 |
DVD La princesse de Montpensier
 Run time: 139 min Rating: 6.5 Genres: Action | Drama | History Director: Bertrand Tavernier Writers: Jean Cosmos, Madame de La Fayette Stars: Mélanie Thierry, Lambert Wilson, Gaspard Ulliel |
| Storyline Bertrand Tavernier is in top form with this gripping, superbly mounted drama set against the savage Catholic/Protestant wars that ripped France apart in the 16th century. Based on a novella by the celebrated Madame de Lafayette, the action centers on the love of Marie de Mezières for her dashing cousin Henri de Guise, thwarted when her father’s political ambitions force her into marriage with the well-connected Philippe de Montpensier, who she has never met. When Philippe is called away to fight, she is left in the care of Count Chabannes, an aging nobleman with a disdain for warfare, and soon becomes exposed to the sexual and political intrigues of court. Written by Palm Springs Internation Film Festival |
|
| Plot Keywords: 16th century, love, reference to princess de cleves, violence, learning to write | |
| Details: Country: France, Germany Release Date: 8 July 2011 (UK) |
|
| Box Office Opening Weekend: $23,456 (USA) (15 April 2011) Gross: $340,917 (USA) (24 June 2011) |
|
previous post
4 comments
My love affair with cinema started as a teenager with a chance viewing of Patrice Chéreau's La reine Margot (1994) late one night on TV. It's a lavish costume drama set at the same time as The Princess of Montpensier including some of the same characters, both with key scenes set during the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572. So this felt like a return to the beginning for me, a special occasion.
I feared it may have been a wasted ticket at the start as it opens with a rather bombastic action sequence that looked too staged and was drowned by Hollywood "big music", ludicrous percussion-heavy seat-shaking stuff. Perhaps Tavernier caught a bug working in the States on In the Electric Mist. Of course such antics may be right up your street if you are a Gladiator fan. By the way I felt the first scene portrayed the Comte de Chabannes and cohorts as being too reckless with their lives, unrealistically so.
However the film improved, and Chabannes cut an iconic figure in his odd Spanish hat. The film was based on the short story of the same name by Madame de La Fayette, which I definitely intend to read now.
The drama concerns the Princess of Montpensier (Mélanie Thierry) who is loved by four very contrasting men. Will she choose the right one? Haha, that would not be very interesting now would it? I think it's somewhat of a breakout role for the stunning Mélanie Thierry, who has been in some potboilers as well as having a very gamine role as the passive object of Danny Boodmann T.D. Lemon Nineteen Hundred's affections in Giuseppe Tornatore's The Legend of 1900 back in 1998. She is the very essence of the type of woman that a man develops amour fou for. The best casting decision I've seen all year for sure, though it would have helped if Tavernier had been a better director of actors.
I did feel there was a strange lack of pathos in the movie, I think generally a director requires actors to emote, to show what they are thinking on their faces. This is the great artifice of cinema. I've seen a few Tavernier films and I don't think he likes to get them doing that. In a way I think that makes the movie quite abstract. The plot is so sheerly powerful by itself that I was enraptured.
I like the way the movie quotes the sentiments from Hebrews Chapter 11 Verse 1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is something that we've lost to a degree in western life, making life seem a pointless charade. Good watching. 10/10 as I'm a sentimental fool.
To Claire, impertinently.
Some of the best things in this lusciously mounted historical ramble are the battle and fight sequences. They are exciting and convincing, as is the picture's milieu. Some of the relationships sporadically command interest,despite the central character consistently failing to provide any spark. The Duke of Anjou is the most watchable; a wonderfully slimy character, whose complicated duplicity and arrogance is highly entertaining. The actress who plays the princess may have superficially attractive qualities, but she has no personality. She's a sponge, who gives almost nothing and inspires only restlessness and tedium. Had she been at least interesting this may well have been an exciting film. After a while this viewer couldn't care less what happened to her. A shame because everything around her is designed to make for a stimulating story. It should be shorter, and it should be re-cast. The real princess was supposed to be a beauty. Mlle Thierry is quite good looking, but I suppose, at the time of going into production there wasn't an available attractive actress who is also vivacious, and/or interesting, and not too expensive. Heigh ho.
The Princess is sumptuously filmed, with a great eye for setting and costume. The eponymous princess is very well acted.
So why is there a slight air of disappointment when you get to the end. Partly it is because her husband and the pretty boy who would be her lover, are just a trifle wooden; the great weakness though is the fight scenes. They are filmed well but lack credibility. You can sense the rehearsals and guess what will happen next. The battle scenes are just confusing, not in the fog of war sense, but in having no explanation why a soldier would jump off an unwounded horse to fight on the ground. It may have looked exciting, marginally, but verged on the ridiculous.
That aside, the story bounds along quite well and will take your mind off the next banking crisis.
I am a big fan of historical dramas and have always thought that French directors do them very well. This, however, was one of the poorer efforts I have seen. I wouldn't be as hard on it as the reviewer who gave it 1 (awful). I found it absorbing enough but rather too long. The battle scenes seemed authentic in showing what it probably was like back then. The portrayal of life in the 16th century was good. The problem was with the characters who didn't have much depth in my opinion. To Richard I would mention that it was not uncommon in those days for masters and servants to sleep in the same bed. It had no sexual connotations. I think it was just for warmth.