Diane - Kurtisane von Frankreich

I think that the year of 1956 was the golden year for Hollywood because of golden films in this time as: somebody up there likes me - Julie and Daine.

This film was a good portrait by acting , writing and directing which presented a history of another countries as:France and Italy which make a theory of globalization beyond the cinema.

Lana Turner was a sweaty girl in the cinema all the time and in different stages , she made a good act in this film by mixing of love and sadness in the story of this film.She transformed from stage to stage in the main points of this character by great experience from her in her history.

Roger Moore was a Jan premiere in this film and he played this role as a first straining in his life and history that he made a grand harmony with Lana Turner which making a math in acting between them and this main point was advantage for film. He made a golden name after this film and he presented a spirit of Robert Taylor, Clark Gable , Tayron Power........ etc. If he completed his steps in Hollywood he will make a diamond name in the international cinema but he preferred returning to his home England to make many films in his country and to serve England with his experience he gained it from Hollywood.

DIANE is probably the least well-known of all LANA TURNER's "big" pictures at MGM--the studio which ironically was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time of this film, but you'd never know it from the opulence of the finished work in gorgeous Technicolor and featuring one of Miklos Rozsa's more subtle scores.

It's interesting for a couple of reasons: mainly, because it appears to be a faithful recreation of that period in costumes and settings, features ROGER MOORE (youthful and handsome before his James Bond adventures), and gives LANA TURNER and MARISA PAVAN some very interesting moments as they oppose each other in a number of well played scenes.

Other than that, it's a stilted costume romance that never quite comes to life despite all the efforts to give it handsome production values. That explains its obscurity among Lana's films. The lady herself is very fetching here, beautifully costumed (mostly in black), thanks to Walter Plunkett's designs, and attractively photographed for maximum glamor effect.

But part of the unreality comes from the excessive glamor given to Turner. Despite this flaw, she does turn in a good performance as Diane de Poitiers, courtesan who stirs envy in the king's wife and is the subject of much court intrigue in medieval France.

Neglected by today's viewers who probably have never had a chance to see it, it deserves a wider audience.

The Lion company - I mean Metro Goldwyn Mayer - was excellent in terms of costume, period, historical movies: the Richard Thorpe's IVANHOE, KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, QUENTIN DURWARD and other films such as KING'S THIEF, DIANE, SCARAMOUCHE...This somptuous historical drama has the benefits of a terrific production design, the trademark of the MGM costume movies. David Miller made this only film of this kind, unlike Richard Thorpe for hom it was a speciality, though Thorpe was a very prolific director, more than David Miller. Lana Turner is so gorgeous that she nearly makes you ignore the rest, besides her beauty. Besides, I am French and I have alwways been amazed by the fact that Hollywood was so dedicated to make films concerning history of France !!! England, yes, but France !!!! And here, Roger Moore is not at all a super but an anti hero.

A big costume drama of medieval France was Lana Turner's farewell to MGM with her leading man Roger Moore. One has to remember that this is based on a historical novel so the inaccuracies are to be expected.

The biggest inaccuracy was that young Prince Henry played here by Roger Moore was only 15 when he was introduced to Diane De Poitiers a married noblewoman to a man some 40 years her senior. Young Prince Henry may have needed some tutoring in the fine arts of court etiquette, but it was obvious Diane had some needs as well and Henry did fill them.

Roger Moore fine actor that he is, is not playing a 15 year old. Lana Turner plays the older Diane and she's fine in the role. Marisa Pavan is best in the film as Catherine DeMedici who marries Prince Henry and has a lot of kids among them three boys who become Kings of France, the last Valois kings as it happens. Pavan perfectly fits my conception of Catherine in her younger years. Pedro Armendariz is fine Francis I.

As is well known in 1559 King Henry II of France dies when he's accidentally struck with a lance in the eye. He lingered for a few days but his wound was mortal and he was in agony. The film and no doubt the book it was based on have a lot of intrigue and the idea being this was no accident.

You're not seeing history, you are watching a romance novel. But it was a decent farewell for Lana Turner. And if the story is ever remade today it would be something like Justin Bieber as Henry and Demi Moore as Diane.

If you take this for what it was, Hollywood's take on a real historical event, Diane was an enjoyable movie, as long as you haven't a clue as to what went on then.

They had so much wrong in this story it was rediculious. I mean they even omited Nostradamus, Catherine's protogee, and the one who made the predictions of the kings death and that each of her sons would rule.....for a time. What I would like to know is why they had some squirrely kid predict this? Instead of the truth.