Le grand Meaulnes

This early Nicolas Duvauchelle's role is the big grab for him, he literally steals, robs the whole film. He is awesome, terrific in this not less outstanding character, for which the choice was excellent. I like this kind of story which describes the life in France, in the countryside, a very long time ago, the early years of the 1900's. This is a fascinating story, despite the absence of suspense. It is riveting, thanks again to Nicolas Duvauchelle who gives here a very promising performance that won't deceive us for the rest of his career. Not for all audiences though, only for specific ones and also audiences fond of French classic literature.

One can't predict all the twists and turns life can take. Some things are within our power to change and some things just aren't. And this movie depicts that brilliantly.

The sovereign strength of the 1967 version by Albicocco is its close adherence to the text and story of the book. The fallacy of this film is its departures from the text and story. It is beautifully made, especially the music by Philippe Sarde is the greatest advantage of the film, but every departure from the novel degrades the film in quality. One vital character, Ganache known as the Pierrot, is missing altogether, and if you know the story you can not miss him. The other characters are good enough, especially Jean-Pierre Marielle as the old Monsieur de Calais, but also Yvonne de Calais is palpably inferior to the truer Yvonne of the 1967 film, which should be regarded as the classical film version of this very sensitive novel. A lot of its magic is missing here, the great wedding feast all draped in magic in the 1967 film is here made more realistic with many important details missing, and although Jean-Baptiste Maunier is excellent as Francois, Nicolas Duveauchelle as Meaulnes is too cold to be quite convincing. Additions to the story here are the soldiers, the airplane and the start of the First World War, while there is nothing of the sort in the novel or in the previous film, and such additions are debatable. The film is still worth watching for its sustained beauty, but you will return to the 1967 film but not to this one.

Only the 1967 movie is the magic that stays with you your entire life.

As soon as our group in high school heard that it had come to New York, we took the train in and watched it. I was smitten by the visual emotionality of the film, not the characters playing in it. E, liked the colors and the washes of color that she perceived. No we didnt do drugs. G was the photographer and he stayed for two showings. The dreamlike scenes in the film have woven their wwy into the rest of his life photography. GS didnt appreciate the music, I thought it was just background. GS is an international conductor and composer . We are all nearing the ending of our lives, but somehow this film became part of our makeup. Truly a strange and connected event. I wish I could see it again, but not the junky 2006 remake. I also want it in English or English captioning.... so long I have been searching.

Jean - Pierre Marielle is only actor at perfect place. Otherwise, fragile attempts to suggest the atmosphere of novel. Essence is lost. Game is childish. And the first purpose - invitation to discover the world from Alain-Fournier masterpiece is only smoke. But far from book, it is not a seductive movie. Silhouette of James Dean for Meaulnes is not good option. Mysteries are slices from another stained. France of village is just sketch. And final impression is strange - desire of a director to recreate an universe for new title in his movies list. No doubts, Le grand Meaulnes is not easy prey for adaptations. But this fact may be encouragement. Or curse. So, fragile thing has need gentle hands and refined minds.