Madame de...
MAX OPHULS, 1953
3 STARS OUT OF 5
I find the three primary characters, Madame de..., the general, and Baron Donati, tiresome at best and loathsome at worst. Usually, if you are to engage in the intrigues of aristocrats, you must do one of two things: Critique the aristocracy, preferably harshly; or, find an angle that is so irresistible that I can't help but feel hooked. In Madame de..., I can hardly tell if my perception of a critique is real or not, considering the representation of wealth per frame is nearly farcical in nature. The film also seems to conflate such private decadence with the opulence of the Catholic church, again a seeming critique on religion. Yet, most of what I've read on the film leads me to believe my perceptions of an Ophuls' critique on the aristocracy or religion are all in my head. Thus, we move on to whether or not this film found an angle to hook me into the lives of the tiresome Madame de... and her little love triangle; in short, is the Brotherhood of the Traveling Earrings enough? Maybe halfway. With every sale and every movement of these earrings, Madame's house of cards grows larger and more unstable, even as the general's own transgressions are - strangely inconsequentially - woven in. This leads to some of the most tiresome dramatics, spells of fainting at opportune times, until they cease being mere dramatics. Nonetheless, waiting for the cards to fall, the other shoe to drop, or whatever metaphor or cliche you prefer, is only mildly interesting. Even the outcome and possible two deaths led me to an audible "Hmph." Or maybe "Hmmm." Maybe both. But at least there is consequence to all of this.
Since it's a film about three people I could care less about that simultaneously only holds mild intrigue or mystery for me, why did I still come away with a moderate sense of satisfaction? It's the look and technical brilliance. Whether or not all of the decadence, the riches per square inch, were for critique or titillation, every setting is meticulously arranged. Then, only something I could notice at times during the film, but later through reflection and reading a few reviews did I realize to be absolutely true: The filmography is damn near perfect. I noticed it best during the scene where we are situated outside of the mansion looking in as the colonel closed the windows, and the camera elegantly moves from window to window as the general shuts the house to us, with the effect that he's shutting in their secrets and transgressions, something he'll clean up without having to air out his dirty laundry to the world. But really, you can see it from the opening scene, where the camera follows Madame's movements as she looks through her closet, wardrobe, and collection of jewels, which she takes seemingly for granted, but with which we can't help but be taken. Though she's apparently selling off the earrings, in the first of many transactions involving these items, to pay-off debts, it's clear she has enough to clear the streets of Paris of its tramps and ne're-do-wells. I'm not much on film strictly for the purpose of study, unless you are an aspiring film-maker, or maybe an aspiring film critic, but the editing-in-scene we see here, the absolute minimization of superfluous cutting, is as instructional as it is fascinating and enjoyable. It's important a writer and director build characters that I love or love to hate, but here I could care less about them because I just liked looking at the movie. It might not have been
enough, but it was enough not to put me off or leave me cold.
I know there are many films to come in this marathon that will be more thematically in my wheelhouse than this melodramatic piece, but it's also an interesting sensation to have something offend my sensibilities in several ways, and yet satisfy me in several others. I recommend such an experience, but not too frequently.
Side Note: Vittorio de Sica as the baron is interesting. I knew he was an actor, but it's strange and rather disorienting to see him in a setting of riches when his most important work as a director documents the struggles of the poor.
A Note on Ratings: I'm going to add my ratings scale to the first post in the topic. I don't normally like giving ratings to films right away, would rather they sink in and rate them in waves. Nevertheless, I'm going to give it a go this time around, and do any necessary revisions when I put a bow on this later this year. Then, leave it alone.