Fanny

Leslie Caron, (Fanny) was fantastic in this romantic story where she shines like a very sweet and pretty young girl who grew up with a young man and they were both very much in love. Fanny's mother sells all kinds of fish on the water front docks and Fanny helps sell fish also. The young man who Fanny loves is the son of Charles Boyer, (Cesar) and he owns a sort of café and his son loves Fanny very much but he is getting tired of his father's café and wants to go to sea and become a sailor. The story takes an about face when this young man has to make up his mind if he wants to marry Fanny or go to sea, which his father would not be very happy about. This is a great love story and it will hold your interest from the very beginning to the very end.

I saw this movie in 1961 and was so moved by it, that it is now one of my all time favorites. Leslie Caron stole my heart then and now. Charles Boyer was fantastic. The dialogue was especially intelligent. The music was superb.

I won't play the "movie purist" card and pretend that it's not possible to remake Marcel Pagnol's "Marseilles" trilogy, it IS possible. But it's not possible to replace an actor like Raimu, he wasn't just César the gruff and wise barkeeper on Marseilles' waterfront, he was the soul of Marseilles' trilogy, he was the voice, the spirit… and the star. So, it's as hard imagining the trilogy without him than "Casablanca" without Bogart. Yet Raimu died before the final opus "César" was made into a play, and Pagnol's three-part story had such an immediate international resonance that it was begging for remakes and adaptations… and that it inspired a successful Broadway musical is a credit to the universality of the story. So the show had to go on.

But no one can replace Raimu, and in fact, even the other players, Orane Demazis who played the fragile but progressively confident Fanny, Fernand Charpin who played the brave bourgeois Panisse, not to mention Pierre Fresnay as the bitter and tormented Marius were all hard to replace, so one must make the distinction between remaking and retelling. This is what Joshua Logan's "Fanny" does, it reprises the Broadway musical but adapts it into the movie format, compacting the three original movies into one of two hours and ten minutes. The film is colored and colorful, magnificently rendering the sunny soul of Marseilles, and the blueness look even more attractive and hypnotic for Marius whose childhood dream is to escape from the banality of life. He's the freest character of the trilogy, but not the wisest.

Wisdom belongs to César, the barkeeper, and the film tactfully starts with a replay of the famous scene where he shows his son Marius that it takes one third of four different ingredients to make some cocktail. There can't be four thirds, Marius says. It depends on the size of the thirds, retorts César. This scene demonstrates the power of this character, even when he speaks nonsense, he's actually right because he always makes his point. He's the touchstone of a saga of French intonations but that deals with universal life themes such as duty, gender roles and social customs, making almost a hero out of an old man marrying a young woman because he's saving her from disgrace and gives a poor out-of-wedlock child a name. Marseilles' trilogy belongs to the past but that doesn't prevent from rooting for Marius' dreams, Fanny's unfaithful thoughts and Panisse's financial arguments when he woos Fanny, César is actually the most transparent of all, no wonder he's the pillar of the story.

Now, it all comes down to one question: does Joshua Logan's "Fanny" do justice to the original trilogy? It is a matter of opinion and depends on the way you look at the original trilogy. If it's a verbal masterpiece with great insightful quotes about life and death, such as "honor being like a match, you only use it once" or "an empty chair can be sadder than a grave" then yes, "Fanny" of 1961 is a great tribute to Pagnol's eloquence and capability to translate with the right words the emotional complexities of human psyche. Now, if you forever associate the film to the spectacular performance of Raimu, these intimate moments caught in black-and-white, with a few tear-pulling revelations, volcanic tirades and histrionic confrontations, you might find in "Fanny" a pale imitation. But for the film's defense, I don't think anyone ever tried to imitate an actor, one of the film's masterstrokes was to cast French actors, it's twice an excellent idea, they're all aware of the trilogy's reputation and their accent give the film's French touch.

Charles Boyer was believable as a man who'd embody César's psychological traits without being Raimu's César, Leslie Caron added her own dimension of tragic melancholy and even Maurice Chevalier was surprisingly poignant as the unsung hero Panisse. I could even have seen him nominated instead of Boyer. Horst Bucholz was good as Marius, with a sort of Montgomery Clift's fire burning in his dark eyes, and like a good cocktail, Joshua Logan doesn't take the initial trilogy for granted, he changed the balance and gave Fanny and Panisse get the most important roles, maybe only Raimu could have made a passive observer like César such a driving force. But "Fanny" is structured in such a way that the actions sometimes count more than the little introspective moments, even though they spiced up the original trilogy.

So maybe that's the one flaw I'd concede to "Fanny", it puts a lot of good things together but it lacks that little zest that made the first trilogy such a tasty cocktail. And while it provides some powerful emotional moments, the conclusion is treated in a rather rushed away, with a ten-year old boy and a new house in the countryside. I don't know what inspired these artistic licenses, but it sadly took away the film from the atmosphere and the spirit it had set up, there's a sort of change in the air that feels awkward and make hardly believable that so many secrets, revelations, pains and troubles would be relieved in one day, ten minutes in cinematic language, and while I was critical of Césariot's character in the original film, the child doesn't exactly exude realistic vibes and his immediate complicity with Marius was sadly corny.

"Fanny" doesn't shine right away but there are like two hours of the film that work and despite a clumsy beginning and awkward ending, it doesn't ruin the enjoyment for all that, I'd still recommend watching the original first. In fact, I'd recommend the original, period.

I saw this movie when I was but 11 yrs. old. I am now 56 yrs. old but I have never forgotten its simple beauty, and the powerful emotion portrayed by actors who were expert at their craft. It is a classic, definitely worth seeing.

The story transports you to a world less glamorous, but full of charm and it reflects the passion of young love, the desperation of a girl "in trouble," and it explores the depth of a woman's love for a man, even when he cannot return that love, and for her child. It teaches that a sperm donor does not a father make, but shows how mutual respect can foster great admiration and loyalty, leading to their own special kind of love.

This movie has everything that one can consider good entertainment: the characters are colorful if not intense, the background music is pleasing, the language is acceptable for all ages, there is humor and there are tears. It is one of my all-time favorite movies, in company with the likes of Love is a Many Splendored Thing.

I was so glad to see so many reviewers say that this is their favorite movie of all time, because it is mine too -- but I always thought I was the only one who felt this way about it! A large part of my sentimental reaction to this movie comes from the fact that Charles Boyer looked so much like my father did at that age, and this was also the last video my dad and I watched together before he died. When Marius comes out of the café to go to sea, his father is standing on the waterfront watching the ship. There is a stunning fast zoom-in to the back of his father's head that stops my heart, not just because I feel Marius' shock at the realization that he will not see his father again for five years, but also because Boyer looks so much like my own father in that scene. Strangely, when my dad and I watched this together, he caught his breath at this same scene, and said that Boyer looked so much like HIS father!

When Marius says goodnight to his father (Boyer) the night before he plans to run away to sea, there is a beautiful scene in which Boyer is walking up the stairs, then turns and says to his son, "You know, I always tell you that you have ruined my life, but ..." at which point Boyer clutches his chest and becomes so choked up that he can barely continue, and croaks out the line, "it's not true!" It's the most touching, understated scene between a father and son I have ever seen in a movie. (Tragically, Boyer's own son committed suicide four years after this movie was made -- it makes me wonder whether the poignancy of his acting in this scene sprung from his real-life feelings about his own son.)

And who can forget the loving, gentle lecture he gives his son later, when he comes back from sea and wants to take his baby back from Panisse. Boyer tells him that "love is like cigarette smoke -- it doesn't weigh very much -- it takes a lot of love to make 23 pounds" and that Panisse gave the bulk of it to the baby.

And what about Cesar's (Boyer) math skills when he tries to show his son how to make a drink and tells him to use 1/3 each of four ingredients. When his son says, "but a glass only holds three thirds!" Boyer shouts, "It depends on the SIZE of the thirds!"

From start to finish, this film depicts the gentle pathos and kindness of people who all know and love each other (as Marius says, "people who maybe love me too much!"). There are no villains. Even when Panisse (Maurice Chevalier) storms out of the café in a huff, saying that his lifelong friend Cesar (Boyer) has insulted him and that he will never set foot in Cesar's café again -- when someone asks, "What about our card game tonight?" Panisse gives a typically Gallic shrug and replies, "But of course I will be back for that -- what has one thing to do with the other?"

A warm, funny, and amazingly insightful movie, and a rare opportunity to see two French greats -- Charles Boyer and Maurice Chevalier -- play off each other and steal scene after scene from the young people!