Monthly Archives: July 2016

  • Madeleine

    David Lean (1950)

    In 1857, a young, middle-class Glasgow woman, Madeleine Smith, was tried for the murder (by arsenic poisoning) of her lover, Pierre Emile L’Angelier.  The remarkable verdict, which could not have been returned in an English court, was ‘not proven’.  This David Lean film of the story is watchable and competent in preserving the mystery of whether or not Madeleine was guilty – but it’s also somewhat ridiculous.  The problems stem from the miscasting of the lovers.  You assume that Madeleine is meant to be young, high- and free-spirited.  The apparently middle-aged, glacially inexpressive Ann Todd (Mrs Lean at the time) makes strenuously abortive attempts to seem, by turns, kittenish and unfathomable.  (The only believable aspect of her playing of Madeleine is that this woman might be coldly calculating enough to commit the murder.)  Perhaps Lean under-exploits Todd’s physical energy:  she’s most striking when, staying at her family’s out-of-town retreat, she’s vigorously horse-riding along the seashore or highland-flinging herself around.  The cross-cutting between her movement and the exuberant dancing of a party of earthy, bright-eyed rustics (whose singing she has heard in the distance) makes this one of the most animated bits of the film.   Except that Madeleine encourages L’Angelier to join in her sensual abandon and it takes him all his time to tap his foot to the rhythm.  This lover is supposed to be dashingly Gallic[1], hot-blooded, excitingly arrogant, etc:  Ivor Desny in the role is fleshy, sluggishly pompous, a lot more boring than the ‘dull’, honourable local gentleman Minnoch (Norman Wooland), to whom Madeleine becomes engaged.  Ann Todd and Ivor Desny throw the whole film out of balance.  Instead of representing a dynamic contrast to the stifling respectability of Madeleine’s family, this stiff, snooty pair suggests that the starchy formality of Victorian society was pervasive enough to petrify even rebellious grand passions.

    David Lean skates over what looks on paper one of the potentially interesting questions of the story:  how can the Smith family cope with their eldest daughter’s being tried for murder when the build-up to this has signalled – through Madeleine’s urgent efforts to conceal her relationship with L’Angelier – that the shame of her affair would be intolerable?  A more interesting question still:  which do the family and society regard as more heinous – Madeleine’s alleged crime or her undoubted sin?  Lean doesn’t quite neglect, but is uncharacteristically confusing on, this point:  Madeleine is publicly jeered on her way to court and stigmatised in the local press as a scarlet woman.  When she’s been acquitted of murder – but not, of course, of the extra-marital affair – the crowds in the streets cheer her home.  Lean seems relieved to get into the trial scenes, which he directs (and protracts) with a kind of impersonal zest:  it’s as if the audience that’s been observing Madeleine’s private life for the previous hour has just entered the public gallery of the courtroom and knows nothing about the case.  Still, the two counsels (Barry Jones and André Morell) give forceful, well-spoken closing addresses.  (Morell is, appropriately enough, particularly convincing for the defence.)  The film ends with a close-up on Madeleine; a fey Scottish voiceover asks her if she really did the murder.  Madeleine smiles back enigmatically – or that seems to be the idea.  In one of the rare lapses in David Lean’s distinguished film editing career, you watch Ann Todd composing her facial muscles to try (and fail) to appear tantalising; she then relaxes, but the camera stays on her; then she starts trying to bewitch us again.  Inside your head, you’re shouting ‘Cut!’ for what seems about five minutes.

    The cast also includes Leslie Banks as the buttoned-up patriarch Mr Smith, and John Laurie, who galvanises proceedings with an intensely lively, too-brief appearance as a hellfire preacher.  Guy Green’s handsome black-and-white photography captures some impressively atmospheric Glasgow bad weather.  The music (laid on with a trowel) is by William Alwyn.  The screenplay by Stanley Haynes and Nicholas Phipps is pedestrian but includes at least one memorable line, when Madeleine’s father says to his daughter, ‘Your mother and I are becoming increasingly worried about you – there seems to be something in your character which prevents you from acting naturally’.  He doesn’t know how right he is.

    [1990s]

    [1]  The real L’Angelier came from the Channel Islands.  In the film, I took him to be straightforwardly French.

  • Jean de Florette

    Claude Berri (1986)

    Two dishonourable French rustics – wily old bachelor César (‘Le Papet’) Soubeyran (Yves Montand) and his rodent nephew Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil) – want a piece of land inherited by Jean Cadoret (Gérard Depardieu).  (Papet and Ugolin have already accidentally-on-purpose bumped off the previous landowner.)  Jean – a naïve, nature-loving hunchback – gives up his job in a tax office and comes to the Provençal countryside with his wife and daughter, determined to cultivate the notoriously dry terrain.  The Soubeyrans dam up the spring that irrigates it – and the other locals aren’t much friendlier to the newcomers.  The noble Jean and his (even nobler) mule keep trekking miles to get a few buckets of water from a neighbouring spring.  This is located the other side of the Italian border and its kind owners represent a spiritually different country from the callously self-serving one that the Soubeyrans inhabit.  The water isn’t enough, however, to combat the drought and save Jean’s crops (or his rabbits, since vegetables aren’t sufficiently tear-jerking).  Jean’s eventual fate demonstrates that it never rains but it pours.

    This reductio ad absurdum may irk (the many) admirers of Claude Berri’s adaptation of the first part of Marcel Pagnol’s two-volume novel, The Water of the Hills[1], announced on its British television premiere at Christmas 1990 as ‘a classic … said to be among the finest films of the last 25 years’.  (I’ve also heard Jean de Florette described as ‘so French’ – this is meant to be a compliment.)  The film may be a classic of cinematic kidology:  with its photogenic landscape and weather, water-of-life-and-goodness symbolism, lack of subplots and emphatically one-dimensional characters, it fools people into thinking it must be saying something fundamental about the human condition.  Although Jean is purely virtuous and innocent and Papet is absolutely rascally, the monotony of the two is unbalanced.  In one case, the performance as well as the conception is to blame:  evidently relishing the role, Yves Montand makes Papet’s slyness relentlessly spirited and showy.  In the case of Jean, it’s the character and not his interpreter who’s the problem.  Gérard Depardieu isn’t exactly miscast:  if anyone could humanise Jean, it would be he.  But, except in lovely, easy moments with his daughter Manon (Ernestine Mazurowna), this Good Man resolutely refuses to come to life – even though Depardieu is impressive in his ah-ye-cruel-gods outburst when a rainstorm passes tantalisingly close by.  Jean has been so long- suffering until this point that his loss of temper is water in the desert in itself.  (The film is better when people raise their voices:  the moment near the end when Manon sees what Ugolin is up to at the dammed spring, and she cries out, really is resonant.)  The only major character with the potential to surprise is Ugolin and Daniel Auteuil gives by far the best performance.  You can see intimations of morality behind the bad teeth and the animal cunning:  Auteuil conveys well Ugolin’s realisation that his and Papet’s shabby trick is generating dreadfully bigger consequences.

    A friend tells me the film is about how the pure get done down by the not-so-pure.  This thesis may or may not be true (or worth demonstrating in a drama).  What’s so dreary about Jean de Florette is the implication that you can spot the pure because they’re always smiling at each other and Nature and never exchange cross words (until Manon gets a ticking off from Jean when she reasonably compares Ugolin to a rat).  You long for Jean’s wife (Elisabeth Depardieu) to tell him just once to stop being a fool and to go back to the office job.  Instead, she suffers (and suffers) exquisitely.  The haunting/insistent theme music is adapted by Jean-Claude Petit from La forza del destino[2].  In the blissful moment when they first move into their new home, Jean’s wife (an opera singer) trills the tune and he accompanies her on the mouth organ.  At least the awful series of events that overtakes the family deprives them of any excuse for an encore.

    [1990s]

    [1] The second volume, Manon des sources, became a film sequel to Jean de Florette.

    [2] It was later immortalised in a series of Jean de Florette-inspired commercials for Stella Artois.

Posts navigation