Nana

A nice adaptation of one of great novels of Emil Zola. The only problem - it is an easy adaptation , giving only the portrait of a too selfish courtisan and not more. Sure, few virtues , from the portrait of Napoleon III by Jean Debucourt to the Elisa Ceggani or Marguerite Pierry. Charles Boyer and Martine Carol are real good in the lead roles but, after its end, it seems in too little measure a Zola . So, just nice.

I waited a long time to see this adaptation of Zola's famous novel but was really disappointed by the slow pace, the stilted dialogue (badly subtitled as well, in the VHS tape I saw) and the unimaginative camera work. It's pretty clear that this is precisely the type of post-WWII studio film against which Truffaut and Godard rebelled. And thank God they did, because their work is so much more interesting than period potboilers like this one. Martine Carol is vivacious and charming, but with limited acting ability. To be fair, "Nana" is the type of actress who is renowned for her fabulous body and her bold display thereof, rather than for any kind of musical or dramatic skills. (Sound familiar, Hollywood?) Also, as a plus, the film is very frank about how Nana earns a living outside of her stage appearances, and how her entourage skims off her fees by providing either information or access. I found this candor refreshing since most Hollywood movies of this era are very coy about whoring. Think about the presentation of Jo Van Fleet in "East of Eden," for example. Charles Boyer plays the male lead here, a hypocritical aristocrat in the Emperor's employ, but it's an unsatisfying part. It's all about "Nana," and in the end, being the selfish little baggage she is, she would prefer it that way.

Following the easy defeat of the French by the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, there were lots of recriminations on the government of Napoleon III. Many, such as the writer Emil Zola, saw it the result of over-confidence and decadence--and his story "Nana" was meant as a biting indictment against his society and government. However, most of this is missing in this 1955 version of the story-- one that looks nice but lacks the satire and underlying bite.

Nana is a stage actress of questionable talent. Nevertheless, she is a huge hit and the men of Paris adore her. While the film is a bit vague here, she clearly was a prostitute--working her way up from the streets to becoming the mistress of the rich and powerful. The story focuses mostly on a government minister, the Count Muffat (Charles Boyer) and his infatuation with this 'lady'. So, although Muffat is a champion of traditional values and family, under the influence of Nana, he's a hypocrite and libertine. And, during the course of his fling with Nana, you see that every man who comes under her spell is somehow ruined.

The obvious meanings in the story, as I said, are lost here in the film. It's a film about an alluring, selfish and amoral woman and not much more. As such, it is entertaining and looks quite nice but lacks the depth of the original tale. Good but nothing much more.

This is definitely a fun film to look at: fantastic colour, sets and costumes, and the powdery, lipsticky glamour of 35-year-old Martine Carol, a blonde like Zola's Nana, but now sporting the red hair. She is, of course, too old for the role - in the novel Nana, like the Second Empire, is a filthy pubescent trollop, decadent and parasitic fly. To mis(quote) Hugo: in short, 15 years!

Eventually she dies in smallpox, her moral rot now the physical one, too.

Zola? Maybe not.