Les destinées sentimentales

Having just yawned through three hours of "Les Destinees Sentimentales" I find myself asking yet again, "Whatever has happened to French cinema?" Time was in the '60's and '70's when it was one of the most fertile sources in the world with masterworks such as Chabrol's "Le Boucher" and Goretta's "La Dentelliere" appearing with amazing frequency to say nothing about little gems such as Alain Dhouailly's "Inutile Envoyer Photo" about which I can find nothing on this database. There was even "Permis de Conduire", a delightful trifle about a man trying to pass his driving test which seems to have passed unnoticed, but which, had it been made in the UK, would no doubt have brought forth the sort of accolades we used to give to such films as "Genevieve"; in actual fact I thought the French film so much better. In France Andre Techine seems to be the only director doing worthwhile things these days - if readers know of others I would be glad to hear of them. For the rest, two genres seem to predominate, inconsequential stories of everyday human relationships a la Eric Rohmer, but without that master's sophistication and subtlety, and period literary adaptations which seem to have a statutory length of at least three hours. In this latter category comes "Les Destinees Sentimentales" a dreary saga of a family running a porcelain factory that starts at the beginning of the 20th century moving forward to the period between the two World Wars. It mainly deals with marital and business ups and downs. With the one exception of an estranged wife magnificently played by Isabelle Huppert, the rest are singularly boring company. Even the central character. a Protestant cleric who abandons his calling, seems incapable of conveying the suffering of spiritual doubt in the way that Gunnar Bjornstrand so memorably achieved in Bergman's "Winter Light". In the end it all seems such a waste of effort by a youngish director, Olivier Assayas, who is clearly not without talent. Early on there is a ballroom scene that has that excitment of movement often to be found in the best of Scorsese. If he were to choose his subject matter more carefully there is the ability there to make a really good film. I have to admit that this is the only Assayas film I have seen so he may well have done this already. Again I would appreciate hearing from readers on this point.

For the first time Assayas has left the contemporary Paris settings of his films and tried his hands on a period picture, set in a small village in the South, a china factory in Limoges, the Swiss Alps and on the battlefields of WW1. The film is a brave attempt to revive Luchino Visconti`s lavish epics but unfortunately lacks the Italian`s breath. The story could have easily been told in 90 minutes (instead of 180!), and even if some scenes and locations look gorgeous (especially the ballroom-scene!) and Assayas` (and cameraman Eric Gautier`s) usual trademark, the nervous camerawork, goes down well with a period picture, all that isn`t enough to hold our attention for such a long time. Nothing in this films can really surprise us, not even the beauty of Emmanuelle Beart or the acting quality of Isabelle Huppert, and as the film potters along one hopes Assayas will rapidly go contemporary again. Not really bad but definitely ways apart from the quality of his earlier films.

I just saw this picture and it gave me the impression of Assayas trying to give us a symbolic message on globalization, French versus American markets, and at the end he delivers a movie about the film industry itself.As they say, do it for the French market!

Cinematography is at its best, rhythm of images goes perfectly along character´s feelings at the moment.

Beautiful ball sequence and very good explanation on ceramic and china industry at beginning of 20th century, breath taking swiss sceneries.

I WW sequence is also very well done.

Emmanuelle Beart and Isabelle Huppert are splendorous,La Huppert appears less but is much more intense.

Also got the impression that novel had much more to offer than the 3 hours film version, but this is film, anyway, and script is script.

Beginning and ending with a death scene, love is the only worthy thing in life.

This film isn't exactly about the most exciting topic, china from Limoges, France, though it turned out to be a dandy film. It's a very lengthy film (almost 3 hours) that takes a very leisurely stroll through the adult life of a husband and wife--chronicling the husband's assumption of control of a family business and the ensuing ups and downs of this business. Once again, I know this doesn't sound very good to watch, but it is--particularly if you don't mind a long movie. I especially liked the way the characters changed throughout the film and the message the film gives that you cannot lose sight of your loved ones on your way to fortune.

About the only negative I can think of in the movie is the inconsistency of the makeup. While the two main characters age well throughout the film and definitely appear quite old when the film concludes, for some odd reason Isabelle Huppert looks pretty much the same throughout (even though at least 25 years had passed from when you first saw her until you last saw her in the movie), as did one other minor character. Oh well, it's certainly not enough to damage the movie significantly--just an odd little flaw.

The story of a man (a very good performance by Charles Berling) over a 30 year period, starting at the beginning of the 20th century. It explores what matters to him -- the women in his life, his morality, and later his porcelain factory.

It poses some important questions; how does one balance morality, passion and being an artist? And when is the pursuit of perfection a vice or a virtue?

There are flaws; some interesting plot lines are simply dropped, and other less interesting ones get more time than they need. Isabelle Huppert, while always good is surprisingly a bit one-note, and Emmanuelle Beart can't really pull off being an old lady.

But this ultimately felt like more than the sum of its parts. By the end I felt moved and thoughtful, and it's 3 hour length, while deliberate, was never boring.

Critics were very divided - some coldly dismissed it as dull and seemed angry at Assayas for betraying his earlier hipper, more energetic films (I'm just impressed by his range), while others, like me, were really taken in by the Dickensian sweep.