La demoiselle d'honneur

Just like Patricia Highsmith, Ruth Rendell is a perfect inspiration to Claude Chabrol. Following Patricia Highsmith's example, Ruth Rendell minutely explores the troubled minds of unbalanced characters and the effects of their dangerous conduct on the people they mix with, the latter unaware of their mental imbalance. And what is director Chabrol pet theme? Just that!

This second child of a love match ( "La Demoiselle d'Honneur" is "La Cérémonie"'s younger sister ) is - unsurprisingly - as good as the first product of their encounter.

This time around, two hearts, two bodies are irrepressibly attracted to each other but will the sick mind of one contaminate the other's healthy brain? This is what the story is about and fascination slowly but surely finds its way to the viewer. Indeed Chabrol's talent mainly lies in his ability to make the story shift from the ordinary ( Philippe's family life, his job, the wedding ) to the uncanny ( Senta's odd ideas, the queer characters living in a bizarre house, Senta's sincere love tainted with unsettling ideas).

Benoît Magimel and Laura Smet embody the cursed couple to perfection.

In addition, there are excellent supporting performances, mainly from Aurore Clément ( the mother whose suffering is made apparent despite the character's efforts to hide it ), from young Anna Mihalcea ( striking as a young tortured rebel ) and from Michel Duchaussoy ( very amusing as good-natured tramp ).

All this fine movie lacks to be a genuine masterpiece is an extra dose of intensity. But , as it is, it's quite worth seeing.

Claude Chabrol still has it in him to craft a relationship drama with trust in the dark corners of the characters, and make it seem reasonably realistic. He's working from a novel by Ruth Rendell (and I can only guess how much more detail there is in there compared to here), but it feels like vintage Chabrol, with some updates for technological bits like cell phones, as he takes a romance to very peculiar, twisted lengths that somehow the audience buys completely because of the characters and the actors playing them. In The Bridemaid he opens on Philippe (Magimel), an accountant of some sort who has a kind but mixed-up family that's getting ready for Philippe's sister's wedding. As if in a slight update on Le Boucher, Chabrol has the set-up at the wedding for the two main players, as Philippe meets bridesmaid Senta (Laura Smet), and after the wedding she arrives at his house, drenched in rain, and they have a lustful encounter.

It's pretty close to immediately after this that Senta confesses her love for him, unquestionably, as if she knew it totally on first sight, and that now he is her's and so on. Upon this one might think, sarcastically, 'this can only end well', as love at first sight, save for a Disney movie, always leads to trouble. In this case Senta is adamant that Philippe, despite also confessing his love (however true or not is a curious part of the Bridesmaid I wasn't sure was a character flaw or a flaw in the story), "prove" his love for her. This includes two easy things and two out-of-the-question: plant a tree, write a poem, kill someone, and have sex with the same sex. Although Chabrol doesn't touch on that last one, the 'kill someone' part becomes the juicy angle to the story, as one is on edge if someone is really dead or how Philippe will play the next move, and how blinded by this obsession Senta has with Philippe.

And yet Senta's obsession isn't seen as something with hysterics or over-the-top acting. Far from it, and characteristic for a Chabrol film, Smet's performance is precisely subtle and kind and intelligent and all those things that reel Philippe in against all better judgment. It's an inspired turn by an actress (excuse me, 'actor') who I hope to see more of. Same goes for Magimel, who is the 'hero' of the story as the good guy who wants to be there for his mom and troubled younger sister, but also has this strange attraction to Senta that soon pits him in an untenable (or so he thinks) position. As far as that central storyline goes between Senta and Philippe, it's gold and cool and as good as anything Chabrol did in the late 60s and 70s, with sweet hints of the erotic thrown in from time to time.

The only downsides are, naturally, some disbelief with Philippe early on, or in the initial appearances of certain twists, and especially how we're meant to put some extra stock in Philippe's family troubles (mainly Patricia as a petty thief) that aren't well developed and works mostly to show how his family is as firm, warm counterpoint to Senta's clinging and desperate 'love'. But aside from this the fan of Chabrol whose been tracking his career for however long it's been going (since the late 50s early 60s with the other Cashier du cinema team) will hopefully be pleasantly surprised to know he's still got it in him to make compelling, dramatic cinema, with the usual Hitchcockian angles amped-up to a certain sinister, and ultimately tragic, glee. 8.5/10

This movie did not particularly convince me. Maybe my expectations went in a completely wrong direction but nevertheless I discovered some flaws that really disturbed my pleasure of this basically interesting film.

The plot line grows more and more absurd and - in its absurdity - predictable as the story goes on. This would not matter to me (as I do not really mind that we are never given an explanation for the strange and questionable features that strike us right from the beginning, especially in connection with Senta and the bust) if the characters were a little more subtly portrayed. All of the characters (Magimel's at the least) are exaggerated and near-hysterical, and therefore close to various type clichés (the rebelling teen daughter stealing, colouring her hair AND piercing her nose; the bridegroom, who is revealed as an idiot the instant we see him, calling his bride embarrassing terms of endearment; the mother smiling hopefully throughout as if she was on drugs). I am sure all this is not due to bad acting but done so intentionally. But I fail to understand what kind of quality it is supposed to add to the film. Humour? I don't know; I laughed occasionally but not very often.

This is the kind of film that I am sure is fun making; but then it should not be shown publicly.

I really like the books of Ruth Rendell, some under the pseudonym as Barbara Vine and she had published some 80 books. Claude Chabrol I also like and he had made something like 60 films, some of them wonderful. He made a couple of his of Rendell's, the first one was The Ceremony (1995) a great film made out of, A Judgement in Stone. Later on, this film was made in 2004, and from her's of the same title. The book is fine but unusually with Chabrol in this one I'm not sure he really gets it quite right here. It is a bit complicated and a rather odd tale and I think he wanted it to be amusing as well, but maybe it wasn't a good idea. It is interesting but with the stone head with bed, the candles and no people, and some dead but not dead, maybe it is just too much going on.

At his sister's wedding, a young man falls for a bridesmaid who harbors some weird ideas and may have a disturbing past. Chabrol is regarded as the French Hitchcock, and this film has some parallels with "Strangers on a Train," but it's not as taut and suspenseful as that classic. Chabrol here seems to be more interested in character development and relationships than in the plot. In fact, between a slow beginning and an unsatisfying ending, what little plot there is is rather predictable. However, it manages to be engaging despite these shortcomings. The pacing is leisurely but not boring. It has a good cast.