Les destinées sentimentales

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.

This movie is either too short or too long.

If it tries to follow a book and to show the whole life of several dozen people, it should have been made as a mini (not too short) serial. I still remember how much I've enjoyed first TV version of The Forsyte Saga, made in 26 episodes.

There are also far too many characters in the movie. (I know France is a big nation, but they didn't have to show all of them in one movie.) For the first hour you even don't know who the main characters are (unless you've read carefully opening credits). Later during the movie some of them never appear again, some appear when you've already forgotten who they were and you don't care for them any more (as well as main characters and probably the director himself). Some get a significant footage in certain part of the movie and then never show again, being completely irrelevant to the plot (or having a subplot of their own that never develops). Yes, life looks that way, you can suddenly meet a person you haven't met for ages, but life lasts decades and you can't compress it into 180 minutes.

The movie promises very much in first hour (though this extreme number of characters obstructs your attention and complicates following the plot - and sometimes you wonder if there is any). Ball scene (often mentioned in other comments) and some casual talking scenes are marvelous in best French tradition.

But suddenly, as if the director discovered that his movie should last more than twelve hours if he kept the same rhythm, we jump along the years and we have some important things just mentioned as if someone waking from coma now and then and getting a few basic informations before losing conscience again.

The final hour is the best, but I'm afraid many people haven't seen it, either because of giving up, or simply falling asleep while trying to find who is who and what is he doing. Even those with best attention, who could solve this two questions, had no chance to answer the third one - why. Maybe we, who stayed awake till the end, managed to understand the main characters, but it is not a compliment for a 180 hours long work.

Some people compared this movie to Visconti's works. I'd agree, as I find Visconti the most boring of all overrated directors (and, just to mention, I respect Tarkovsky, like Tornatore and adore Bergmann - and ignore action movies).

Except making a serial, this movie could have been made watchable in two other ways. First, it could be made without middle part - after 1900 events we could have skipped into WWII without losing anything. Second, Assayan could have made what Kazan did with Steinbeck's East of Eden - chose one part of the novel, one plot and cut away the rest. We could have lost characters like Louise, Aline and her friend (?), Fayet etc, but I couldn't care less for them anyway. Maybe someone would find it a blasphemy for the literature, but making people yawn and bore isn't a favor to it either.

The film was sensitive, but disappointing.

It was over-extended and in spite of the elements to a period flick being present -- set in a small village, a devoutly Protestant porcelain empire in Limoges, the Swiss Alps, and World War I -- it lacked the period movie breadth like how the Italian's would do it.

Not even the beauty of Béart nor the shaky camera technique used throughout the movie could hold our attention for such a long time.

Oh well, this was Olivier Assayas' first period film, a departure from his contemporary works.

That's a valid excuse for the film, I guess.

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.

Chardonne's novel is a masterfully written tale about two characters as they spiral through and explore love as life's most essential element. The director captured it beautifully as a tone, a feeling, and as an overall impression of how the characters react to their journey. Unfortunately, he left out the milestones, those transitions a character makes, inwardly, as outward events bear in on them. The audience is asked to make gigantic leaps of logic as the character's trust in and dependence on Love changes, evolves with age. Mind you this is a three hour epic, so it is not for want of time that the production misses the mark, only the screenwriter's discipline, and here, again, the director got involved where he ought not be.