Il colonnello Chabert

Most of other reactions by subscribers to this service were very apt, although that some found it slow or ambiguous puzzled me. Rather than ambiguous, it was complex and multi-layered in its meanings. One can see it as anti-war, because of the opening and closing scenes, and the folly of pretended grandeur, as how wonderful the cavalry men looked as they prepared for the great charge at Eylau, contrasted with its so horrible and disturbing conclusion, when we see the bloody uniforms, the boyish dead, etc--but chiefly, I see the film as about a moral man in an immoral society. At the end Chabert chooses retreat from the corrupt post-Napoleonic French world and opts for the simple pleasures provided by Derville (who himself is saved by his recognition of Chabert's basic decency and the morality of his choice of renunciation)--white bread, cheese, some wine and tobacco--over the riches he leaves to his wife, and her and society's dishonor. In her case, we can see the film as also feminist, in the position of women at that time, in which the only weapons Mme Chabert has are her charm, beauty, wiles and, ultimately, money.

First, let me confess that I have not read this particular Balzac novel, so maybe I am directing my cavils unfairly at director and editor. Still my experience with Balzac in other stories is that he writes as a realist, not an obscurantist. This is most certainly a film worth one's while, but one is left sorely puzzled at the end. Was the Colonel a fraud, used by the lawyer for his own ends (or for whose beyond himself); or was the Colonel not a fraud, but used as aforesaid by the lawyer; or did the lawyer truly try to serve the honest Colonel? The director and/or the editor appear to me to have deliberately obscured these questions, which doesn't seem like Balzac, the realist. At the same time the film does an excellent job of delineating the characters, if not their motives, and the cast and production is superb. That opening battlefield scene is bound to haunt one's dreams. Still, one wonders at the all too common penchant among contemporary film makers to favor ambiguity above all else. Weren't the problems and motives of all these characters complicated enough for Yves Angelo?

Colonel Chabert is one of the best adaptations from novel to screen I have seen in the movies. It combines the realism of French cinema with excellent characterisation, from Depardieu's lost Chabert to Fabrice Luchini's proud Lawyer to Fanny Ardant's complex widow. The movie has wonderful dimension, as you might expect from a top cinematographer such as Yves Angelo. The characters keep this movie in gear and although a bit slow in the beginning, picks up pace and is a fine movie by the time it reaches the finish.

I recently read the story to see how these two match up, and if you can believe it, this film improves upon Balzac. The story is moved around, I think, to drive home the idea that Colonel Chabert is a man who has suffered much and yet he comes home, not a hero, but as an outcast.

As someone mentioned, I was initially confused if Chabert was akin to The Return of Martin Guerre. No. It is firmly established by Balzac that Chabert is the real deal. What's interesting, though, is not is he, isn't he, but how his wife, and society, treats him.

I think this is a timeless story of men who go off to fight for their country and when they come home time has left them behind. Chabert is a tragic figure made all the more poignant by the amazing Gerard Depardieu. I don't care that he's been in 1 million films, he's captivating.

Fanny Ardant has a horrible character to play. Once a prostitute, Rose has used her feminine wiles to climb the social ladder. Are her emotions true for Compte Ferraud? I think they are and perhaps couple that with her social standing at the time, and you start to feel some empathy for her.

Fabrice Lucini is slowly worming his way into my heart. He's exceptional here as Derville.

I think if you can get your hands on this gem of a film, you won't be sorry. French cinema at its finest.

This is an unfortunately unrecognized classic.

The look is superb, the design, costumes etc are flawless, the post battle scenes and the cavalry charge are both chilling and exciting.

The characters are vivid and really human. Ardent is right and Fabrice Luchini as the lawyer Derville steals the movie with his clever pedantic rodent-like performance, delighting in the ups and downs of others' misfortunes. Depardieu is good but perhaps too large a presence for this role.

Where the film really excels is the story and also its changes from Balzac's novella. Those changes are editorial in that Balzac has lots of discussion on society and this film breaths with characters. Nevertheless Yves Angelo has retained the key ingredient, not just the missing man trying to regain his place in society but every character has to find their place in society: the Comte Ferraud is trying to buy a peerage, his wife (Ardent) comes from a lowly birth and when she was married to Colonel Chabert they achieved their position in the turbulence of post-revolutionary France. Everyone has something to lose in terms of status and that makes for a good drama as their objectives are in conflict with each other.

It also feels very modern: money is critical to buy status to reach power, but someone can go down as quickly as they go up. Derville enjoys the strategy, he has seen the worst of people he says to Chabert when he takes the case. This speech's original place is at the end of the novella as Balzac sums up the human comedy with huge irony.