L'étrange Madame X

Jean Gremillon built up a strong reputation as director, and in this film the photography and the acting help keep it together.

Michèle Morgan starts the movie smooching Henri Vidal at an empty soccer stadium, recalling when they first met. And so their love progresses, but then you realize that Morgan has a double life. She is actually married to a very rich man and she inhabits a sumptuous house.

But her heart is set on Vidal, who struggles to start a business. And then - oops! - she does the naughty thing over a torrid weekend with her lover and a lovely baby is born. All's hunky door, Vidal wants to marry her and suddenly the baby takes ill. That is when Vidal finds Morgan dancing in hubby's arms in the high life of Paris.

Vidal is distraught over that discovery but it gets worse: the little girl passes away. Which is when Morgan comes running, bedecked in jewels and furs, and tells Vidal she really loves him. To which he replies with a great one-liner: "I don't doubt that you love me so much you even forgot you were married to someone else!"

Guess what? Vidal puts his foot down and walks off, having lost lover, daughter, another woman who loves him,. and his business. Morgan loses the impoverished love of her life, cries some on a park bench, and returns to dancing in high society with her wealthy hubby and exquisite jewels.

You could argue that L'ETRANGE MADAME X is all about appearance and reality. I think it's more about the blindness of love and how it cost poor Morgan an unwanted pregnancy and very nearly her lofty social station in life.

I have no idea whether this film provided any inspiration for MADAM X (1966) featuring Lana Turner. If so, both films are equally forgettable.

Michele Morgan (Irene) is married to wealthy publisher Maurice Escande (Jacques). However, she is involved in some serious secret hanky-panky with Henri Vidal (Etienne). So much so that she gets pregnant by Vidal. How will this tale unfold?

The story is not the most interesting to begin with and the characters are either unlikable or stupid. The psycho ex-girlfriend Arlette Thomas (Jeanette) is a real stalker nut-job and Morgan's character just needs to be honest. The maid Louise Conte (Angele) should have been given a bigger role.

The story is dull and slow-moving and even the credits at the beginning of the film were boring. They are a taster for what is to come. Where is a French Can-Can when you need one?

Sometimes there is no more to say. Yawn.

Thanks DB For me the big surprise is the virtually archetypal "Cinema de Qualite"/Studio look of the film - extreme low contrast, highly lit "luxe". The mise-en scene otherwise is quite unlike earlier Gremillons - no whip pans, anticipatory or reactive camera movements,etc and what seems like fairly routine decoupage based scene construction. Certainly compared to, say, Gueule d'Amour there is no change in the pearly tonalities of the image.

But the focus on the actors' physicality, in particular Henri Vidal is pushing my gaydar way into the red. There's something going on here behind the obvious. Gremillon's camera seems to give him the attention and the unblinkingly loving eye that Grem only otherwise gives to men - very briefly - in the opening prison scene of la Petite Lise, or the handsome dancing stranger who "takes" the Gypsy girl Zita during the ball scene in Maldone. Or the final image of Gabin and Rene Lefevre together at the end of Gueule. Many more viewings required however.

The first thing to bear in mind is that,at the time,Michèle Morgan and Henri Vidal were the ideal French couple for sixteen-year old schoolgirls .They met when they were making "Fabiola" and they got married.

Jean Grémillon and Albert Valentin do what they do best: setting a working class milieu against the bourgeois world ;the former had done "Gueule d'Amour " and "Lumière d' Ete " ,the latter had given "l'Entraineuse" and "la Vie de PLaisir".

This is the kind of "cinema-made-in-the-studio " which the Nouvelle Vague used to despise but it is this cinema which had lent credibility to the French films since the thirties.There's a striking contrast between the proles ' places (the street ,the uncle's restaurant,Etienne's bedroom,the small apartment where he thinks he 'll lead a peaceful life with the woman he adores and their baby girl)and the excessive luxury of the Voisin-Larive mansion.

THe construction of the movie can disconcert the audience cause the director takes us from one world to the other one,without giving any explanations.MIchèle Morgan is the only link between them and it is only little by little that we discover the truth.

Etienne (Henri Vidal) is a good guy ,in the grand tradition of Jean Gabin's parts of "Quai des Brumes" or "Le Jour se Lève".It is often mooted that Henri Vidal was a limited actor but his naiveté ,his human warmth and his handsome smile work wonders here.His hope is to marry Irene who told him she was the Voisin-Larive's chamber maid.

Irène (Morgan) is married to a rich bourgeois with whom she has no sexual relations.For him,she is a marvelous toy, a statue or a masterpiece ,something decorative you can show when you throw a party . When Irene tells him she is pregnant (by Etienne) he does not care ,he sends her to Switzerland ."I do not need any descendants " he says in a terrifying neuter voice .

Jacques ,the rich husband is some kind of monster.He is not evil,and the fact that he does not need children is downright disturbing,cause the bourgeois 's dream is par excellence a dynasty ,a boy who will continue his work .But this one seems selfishness itself.When Etienne -who still believes Irene is the chamber maid of the house - tells him his wife is pregnant by him,he finds it rather funny and does not give the game away.

Jeanette ,the less-than -attractive girl in love with Etienne ,is the rejected person we had met in "Pattes Blanches" (1948) .Played by the same actress (Arlette Thomas) ,she epitomizes hope against hope ,she is a Cinderella whose pumpkin never turns into a horse-drawn coach.Both those heroines (Jeanette and "Pattes Blanches"'s young hunchback girl ) have a similar fate.Both think that a dress can make the job done,both were born to cry.

This cinema-in-the-studio which I mention is often dazzling: there's a sublime shot of a prostrated desperate Morgan while a train is whistling and a hearse down there is crossing the street ,a scene to rival the best of Sirk (there's a similar scene in " a time to love and a time to die" ).Those carols ("Gloria in Excelsis Deo") become something as obscene as the dazzling Xmas decorations (one finds the same refinement in the final scenes in the castle in " Pattes Blanches" ) when a child is dying.Those bourgeois ,dancing in their luxury mansion ,waiting for the clock which's going to strike twelve ,is really a sickening sight.

"There are so many ways to die" Irene says to Jeanette,and then ,back home,she begins her waltz into darkness.

Saw this 7/12/15 via YouTube. A beautiful print, looked and sounded superb. Michele Morgan and Jean Marais-esque Henri Vidal effective as the engaged couple, but there is a twist: Irene (Morgan) is already married to wealthy Jacques Voisin Larive (Maurice Escande), an aged, avaricious gelding who fronts his attractive wife to advance his publishing business. She is an aristo posing as a prole to carry on her affair with the unsuspecting Etienne, Vidal's character, as he eagerly anticipates the marriage. The game gets serious: Irene has a baby by Etienne. After that things unravel with enough sadness to qualify Madame X as a tear jerker, but an effective one. I understand that films like this were strongly disapproved under the coming New Wave regime. I believe in le big tent.