.  I have been watching one each evening when the Plex server performs as advertised. Have given up watching the TF2 news for a while as a relief from the daily dose of murder and mayhem, preferring to get my French lesson filtered through these films for a while. So as not to forget these others include: 

Maigret et la vente à bougie (1995) – the cat deals with two mice when the candle goes out.  

Maigret en Finlande (1996) – more images of watery Helsinki.  Why the pipe smoker has a cigar at one point while staring definitely at Maigret is lost on this viewer.   

Un Meutre de première classe (1999)  – didn’t make use of train. The noisey consul disappears without explanation as above suspicion. The closed world of the railway carriage is dissipated in both screenplay and direction. Tant pis.

Maigret dans un jardin potager (1999)  – intense but cryptic. Superb acting from the two warring sisters and for once a uniformed officer gets some dialogue.    

Maigret chez les riches (2000) – credibility snapped. How murder saves the family name is lost of most viewers.  

Maigret et la croquese de diaments (2001) with the great Michael Lonsdale as a red herring. Set in a canal lock near Belgian border but makes little use of it.  Strangely enough the credits cite Lonsdale as Michaël with an umlaut that his name did not have. And, yes, he is ‘Michael’ and not ‘Michel.’  He appeared in an earlier episode which I watched out of order, and in the credits for that one, his name was correctly rendered.  

Maigret et le marchand de vin (2002) – skips basic police procedure, does not question the maid, and accepts that no one recognises or thinks to mention the fired accountant. Contrast to others beating witnesses, his approach is softly, softly.  

Maigret et la princess (2002) – Maigret at his best as detective and as a person.  From the novel Maigret et les vieillards (1960), which title more accurately reflects the story. Slowly he comes to realise what motivates the occupants of the mansion. It was all so obvious that he did not notice it at first.   

Maigret et la demoiselle de compagnie (2004)  – from the short story La Vieille dame de Bayeux, in which a cardboard judge obstructs Maigret and then does a volte face to stay within running time. The sleazy villain is played perfectly.  

Maigret and the Affair at Saint-Fiacre (1995)

IMDb meta-data: runtime of 1 hour and 24 minutes, rated 7.1 by 91 cinematizens. 

Genre:  Krimi, Maigret

Verdict: Superb.   

Maigretistas will instantly recognise Saint-Fiarce as the tiny village where Maigret was born and raised. In the film he is accompanied by his wife, Louise, who has a thing or two to say to him as the plot unfolds. Nicely done. For once Madame Maigret does more than make the coffee. In the book, which I re-read after watching this film version, he is alone. In both there is a letter in which a murder is announced: à la of Agatha Christie.  

In the book, the letter is sent to the local plod who passed it up the line and by chance Maigret saw a photograph copy of it on a desk in the Quai des Orfevres, and decides to go and see for himself.  In the film, the letter is sent directly to Maigret lui-même as a personal challenge. In neither case is there an adequate explanation of why the letter is sent at all, though perhaps it was part of the plan to implicate the Count, as below.  

The murder is ingenious, and kills the widowed Countess de Saint-Fiacre. Her wastrel son, the Count, is the obvious villain who wishes to hasten his inheritance. He is played in the film by Jacques Speisser who is marvellous as the troubled, tortured, intelligent, sensitive, confused, angry, and brutish Count de Saint-Fiarce. The pain in eyes at times is evident, even when his words belie it.  

In the book, the final denouement at dinner is entirely the handiwork of the Count, casting Maigret as a spectator.  In this film version the suggestion is that Maigret and Count have conspired to set it.  The doctor is also effectively enlarged in the film.  Indeed, in the film the Countess is also given a personality lacking in the book. The plot against her and the count is much more elaborate in the book than in this film, too.  

In both film and book it is also apparent that, though the sanctimonious priest will not violate the confessional, he will take matters into his own hands, infuriating Maigret.  

The story has been filmed at least three times before.  

The high points of this version include Madame Maigret telling Jules to pull his socks up and stop mooning about like a schoolboy, and the Count’s anguish. 

Jacques Spiesser

By the way, Spiesser is still at work as Magellan in an eponymous television series that has been running since 2009. He has also played second-fiddle Danglard in the Adamsberg krimis.   

Maigret et le fantôme (1994)

IMDB meta-data is run time of 1 hour and 25 minutes, rated 7.0 by 99 cinematizens.

Genre: krimi, Maigret (bien sûr) 

Verdict:  (Où est Fantômas?)  

Long-serving and long-suffering Inspector Joseph Lognon is shot in the street and lies comatose near death; Maigret comes to investigate.  Lognon is a recurrent figure (six times in all) in the Maigret oeuvre, and we know a little about him. He is dogged but unimaginative, a slave to his invalid wife at home, and while conscientious to a fault he seems jinxed at work, i.e., if there is hole then he is the one who will step in it. Maigret is one of the few people who is patient enough to suffer Lognon’s constant bad humour.  

Now that I have seen four of these 1990s revivals of Maigret, clearly the aim was to re-new the franchise by changing the settings, and in some cases, revising the plots.  The aim was not to be faithful to the text, but to refresh them for a new audience. One might think of the 1940s Rathbone version of an updated Sherlock Holmes foiling Nazis. Or so I imagine the spiel was. In any case, this episode works well. It is transposed from Montmartre to Helsinki. That means Maigret must work with and through a translator, and the few Finns who speak French do so slowly with a word-order syntax. Thank you very much.

In the novel the above-suspicion art dealer is Dutch, but here he is Swedish, perhaps, to play on Finnish prejudices about big brother. Once again a German with a murky wartime past is inserted into the plot who is not in the book. In the 1990s I would guess that the noticeable tinge of hostility to Germans is in the producers not in the audience of the day.    

Again, now that Maigret is in far Helsinki there is no team, but only the telephone which is put to much use since all the persons of interest have French connections. It takes an hour to make a call to Paris, and the reception is terrible. Plus there is that long distance lag and echo in the voices. Remember that?   

Once again Cremer is fine as Maigret, slow, persistent, and motivated since Lognon is a brother-in-arms, though a secretive one with a chip on his shoulder. To capitalise on the location shooting, a second film was done in Finland.

Yes, I read this book, too, and in neither the book nor the film is the title quite explained.  The woman who paints upstairs before the windows once wears a white robe to mislead Maigret.  Did she ever do it before?  Or did the mad and bad Igor wear it? But the red-headed Englishman was the shooter.  

Answers in the comments below.  

Having a spent a few days in Helsinki years ago, in this film I enjoyed some of the streetscapes, waterfront, and art deco architecture, but got no glimpse of those giants that guard the central train station.    

Maigret et la nuit du carrefour (1992) 

IMDb meta-data is runtime of 1 hour and 28 minutes, rated 7.6 by 95 cinematizens.

Genre: Krimi.

Verdict: Shrouded.  

A one-man flying squad of Maigret arrives at the crossroads where he spends a long night, well, several of them.  The film is atmospheric, much of it at night on a flat plain where there are three dwellings around the intersection, each about on a hundred metres apart in a triangle: the garage/petrol station with house, the salesman’s new and modern – circa 1947 – villa, and the weathered, brooding gothic mansion.  At the petrol station is the garrulous proprietor and his taciturn wife along with a spiv and a pensioner to do the work.  The salesman lives with his scowling wife in that villa. At the mansion is the sou-less Baron and his sister. These latter two are German, and the baron was disfigured in the war on the Russian Front.

The only interaction among the three is at the petrol pump. The salesman uses a lot of fuel on his calls, while the Baron drives to Paris once a month in a rattletrap to deliver his latest designs and get paid. The sister is seldom seen at all.  The wife watches the crossroads from her perch in the kitchen window. The garage proprietor is the only one out and about, here and there at all hours. Trucks taking produce to Les Halles pass at all hours of the day and night, many stopping for petrol and a few words.  

The Carrefour des Trois Veuves is so named for the three widows who once lived in the mansion and who, according to local legend, murdered each other (no doubt in a quarrel over the TV remoter having no man to hog it). It is late autumn with leafless trees, damp and dank air, and waterlogged fields, stretching away.  The soggy, foggy atmosphere is well-rendered. (It was filmed in Luxembourg.)  

Maigret has arrived because a Belgian diamond merchant has been found shot to death at the crossroads. Later when she arrives his widowed wife, too, is shot dead. The NRA hunting season is in full swing, targeting Belgians rather school children this time. Per his normal modus operandi Maigret moves into a nearby auberge and walks about absorbing the ambience, meeting the people of the crossroads who number no more than eight. Both the wives bear husband-inflicted bruises about which he asks, only to be fobbed off by the women.  

It is a different set up from the book. The biggest difference in all of three films I have seen so far is the removal of Maigret from Paris and the second most significant is the absence of his team: Lucas, Janvier, LaPointe, and Torrence. Lucas is the dogged 2iC with an encyclopaedic memory for files; Janvier supplies the muscle assisted by Torrence, and young LaPointe is the fresh face who is good at getting people to talk to him. None have surfaced in these episodes to date. Tant pris.  

In the book the foreigner is Danish and no baron, but remains a struggling artist with his sister.  The sister is played by an actor who married a baron and perhaps that generated the idea of titling the brother.  Though why he is made a German is anyone’s guess, and it jars since the Maigret books seldom (never?) refer to the wider context.  Bruno Cremer once again brings Maigret to life. Slow, uncertain but persistent, surprised but steadfast he ploughs on.  

In the film there much more gunfire than one expects from a Maigret title, and I read the novel to see if it is there, too.  Yep Maigret in a very un-Maigret gesture does shoot a hole in an inner tube in the garage to see what is inside it.  Yes, there is shoot ‘em up in the book as in the film.  By the way, he carries the gun in his coat pocket!  Not NRA recommended.  

The Baron is so obsessed by his sister/wife that he tries to protect her, even knowing she conspired in his attempted murder by gunshot and later herself tried to smother him with a pillow. A moth to the flame is he. Will she be lucky the third time?  

Maigret et l’improbable Monsieur Owen (1997) 

IMDb meta-data is runtime of 1 hour and 31 minutes, rated 6.6 by 74 cinematizens.

Genre: krimi.

Verdict: Convoluted.

Between assignments, Maigret is on a busman’s holiday staying in Cannes at a de luxe hotel by the invitation of its manager, an old friend from Paris, and while there….!  A cadaver appears in elderly M. Owens’s bathtub in room 412 and Owens is nowhere to be found. The deceased is a young man, while the missing Owens is an aged cripple. The local inspector barges in and throws his bantam intellectual weight around, seizing on the obvious, overlooking the subtle, while the bemused Maigret looks on.

There is a wanna-be starlet throwing herself and francs around, a sinister-looking doctor who is impossibly handsome, a demure nurse to M. Owens, a blind masseuse, an oily art dealer, and more. The ingredients are many and spicy.   

Of course, as viewers realised long before the local plod, it was Owens in the tub. The Marcel Proust rugged-up invalid-look was a disguise for a young art forger whose value seems to have been eroded by his drug addiction, and his accomplices doubted his continued silence, so they ensured it.  The nurse was not as she seemed, as the blindman told Maigret, her perfume is that of a rich woman, not a servant. Her transformation from dowdy to chic is good but not as convincing as a Cinderella turn by Isabelle Adjani. (I don’t remember which of her films but it was remarkable.)   

Then there is the dog.  

The plot is so complicated it required a lengthy expository scene at the end and I still didn’t get it. There is a neat scene midway through where Maigret overhears a private conversation through the air conditioning ducts, but nothing is made of it later. 

This story derives from a Simenon short story which I found online and read. It differs from the screenplay.  Much simpler, though still cryptic.  The film is full of gratuitous red herrings, a veritable school of them, absent from the story. The blind man, the starlet, the art dealer, and more are not in the story but added in the screenplay.  They certainly colour the tableaux, but I found the plot incomprehensible even after the explanation. Of the additions, the blind masseuse is the most interesting, while straining credulity.   

I rather think the production company hastily beefed up the short story to do a second film while on seaside location for Maigret and the Liberty Bar, a superior film.   

Maigret et le Liberty Bar (1997)

IMDb meta-data is runtime of 1 hour and 31 minutes, rated 7.5 by 88 cinematizens.

Genre: krimi.

Verdict: languid.

Chief Inspector Jules Maigret is plucked from his Paris office on the Ile de la Citè and put on a train to Antibes in the far south.  He arrives from a grey and wet Paris, exhausted by the journey, to a blinding sunshine and the gusting mistral as though landing on another world. He is dazzled, disoriented, and overdressed, and not particularly happy to be there. He finds the local inspector a tiresome puppy underfoot and sidelines him, leaving him petulant but obedient.  

Monsieur Brown, hero of the Resistance, has been murdered and someone in the national government wants a quick and clean resolution that does not open old wounds. To investigate Maigret sheds the puppy and immerses himself in Brown’s milieu, and what a milieu it is.  There is a rather grand seaside villa, all that remains of Brown’s pre-war fortune when making money seemed important to him, now occupied by a mother-daughter combination, one being his mistress, and at times Maigret is not sure which, or even if both. Inside the villa it is a dump: the three lived in a few rooms, which had not been cleaned or tidied since the Liberation.  

After his slow and patient questioning, the resident women say that Brown went off on holidays of three or four days every month, claiming to have no idea where he went or what he did, though he always returned with some money to live on the for the next month.  

The local puppy-plod had settled on these two residents as the culprits and went no further but the lugubrious Maigret sets out to retrace and re-live the last of Brown’s short holidays. In nearby Cannes he finds the garage when Brown parked his car during these sprees, and then he bar hops in the neighbourhood until he finds the Le Liberty Bar, which like Brown fell into dilapidation after the war. Dark and seemingly empty, Maigret walks through the bar and into the kitchen to find the occupants who matter of factly offer him a seat at the table where they are just finishing lunch and he joins them, sitting where Brown sat, he learns, for it is here that Brown spent those days away. The proprietor is an older woman whose sole tenant is a young prostitute. At times others, like a waiter from the casino, come by for a drink or a meal and likewise sit at the table in the back like family.  

Soon Maigret, still befuddled by the constant long hours of sunshine and the disturbance of the mistral, slowly acclimatising to the warmth of the Midi, goes into orbit around the Liberty Bar and slowly unpicks the stories of each of its inhabitants.  Maigret is unhurried, annoying his impetuous colleague who wants to arrest the two residents of the villa, but Maigret stalls. He probes occasionally, but mostly watches and listens. Pascale Roberts as Mado, the owner of the bar, gives a superb performance of increasing complexity. She differs from the woman described in the novel but who cares. 

Brown was Australian and his family intrudes into the affair in search of a will for it seems there is a fortune (from the sheep’s back) tied up in a business which provided Brown the monthly income he collected on his away-days. This seems a promising lead and Maigret examines it.  Another red herring is the Bar’s prostitute and then her pimp.  But whatever road Maigret takes it always leads back to the Liberty Bar. 

 * * *

There is much eye-candy of the Riviera. Finding the film diverting, I wanted to read the novel and ordered it on my Kindle while watching and started to read it later that night. Is that convenient or what!?  The script sticks very closely to the text, though there is more explanation on the page than on the screen.  

Such a change of pace from AmerBrit shouting and shoot ‘em ups that pass as mysteries. The placid Cremer moves at a snail’s pace, studies one scene from several angles, and soaks up the ambience in silence. Needless, to say some of the addled commentary on IMDb finds this ruminative approach inert, whereas I find it inviting. Among the many incarnations of Maigret, Cremer ranks high. Moreover, these are lavish productions with plenty of enhanced sets and artefacts of the Post War era. For the interiors the rooms are fully furnished; the automobiles are the real thing and so are the clothes. This story has been filmed at least three before according to the IMDb.

There is also an absence of the cheap cynicism that substitutes for thought in so many krimis. If shouting is the Amer disease in cop shows, the Brit disease is cynicism in which everyone is evil at heart except the paladin, think saintly and sanctimonious Christopher Foyle or Vera Stanhope who are both holier than all other thous. In contrast, Maigret meets many ordinary people who do not all harbour deep and very dark secrets and he gets to know and like some of them, including some thieves, pimps, and lowlifes who eke out a living doing little harm to others.  

Another BritAmer crutch missing from the Maigret screenplays is the interfering, pettifogging, incompetent superior getting in our hero’s way.  This trope has been worn so thin it is see-through and yet remains commonplace. Indeed, it has spread to krimis beyond the English language. The otherwise admirable Martin Beck Swedish series has featured a number of such cardboards.  Regrettably, I note this stereotype appears in one of the Maigret episodes.   

Nor is Maigret always right. He makes mistakes, he cannot always find the decisive evidence even when he is certain what happened, and in at least one of the novels he is stymied and gives up the investigation without a conclusion, thinking that maybe later something will emerge and he can start again.  Equally, he does not always have the last word. In one of the stories when he is questioning the widow of a man just murdered, he says to her that her husband was engaged in a crime. She shows him her Auschwitz tattoo and say ‘That is a crime, Mr Policeman!’  That the husband was fencing stolen jewels was nothing; rebuked, Maigret went silent. (Yes, he did go the morgue later and find a similar tattoo on the cadaver of the husband.)  

This is episode 2 of season 7 of the series that ran from 1991 to 2005 with Bruno Cremer in the eponymous role. There are 54 episodes in total. I have about half of them lined up on the Plex server. (The others aren’t available at this time.) The original plan had been to complete the oeuvre of all 85+ Simenon stories featuring Maigret, instead time and tide caught up with Cremer from all that pipe smoking and throat cancer killed him.  It has a parallel in the effort to do the complete Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett which was likewise stymied by the disintegration of the lead.