Monthly Archives: July 2016

  • Thérèse Raquin

    Marcel Carné (1953)

    Zola’s novel updated and transposed (from Paris) to 1950s Lyon – and with plenty of other changes too.  It’s mostly entertaining and occasionally startling but the relationship between Thérèse and her lover Laurent is far from the heart of the matter here.  In this respect, the film compares unfavourably with both television versions of the story that I know, the BBC serial of 1980 (with Kate Nelligan and Brian Cox) and The Russian Bride in 2002 (with Lia Williams and Douglas Hodge).  This is, to some extent, an inevitable consequence of the way in which Marcel Carné and Charles Spaak have reworked the material.  They turn Thérèse’s adultery from a passion which is biologically driven and ineluctable into an attempt to escape from her unhappy marriage and the hopeless, unending routine of working in her mother-in-law’s haberdashery; the killing of her husband Camille into an act which is hardly premeditated; and the psychological misery that Thérèse then experiences into something engineered by a soi-disant witness of the events surrounding Camille’s death (a character invented by Carné and Spaak) – instead of by the corrosive guilt which destroys the lovers’ relationship in the novel.

    The loss of primacy of that relationship is also partly a consequence of Raf Vallone’s weakness as Laurent.  (It’s baffling – given how much else has been altered and that the character has been turned into an Italian, presumably to accommodate Vallone – that he retains the name from the novel.)  The physical contrast between Vallone’s Laurent and Jacques Duby as the sickly mother’s boy Camille is drawn very broadly and, although it’s amusing at first, Vallone’s beefcake presence soon becomes pretty bovine.  You never feel that the affair between Thérèse and Laurent is a matter of life and death.  As a result, the moment when Laurent pushes Camille to his death from a moving train isn’t pivotal in the way it needs to be – isn’t, in other words, the moment which both removes the obstacle to the lovers being together and sows the seeds of the destruction of their love.

    It’s hardly surprising that Simone Signoret, as Thérèse, doesn’t convince you that she’s crazy about Vallone’s Laurent but she gives a fine, daringly internalised performance – a good example of the eloquence of reserve and of apparently minor physical details (the way she handles a roll of fabric in old Mme Raquin’s store or puts out plates and napkins for supper with her husband and his mother).   Signoret’s Thérèse, in the glum, cramped décor of the shop, seems to be in mourning from the start.  Yet she’s subtly watchful and she communicates a potential for a different life:  you see it in her beautiful broad features, her hair, her gestures – but these all seem impregnated with a kind of melancholy stillness.  The contrast with the busy performances around her – Camille, his mother, the elderly gentlemen who come to the apartment for weekly parlour games that Camille has to win (these are well done) – is powerful.  As Camille, Jacques Duby has a ratty alertness, which matches up well with that of Sylvie, as his mother.  She, however, is so bug-eyed from such an early stage that, when Madame Raquin has a stroke, at the news of Camille’s death, which strikes her dumb but leaves her staring unblinkingly into Thérèse’s soul, the impact is not what it might be.   Signoret’s weighted quality clearly can’t work so well in her scenes with the inadvertently inert Vallone.

    The introduction of Riton, the sailor who shares a compartment with Thérèse and Camille on their fateful, never completed train journey to Paris – and who puts two and two together and sees an opportunity for blackmail – shifts the balance of Thérèse Raquin in more ways than one.  The intervention of the character reorients the story from the psychological towards a form of suspense dictated by more external forces; and Roland Lesaffre, the actor playing Riton, runs away with the picture.  From the moment you get a proper look at him, waking up in the railway carriage and talking rather insolently to the ticket collector, you half expect Thérèse to decide to have an affair with Riton instead of Laurent.  Perhaps Lessafre (whom I’d not seen before – it turns out that he died, aged eighty-one, earlier this month) rather overdoes the strutting, smiling menace when he first turns up, on his motor bike, in Lyon, to pester Thérèse for money. But he’s brilliant – charismatic and increasingly complex (you find yourself rooting for him) – in all his subsequent scenes, especially an encounter with Thérèse and Laurent in a bar and when he collects his unjust desserts from them.

    This isn’t one of Marcel Carné’s best-known films and I was surprised, although the source material and the star are so famous, that there was a packed house even in NFT2.   Great excitement in the moments before the lights went down, as a woman a couple of rows ahead was clambering around to communicate something (it was never quite clear what – something to do with a package she’d picked up by mistake) to one of the ushers.  ‘I don’t know what she’s on’, said one of the men in front of us, ‘but she needs to take less of it’.   His companion added, once the woman had got back to her seat, ‘The film’s going to be a complete anti-climax after this’.  It wasn’t – thanks to Signoret and Lesaffre – even if Carné’s and Spaak’s adaptation does seem to reduce Zola’s themes.   As we were leaving the BFI, I heard someone else say that Carné had borrowed from Hitchcock.  I don’t know enough about Hitchcock to know if that’s right – and certainly not enough to be able to spot references – but the ironic ending certainly sealed the picture as an accomplished murder mystery, not much more.

    But there is a good human detail in the last scene.  Riton has asked Georgette, a chamber maid at the cheap hotel where he’s been staying, to post a letter if he doesn’t return by five o’clock.   When she accepts this assignment, Georgette, who’s clearly taken with Riton, has given him a look that suggests she hopes she might get more from him than the money for a pair of shoes he’s promised her for carrying out this errand.   As the clock strikes five and a postman (Bernard Véron) empties the box, Georgette arrives and hands over the letter.  Maria Pia Casilio has a great combination of innocent charm and incipient brazenness as Georgette and, when she looks at the postman, you can see she likes the look of him too, and will probably forget about Riton, whether she sees him again or not (which she won’t).   She goes on her way and the postman goes on his.  Carné’s camera (the director of photography was Roger Hubert) pulls back upwards from the street to reprise the shot of Lyon rooftops with which the film opened.

    25 February 2009

  • Thérèse Desqueyroux

    Claude Miller (2012)

    Audrey Tautou expresses with some force the eponymous heroine’s state of mind.  Thérèse Desqueyroux lives in a big house which sits in a vast landscape in rural south-west France:  the nearest town, Argelouse, is small and small-minded but the spaciousness of her home and the arid expanse of the natural world outside it also contribute to Thérèse’s claustrophobia.  Steeped in frustration, she’s sometimes so bored that she has to work hard to summon any feeling at all, let alone feign affability.  But this is all plain to see – Audrey Tautou doesn’t do enough to persuade you that Thérèse’s real feelings could go unnoticed by her husband, the obtuse and self-centred Bernard Desqueyroux, and her in-laws, the de la Traves (Bernard’s widowed mother remarried).  Tautou’s Thérèse is so hostile that it’s especially hard to believe that the family would, as they do, pin their hopes on her to make their daughter Anne see sense in her passion for a romantic but unsuitable (his family may be Jewish and is prone to TB) young man called Jean Azevedo.  Tautou and Claude Miller, who also did the screenplay, may have focused too much on François Mauriac’s reference in the original novel to Thérèse’s ‘indifference, this total detachment separating her from everyone else and even from herself’.  In doing so, they’ve overlooked the protagonist’s no less significant self-description – ‘masking myself, hiding myself, fooling them … ‘.  Tautou’s playing means that Miller’s film (his last), as much as Thérèse, is going through the motions.  (This is the second cinema adaptation of the novel:  Georges Franju also made it, with Emmanuelle Riva in the lead, in 1962.)

    The story of Thérèse Desqueyroux is a familiar one – of a woman whose lively mind and sensuality are stifled by her materially comfortable, emotionally starved circumstances, and who must rebel against them.  Each time he takes his four drops of arsenic-based medicine, the foolish, somewhat hypochondriac Bernard counts the drops aloud, and gets on his wife’s nerves:  you know that, given the opportunity, Thérèse will deliberately get the arithmetic wrong and administer a poisonous overdose.  When she is brought to trial for the attempted murder of her husband, the family closes ranks to get her off the hook and to avoid a greater scandal; acquitted, Therese is then almost literally imprisoned by Bernard.  The pine forest dowry with which her family seals her marriage – although the Desqueyroux are even bigger landowners – is threatened in a great fire at the height of summer (and Thérèse is a heavy smoker).  Jean Azevedo, whom Thérèse likes the look and idea of (but whom she does not, it seems, desire sexually), first appears as a small figure singing alluringly in a red-sailed boat moving freely on the sea, far from dry (parched) land.  In other words, the ironies and symbolism come across as obvious in Claude Miller’s film, whereas Mauriac’s novel brings out gradually and subtly the metaphorical aspect of the tinder-dry Landes region.

    According to the littérateur Pierre-Henri Simon, ‘metaphor’ and ‘analogy’ may not be the right words to describe the connection between physical and psychological worlds in Mauriac, who saw:

    ‘… not an analogical relation but a necessary link, a vital solidarity, such that the scene and the event, the physical climate and the moral climate are presented as one, each explained by the other, in a totality at once profoundly psychological and intensely poetic. … It is not a question of metaphor, but of an intimate complicity being suggested between the domains of the soul and the flesh …’

    It would take a master film-maker to realise this complex understanding of Mauriac and Miller’s Thérèse Desqueyroux is not subtle.  The basic problem isn’t, however, that his screenplay is crude.  It’s that film can visualise too easily – in a few frames – a connection between ‘the physical climate and the moral climate’.  Miller achieves this impressively but then seems to be making over and over a point that the viewer got the first time it was made.  The atmospheric texture of the film is relatively thin:  this is partly because, in the book, smells are almost as crucial as sights and sounds, although that doesn’t explain why an important sequence like Thérèse’s leaving the courthouse at the end of her trial feels so perfunctory on the screen.  The movie’s chronology is odd in more ways than one.  The flashback to the close teenage friendship of Thérèse and her future sister-in-law Anne is dated 1922.  The main action occurs in 1928 and 1929 (although the novel was published in 1927) but Thérèse seems decades older by then – and the ten-year age difference between Audrey Tautou and Anaïs Demoustier, who plays Anne, makes it hard to accept them as contemporaries.  There are suggestions  in the novel that the physical intimacy of the teenage girls resonates in lesbian feelings for Anne on the part of the adult Thérèse.   But the complexity of this relationship is muffled in the film because Tautou’s Thérèse appears to be alienated from desire as well as by her family life (she has no maternal feelings for her baby daughter either).   Her interpretation of Thérèse is less of a problem in her scenes with Jean Azevedo (Stanley Weber).   As in the novel, Thérèse is aware of Jean’s good looks but it’s his difference from the culture of Argelouse that matters more to her.

    Bernard is an obviously conceived and a despicable character in the novel.   This small-time hunter (his real passion is not for his wife but for shooting pigeons) is also a selfish philistine.  His exaggeration of his ailments (the angina that he fears turns out to be anaemia) reflects his self-preoccupation.   Gilles Lellouche who plays Bernard is too old for the part.  He was nearly forty when the film was shot; in the novel, Bernard is twenty-six (and it’s only his plump pomposity that sometimes makes him seem older – his new wife sees him as a ‘country boy’ as she watches him drink Rhenish wine on their honeymoon).  In spite of this, it’s hard to think that anyone could have done much more with the role than Lellouche does; Audrey Tautou is much more effective when she’s playing off him than when she’s staring, with a kind of fuming disinterest, at Bernard and his family.   Lellouche’s burly handsomeness cuts both ways:  you sense that Thérèse thinks she ought to find her husband attractive but Bernard’s physically imposing quality actually makes him more clumsy and oppressive to her.  Gilles Lellouche also makes Bernard more interesting by occasionally suggesting that he can see the effect he’s having on Thérèse.   One of the best scenes is their last together, when Bernard is about to set his wife free in Paris (now that the successfully conformed Anne de la Trave has made a suitable marriage, Thérèse can be let off the leash).   Bernard is tired by now and Lellouche shows his residual affection for his wife coming through involuntarily.  Gilles Lellouche makes Claude Miller’s Thérèse Desqueyroux a good deal easier to watch than it would otherwise have been but he isn’t Mauriac’s Bernard:  Lellouche has charm whereas Bernard in the novel is consistently charmless.  This and Audrey Tautou’s lack of variation (and charm) alter the balance of audience sympathy with, even of interest in, the principal characters.

    27 June 2013

Posts navigation