Coronel Chabert: Amor e Mentiras

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.

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.

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.

Award winning cinematographer Yves Angelo makes his directorial debut here with this adaptation of one of the novels that make up Honoré de Balzac's monumental 'La Comedie Humaine', a 'natural history' of post-Napoleonic French society.

Not a few cinematographers have tried their hand at directing with decidedly uneven results but Angelo does a first rate job here and has the blessing of an exemplary cast.

It concerns an army veteran, long presumed dead, who returns in the hope of regaining his fortune, his status and his wife. A former prostitute, she has since become a Countess and is unwilling to jeopardise the social position she has acquired with his money..........

This is in fact the sixth film adaptation of Balzac's novella and the character of Colonel Chabert has been played most notably by Werner Krauss, Raimu and Vladislav Strzhelchik. At the time this current version was made there was surely no French actor around with box-office power who was capable of following in their footsteps other than Gerard Depardieu whose performance is utterly mesmerising. Not for nothing has he been referred to by Yves Montand as 'THE actor of his generation.' Playing the morally ambiguous Comtesse Ferraud is the wondrous Fanny Ardant with whom Depardieu made 'The Woman next door' thirteen years earlier and once again their scenes together are riveting.

André Dusollier as Comte Ferraud is as always good value and the characterisation of the lawyer Derville by Fabrice Luchini is well-drawn although his mannered delivery can be rather tiresome.

As with all of Balzac's novels the multi-faceted characters live and breathe whilst the theme of how a hero of War can become an outcast of Peace is tragically timeless.

Whilst this film is not a classic it is absorbing and at times distinctly unsettling. Rather than use a specially composed score Angelo has cleverly used classical pieces notably Schubert's final piano sonata and Beethoven's trio of which the title 'Ghost' is singularly appropriate to Chabert's reappearance as if from the dead.

It has first class production values and continues the superlative tradition of costume drama at which French film-makers excel.

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?