Diabolique

A fascinating example of glossy Hollywood film-making. No, it's not good. But the movie is shot gorgeously, the score is sumptuous and oddly touching, and the movie is often hilariously campy. Some lame stabs are taken at making the material more relevant and serious (Kathy Bates character is a cancer survivor; lesbian overtones are rampant) but these just make it more absurd. Even if you haven't seen the original, you'll figure out the "surprise" ending a mile away. And a thriller could not possibly be plotted more carelessly. But you've got to give points to a movie that dares to make Sharon Stone a math teacher (at an all-boys school, no less!). Watch and marvel at how Stone gleefully tramples over doormat Isabella Adjani in every scene as if she's a drag-queen version of herself. Many will find this movie boring, but if you go in expecting a campy, silly good time, you won't be disappointed.

A tyrannical school principal terrorizes his fragile wife with heart disease and his cynical mistress as well (both are teachers in the couple's private school). The two women plot to kill him, but after the murder their plan starts to fall through. The body disappears, then more and more signs become apparent to prove: he is alive.

The real mystery is why anyone had to remake a classic French thriller that was imitated so many times before, why it had to be done so terribly, cast so wrongly and acted in such unsubtle way - and why anyone on earth should care the whole stuff.

Oscar Wilde was one of the great wits of his age, but he was allegedly not averse to appropriating other people's bons mots. It is said that after his friend and rival James Whistler had made a particularly apposite remark, Wilde sighed and said "I wish I had said that!". Whistler's reply was "You will, Oscar, you will". The American film industry has a similar attitude to other people's films to the one that Wilde had to other people's conversation. When the European- particularly the British or French- film industry comes up with a particularly admired film, Hollywood gives a collective sigh and says "We wish we had made that!" You will, Hollywood, you will!

Recent years have seen a glut of remakes of European films, but, admittedly, the results of this creative plagiarism are by no means always bad. The plot of "Sommersby" may have been blatantly lifted from "Le Retour de Martin Guerre", but it is still a good film in its own right. Moreover, I was one of those who thought that Luc Besson's "Nikita" did not lose much in translation when it was remade as the Bridget Fonda vehicle "The Assassin". Sometimes, however, Hollywood manages to come up with a remake that is so inferior to its original model that the two films do not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. "Diabolique" is a case in point.

Henri-Georges Clouzot's "Les Diaboliques" was one of the classic thrillers of the fifties, as good as the best of Hitchcock's work. Jeremiah Chechik's remake borrows the same basic plot of the original, but transfers it from 1950s France to 1990s America. At the centre is the sadistic headmaster of a private school, a man who brutally mistreats not only the boys in his care but also his wife and even his beautiful mistress. The wife and mistress,tired of his mistreatment, plot together to murder him and to dispose of his body in the filthy school swimming pool, but when the pool is later drained the body has disappeared. As in the original, there is a sudden, surprise twist at the end. Chechik also, however,introduces elements that were not in Clouzot's film. The wife, Mia, here becomes a former nun, who has renounced her vows after losing her faith, but is still haunted by guilt. There is a suggestion of a lesbian relationship between Mia and the mistress, Nicole. Chechik also introduces a major character, in the form of a female detective, with no equivalent in the original film.

"Diabolique" has come in for some sharp criticism, largely because it is a remake of a classic. It is a mediocre film rather than a horrendously bad one, and if we did not have its famous predecessor to compare it with, it would doubtless be seen as just another banal and unsuccessful crime thriller. Nevertheless, I think that the criticism it has attracted is justified. Chechik must have known that one of the perils of remaking a film is that your work will be weighed in the balance against the original, and woe betide you if it is found wanting. And, compared with Clouzot's, Chechik's film is wanting indeed. He lacks the French director's sense of pacing and ability to convey suspense, with the result that his film is slow-moving where the original was brisk and flabby where the original was taut.

I was also disappointed by the acting. Isabelle Adjani can be a fine actress in her own language, as she showed in "La Reine Margot", but I have not been impressed with her in English-language films, and here her character never came to life. Sharon Stone was slightly better as the hard-bitten, sluttish Nicole, but this was not really one of her better performances and did nothing to alter my view that she has not always chosen the best vehicles in which to show off her talents. Chazz Palminteri's headmaster was almost too unpleasant to be believable, and Kathy Bates seemed wasted as the detective. Watching Clouzot's film I was glued to the screen with anticipation as I wondered how the film would end; watching Chechik's, my attention was rather glued to my watch as I wondered when it would end. 4/10

I heard some really bad things about this remake of the classic French film 'Les Diaboliques', and I would never have expected it to be a patch on the brilliant original anyway; the only reason I even bothered to watch it is because it happened to be on TV, and there happened to be nothing else on. However, after the first half hour or so; while the film indeed is nothing on the original, it seemed like it was going to end up being a decent thriller. But then the problems start; the parts where the original's character reflected on what they'd done were the best parts of the film; here they're extremely boring, and that's where the film falls down. The plot is basically the same as the original and focuses on a school which is ran by a man with a wife and a mistress; neither of which like him. They decide that killing him would be a great idea, and promptly do it. However, after disposing of the body in the school swimming pool and later having it emptied; the body isn't there! And what's worse is that the women start to find clues that he may still be alive...

It's a real shame that this film wasn't better as the two female leads are excellent. I'm not sure that I would have made it all the way to the end if it wasn't for the fact that I had the beautiful Isabelle Adjani to admire. It's not her greatest performance and she seems to be on autopilot, but she fits into the scared mousy role well. She is joined by Sharon Stone, who is brilliantly cast as Adjani's colder and more collected opposite number. Stone also looks good, which is certainly a bonus considering the shortcomings of the rest of the film. The problem with the second half of the film is really that it's not interesting, and there aren't enough other things going on to make up for it. There's a hint of a lesbian relationship between the two leads, though nothing really comes of it; definitely a big mistake considering how great they both look! Having already seen the original, the ending came as no surprise; but I'm certain that I could have guessed anyway as there soon becomes only one way that it can go. Overall, I could probably watch Isabelle Adjani all day long; but not when the film in question is this one. There's not much point bothering with this...see the original instead.

The original here is one of the best thrillers, energetic in a way that distracts us from the revelation of the con.

This is a lesser movie, but adds at least three clever ideas. If you are interested in narrative structure, you'll be interested in remakes of films and how they change. (I think these are changes to the original.)

First, in true folding style, they added a film within the film. The film within is a recruiting film, but that hardly matters.

Second, they changed the dynamic of the detective by making him a her. This allows for the third change but along the way the possibilities exist for the three types of women: the virgin, the whore and the shrew. It isn't played up well enough to matter, but its clear that someone's intuition was tuned.

Third, there is a final twist that I think is quite different than the original's. It bonds the three women, already hinted in a lesbian tendency between the first two.

But amazingly, the film didn't work well for me, probably because of pacing problems at various levels. Not that any level was off by the interplay of levels wasn't syncopated according to what engages. Its an intuitive process, I think, but quite rigid in its rules.

Isabelle Adjani was cast perfectly, and introduced very skillfully. Beginnings are hard.

This in its original incarnation was the first double con movie, I think. Adding a third was inevitable, I suppose.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.