Indochine

I've seen at least 10-20 post-Vietnam movies, nearly all concentrating on the war or the aftermath of a war in a country that most Americans know absolutely nothing about (including me).

What a relief it was to learn something about the years of mistreatment Indo-Chine (or Vietnam) suffered at the hands of the French colonists who seem to have the 'reverse-Midas-touch' when it comes to their land possessions. Then again, I suppose this is the way of all colonists who invariably mistreat their 'possessions'..

The acting was terrific by all involved. Learning the pre-war background behind the extreme North/South polarizations and seeing all the strife that's touched Vietnam was the best lesson I've yet gleaned from any Vietnam movie.

I think a cure has finally been developed for Oliver Stone.

As high a rating as possible.

Indochine is a wonderful, poignant film set in the 30's during the French Vietnam conflicts. Catherine Deneuve is the terribly engrossing heroine,Elaine Devries, who uses her wealthy status as a rubber plantation owner to cover up her affairs. However, things get complicated when her adopted daughter falls in love with her much younger lover. This movie shows a wonderful unbiased perspective about Vietnam, and the acting is superb, with Vincent Perez and Dominique Blanc. This is a intricate and complex movie that will leave you thinking long after the movie is finished.

A beautiful film about the latter years of the French colonial era in Vietnam. I notice some comments that seem confused about Deneuve's characters attitude toward the Vietnamese on her rubber plantation. They find her "maternalism" offensive and therefore? what, they don't like the film? What do they expect from a colonialist? Compare this to Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot, a slave owner who has released all his slaves (1700s) and re-hired them. Is this more believable? More comfortable?

The French exploited the natural resources and the population of Vietnam; that's what colonialism was all about, and I don't see that this film is even faintly supportive of colonialism. On the contrary, Indochine offers some clarity about what the Vietnamese were rebelling against, and background for the conflict that would later pull in the US.

And a gorgeous, gorgeous movie.

OK let's get it out of the way up front, Eliane IS France, Camille IS Vietnam the story is their story. Of course it is told from the French viewpoint, France is telling the story about her child growing up. It is a sad story, the French lost. It was not a happy story for the Vietnamese they had to fight for 2 more years to be reunited and struggle for 15 more to start to come out of the whole process. That said this is one of the most beautiful movies ever made, period.

The intricate ballet of personal dealings and politics is carried out so well that one can easily get lost in the levels, just as one can get lost in the intricate dance that is life in Asia. What you see is what you see, it may be more or less depending.

I do not believe that the movie defends France not does it condemn her. That part of the story is wisely left alone, what remains is a human drama of the folly of resisting the inevitability of change. As the film unfolds the sheer weight of history comes down on all involved.

It is that weight that brings the tears. From the time that Jean-Baptiste is brought to Saigon to the closing credits, there is no escape for anyone. The old order is out the new is awaiting its time of entry upon the stage. It is a time for tears, a time to mourn and ultimately a time to heal.

Americans in particular have a funny sense of history. We forget that others have been down the same roads before us. France's relationship with vietnam was most likely more of a force in the history of its people than ours with all of our napalm will ever be, because the French left a legacy of life that could be seen even in the senslessness of the American presence.

This movie captures that relationship and transcends it. Masterpiece is the lest one can say about such a work.

There is some difference of opinion about whether this is a good film or not. Some have called it a "soap opera" beautifully filmed. (Both Leonard Maltin in his Movie and Video Guide and the good people at Video Hound used that designation.) But I don't think that is correct at all. Beautifully filmed yes, stunning at times like something from David Lean; and in fact this film has more in common with the Hollywood panoramic epic than it does with the tradition of the French cinema. But it is certainly not a soap opera. In a soap opera the important element is a narrow focus on things material, social, and sexual played out in a banal, cliché-ridden and bourgeois manner. In Indochine the focus is on political change and why it came about.

The story begins in Vietnam in 1930 and concludes on the eve of the communist revolution in 1954--presaging the tragic American involvement a decade later. Catherine Deneuve plays Eliane Devries, the strong-willed owner of a rubber plantation in Vietnam, then part of the French colonial empire. Having no children of her own (or a husband) she raises the Vietnamese girl Camille (Linh Dan Pham) as her own. She conducts secret affairs (and even visits opium dens) while maintaining the appearance of respectability. We are shown the decadence of the French living in Vietnam and the exploitive evils of colonialism, hardy the stuff of soap opera. We are made aware of the social unrest stirring amongst the population and even shown what amounts to a slave auction conducted by the colonial powers with the aid of the French military, in particular, the French navy.

Enter Jean-Baptiste (Vincent Perez), a handsome French naval officer who, despite the difference in their ages, initiates an affair with Eliane. She is at first put off, then reluctant, and then madly in love. Perhaps this familiar progression is what some think of as soap opera material; and perhaps it is, although their affair is only a small part of the film, and at any rate, such behavior is entirely consistent with Eliane's character and that of Jean-Baptiste, and is necessary for the plot developments to come.

Deneuve was nominated for Best Actress by the Academy but didn't win (Emma Thompson won for Howard's End), but the film itself won as Best Foreign Film. In truth Deneuve's performance is a little uneven. Regardless, this is one of the most important roles in the career of an actress who was as beautiful in 1991 when this film was made as she had been in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) at the beginning of her career. Indeed, I would say even more beautiful. My favorite Deneuve film, by the way, is Mississippi Mermaid (1969) with Jean-Paul Belmondo directed by Francois Truffaut.

Also uneven is the direction by Regis Wargnier. The scenes set in Saigon involving the French and the Mandarins at their pleasures amid their wealth as they maintain their privilege are done with strikingly beautiful interiors splashed with the kind of color seen in, for example, the films of Chinese director Zhang Yimou. The scenes amount to indictments of the French and demonstrate why the communists eventually came to power. Note that the privileged are always decked out in the most amazing displays of color while the workers and the peasants are brown and dirty.

The panoramic cinematography of the Vietnamese country is also strikingly beautiful. We are shown the sheer cliffs falling into tranquil waters dotted with junks, the rock outcrops nestled in verdant growth, the angry skies, and the deluge of the monsoon. But the trek of Camille across the land to find her beloved is not realistically done. Her quick incorporation in a peasant family is also not convincing. And the following scene in which she and Jean-Baptiste escape from the slave market defies probability. However what becomes of her and him is brutally realistic and consistent with what we know about those times, although I would like to have seen them being fed when they are rescued and some indication of how they spent their time in that Shangri-la-like hidden valley.

Despite the flaws and inconsistencies, this is a fine cinematic experience, enthralling, disturbing and visually beautiful. See this as a prelude to all other films about Vietnam and the Vietnam War. What will become clear is how foolish was our involvement and how doomed to failure it had to be.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)