Indochine

There is some difference of opinion about whether this is a good film or not. Some have called it a "soap opera" beautifully filmed. (Both Leonard Maltin in his Movie and Video Guide and the good people at Video Hound used that designation.) But I don't think that is correct at all. Beautifully filmed yes, stunning at times like something from David Lean; and in fact this film has more in common with the Hollywood panoramic epic than it does with the tradition of the French cinema. But it is certainly not a soap opera. In a soap opera the important element is a narrow focus on things material, social, and sexual played out in a banal, cliché-ridden and bourgeois manner. In Indochine the focus is on political change and why it came about.

The story begins in Vietnam in 1930 and concludes on the eve of the communist revolution in 1954--presaging the tragic American involvement a decade later. Catherine Deneuve plays Eliane Devries, the strong-willed owner of a rubber plantation in Vietnam, then part of the French colonial empire. Having no children of her own (or a husband) she raises the Vietnamese girl Camille (Linh Dan Pham) as her own. She conducts secret affairs (and even visits opium dens) while maintaining the appearance of respectability. We are shown the decadence of the French living in Vietnam and the exploitive evils of colonialism, hardy the stuff of soap opera. We are made aware of the social unrest stirring amongst the population and even shown what amounts to a slave auction conducted by the colonial powers with the aid of the French military, in particular, the French navy.

Enter Jean-Baptiste (Vincent Perez), a handsome French naval officer who, despite the difference in their ages, initiates an affair with Eliane. She is at first put off, then reluctant, and then madly in love. Perhaps this familiar progression is what some think of as soap opera material; and perhaps it is, although their affair is only a small part of the film, and at any rate, such behavior is entirely consistent with Eliane's character and that of Jean-Baptiste, and is necessary for the plot developments to come.

Deneuve was nominated for Best Actress by the Academy but didn't win (Emma Thompson won for Howard's End), but the film itself won as Best Foreign Film. In truth Deneuve's performance is a little uneven. Regardless, this is one of the most important roles in the career of an actress who was as beautiful in 1991 when this film was made as she had been in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) at the beginning of her career. Indeed, I would say even more beautiful. My favorite Deneuve film, by the way, is Mississippi Mermaid (1969) with Jean-Paul Belmondo directed by Francois Truffaut.

Also uneven is the direction by Regis Wargnier. The scenes set in Saigon involving the French and the Mandarins at their pleasures amid their wealth as they maintain their privilege are done with strikingly beautiful interiors splashed with the kind of color seen in, for example, the films of Chinese director Zhang Yimou. The scenes amount to indictments of the French and demonstrate why the communists eventually came to power. Note that the privileged are always decked out in the most amazing displays of color while the workers and the peasants are brown and dirty.

The panoramic cinematography of the Vietnamese country is also strikingly beautiful. We are shown the sheer cliffs falling into tranquil waters dotted with junks, the rock outcrops nestled in verdant growth, the angry skies, and the deluge of the monsoon. But the trek of Camille across the land to find her beloved is not realistically done. Her quick incorporation in a peasant family is also not convincing. And the following scene in which she and Jean-Baptiste escape from the slave market defies probability. However what becomes of her and him is brutally realistic and consistent with what we know about those times, although I would like to have seen them being fed when they are rescued and some indication of how they spent their time in that Shangri-la-like hidden valley.

Despite the flaws and inconsistencies, this is a fine cinematic experience, enthralling, disturbing and visually beautiful. See this as a prelude to all other films about Vietnam and the Vietnam War. What will become clear is how foolish was our involvement and how doomed to failure it had to be.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

I was never aware of this film, perhaps because I was not of the appropriate age to appreciate, but I must say, about thirteen years after its theatrical release, I was quite pleased with it on every level. Not only were the locations appropriately beautiful, and the cinematography mature and relaxed, but the acting, casting, plot development, and dialogue were in beautiful harmony. The film was a fantastic lesson in history to which Vietnam and the rest of us are owed. To satisfy length requirements for my comments, I will add, that this crew did not shy away from showing characters who experience anger, insult, jealousy, pain and all the rest with true precision. It is nice to see fine acting and depth with appropriate casting. I recommend this film to anyone who wants to see color and who can read subtitles. I would also recommend that this film be viewed in two or three sittings. I did this because of disruptions, but actually, this respite added to the inherent suspense of each characters' fate and made the film easier to digest on a whole. Nonetheless, you will find, that the film flows and throws in excitement just where it is needed.

If we think about movies that deal with the recent past of Vietnam, then everybody immediately thinks of war movies like for instance, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter... But why is that? I know how important this war was for the Americans as well as for the Vietnamese, but this is an old country with an ancient culture that has a lot more to offer than the battles, bombs and booby traps in the jungle, the rice fields or the cities. "Indochine" is a movie that tries to show us another part of the country's history. It deals with the latest years of French colonial times in Vietnam or Indochine as they called it back then.

The story starts in the 1930's at one of the largest rubber-tree plantations in Indochine (Vietnam). This plantation is owned by the French colonist Eliane, a proud woman who lives with her father and her native adoptive daughter Camille. She doesn't have a husband or a man in her life (apart from her father), but gets to know the young officer Jean-Baptiste when both want to buy the same painting at an auction. They have a short affair, but than she refuses to see him again. In the meantime it's Camille who has fallen in love with Jean-Baptiste and Eliane knows it. She makes sure he's send to one of the most desolate outposts on some remote island, making sure that the two will never see each other again. Camille has no choice, but to marry the man she was promised to, but in the meantime she starts a search to find the man she really loves.

This could have been a romantic movie in a different setting than we are used to, but nevertheless one like we have seen many more before. And in a way it is, but the movie has a lot more to offer as well. It shows the atrocities committed by the French, the great poverty of the indigenous people, the rise of Communism and the futile attempts to stop them (before the French got involved in the war that would later be continued by the Americans). This movie is a lesson in history and geography wrapped in a paper of romance and marvelous landscapes. It was beautiful and dramatic at the same time. I was touched and amazed by it and really liked it a lot. That's why I give this movie at least an 8/10.

I thought it was good, if over-long. I've been reading the comments and people saying things about Indochine's realism. From what I can understand from my family (who are all half-French, half-Vietnamese, and who left Vietnam pretty much at the time the film wraps up), the sense you get of Eliane "being in charge" of the Vietnamese, and the failure to look at things from the viewpoint of the Vietnamese themselves, but only from the French perspective, is pretty accurate.

Society was essentially segregated in Saigon / Indochina. One member of my family told me a story about how they left the French "compound" in Saigon one day with their mother and - for the first time - saw the real Vietnamese people, in tattered clothes... Cue "why are they in rags, mummy?" "because that's the way most people live."

So, as I see it at least, I wouldn't criticise this film for the sense you get of the French being oblivious to the reality of their existence in Indochina. That's the way it was. That's the way most colonies were, in fact (think Shanghai). And I think that's the masterstroke of this film: that people lived their lives without ever thinking about the broader impact of what was going on, until everything just fell to pieces around their ears.

I've seen at least 10-20 post-Vietnam movies, nearly all concentrating on the war or the aftermath of a war in a country that most Americans know absolutely nothing about (including me).

What a relief it was to learn something about the years of mistreatment Indo-Chine (or Vietnam) suffered at the hands of the French colonists who seem to have the 'reverse-Midas-touch' when it comes to their land possessions. Then again, I suppose this is the way of all colonists who invariably mistreat their 'possessions'..

The acting was terrific by all involved. Learning the pre-war background behind the extreme North/South polarizations and seeing all the strife that's touched Vietnam was the best lesson I've yet gleaned from any Vietnam movie.

I think a cure has finally been developed for Oliver Stone.

As high a rating as possible.