I have been a lover of Chopin, the man and his music, for years and years, and have always been fascinated by George Sand. I rented this film on DVD (with English dubbing) and watched it last night with great expectations. I recently purchased IMPROMPTU, the other Chopin/Sand biopic, and found it wandered quite far from the actual events of their lives. So, I was disappointed with that one, and was hoping CHOPIN: DESIRE FOR LOVE would be just what I wanted from a Chopin biography. It was not.
What would be so hard about making a film based entirely, or at least mostly, on true events? Why do film-makers seem determined to turn the lives of these historic geniuses into soap opera frivolity? If you have ever read a biography on Chopin, or even just listened to his music, then you know what a highly intelligent, sensitive, perfectionist, almost otherworldly man he was. I want a movie about Chopin with an actor and a script that are as sensitive and detailed as he was. This film seemed like a cheap, made-for-TV movie with overacting, cheesy drama, and unnecessary sexual situations. I'm mainly referring to the scene of Solange frolicking nearly naked in the river in front of Chopin. There is no documented proof that there was ever anything beyond mild flirtation between Solange and Chopin, if there was even that. He was older, frail, and sickly, and she was young, sexy, and looking for money. She used him for sympathy, and he did have it for her. Oh, and the scene with the maid and Chopin! Completely made up for sex appeal! What were they thinking? Perhaps they just wanted to show that Chopin was starved for sex while living with Sand, but there were other ways to show that. Chopin would be sick over this one, and George Sand would never have stood for that under her own roof.
Chopin struggled with depression and sickness, and even had a few hallucinations from time to time. His own genius mind drove him mad with striving for perfection in music, dress, and appearance. Neither movie I have seen has touched on this aspect of his life very well, if at all. They have portrayed him as a whining snob and not much else. There was far more to him. In my opinion, he was very misunderstood. This is just something else I would love to see played out on screen.
On a positive note, there were a few little details in this movie that lovers of Chopin might really appreciate. For instance, in most scenes, the actor playing Chopin wears gray pants. This was Chopin's favorite color for his suits. There were also scenes of Chopin in a room with gray and green walls, which were the true colors of the wallpaper he chose for his apartment in Paris. I also liked the fact that the actress playing Sand in this film actually resembled the real woman, whereas in IMPROMPTU, Judy Davis looked nothing like her. They didn't even try with Davis, except to put her in a man's clothing. In the first party scene of this film, the actress is dressed and has her hair done exactly like Sand in a well known painting. I loved the way she looked here.
All in all, I would have to say that for Chopin and Sand fans, this movie is severely lacking in historical truth and nuance. At the same time, for those who have no knowledge of Chopin's life, it must be very confusing, tedious, and hardly entertaining. I hope one day that a good, detailed biographical film will be made for Chopin. Perhaps lack of interest from the public is why we've had two duds about him. However, I think if a well made film were to be done, many people who never knew about Chopin would find themselves fascinated and wanting to know more about this amazing composer's sad and hauntingly beautiful life story.
