La princesse de Montpensier

to a bizarre and fascinating world. a kind of fairy-tale. charming, tender, delicate. a remarkable director, a beautiful text by Madame La Fayette and nuances of acting. nothing else. it is not a great film. it is only perfectly French. it is not an event or revelation. it is slice of a time - gray, cruel, ambitious, selfish. but not the period is the axis. essence is the nice performance of Melanie Thierry, the precise definition of character potential by Lambert Wilson and, of course, Gaspar Ulliel . result - a form of delight. all usual ingredients. and little more. history, love stories in different forms and Evelina Meghnagi in a real fascinating role. good work of master Tavernier.

I am a big fan of historical dramas and have always thought that French directors do them very well. This, however, was one of the poorer efforts I have seen. I wouldn't be as hard on it as the reviewer who gave it 1 (awful). I found it absorbing enough but rather too long. The battle scenes seemed authentic in showing what it probably was like back then. The portrayal of life in the 16th century was good. The problem was with the characters who didn't have much depth in my opinion. To Richard I would mention that it was not uncommon in those days for masters and servants to sleep in the same bed. It had no sexual connotations. I think it was just for warmth.

What I think was done very well in this film by Tavernier was the decors. Tavernier being a very gifted and talented director when faced with the challenge of recreating the middle ages succeeds like no other director in very recent memory. The exteriors, interiors and costumes are presented convincingly. He shows the nature without overdoing it. We are in the middle ages without being shown cliché after cliché.

There was one fact which may or may not be hard to swallow. I think there may be a divide amongst spectators in regards to the young cast, the exception being Lambert Wilson who in my opinion was exceptional as he was in the other film of this year Des Hommes et Des Dieux. While I could tolerate the young cast I didn't by no means fall in love with them, which could have affected my slight detachment from the action on screen. The weakest in my opinion, and I'm sure there will be some who disagree with me and they are right to do so, was the princess herself. I can't explain it but when she was on the screen I was almost at the point of irritation. Admittedly this is quite subjective and I didn't find her looks and full lips as my ideal of beauty, moreover I found her insatiable in her desires but I think I was suppose to believe she was passionate. If I didn't believe that the Princesse was a creature of passion but more-so a selfish materialist how could I fall in love with the story? Aside from minor nitpicking, I found the sparse battle scenes excellent! It was such a refreshing experience to see battles treated in this way. I almost wish there was more.

What I take from this film was a real master class in how to render a medieval world. As I predicted a director of Tavernier caliber would not get this wrong.

Basing a long film on a short story is usually a risk; the story often runs thin before the long film is complete. This is most assuredly NOT the case in Bertrand Tavernier's decision to adapt (with François-Olivier Rousseau) the short story 'La Princesse de Montpensier' written by Marie de LaFayette (1634 - 1693) and published anonymously in 1662. Of note, La Fayette's most famous novel was 'La Princesse de Clèves' (1678), first published anonymously in March 1678. An immense success, the work is often taken to be the first true French novel and a prototype of the early psychological novel. This film is one that both entertains in the manner of the great epics of the screen, but also teaches us about the religious differences between the Catholic and the Huguenots (Prostestants) during the 16th century while at the same time addressing from a near feminist point of view the manners of courtly versus passionate love in that fascinating period.

Very briefly, Princesse Marie de Montpensier (Mélanie Thierry) is married to Prince Philippe de Montpensier (Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet) in a marriage of convenience arranged by Marie's father: the rare beauty of Marie attracts the attention of all men, a fact that drives Philippe to rages of unfounded jealousy. France is in the midst of religious war and Philippe is off at war with his tutor Comte de Chabannes (Lambert Wilson): after a particularly grueling battle in which Comte de Chabannes kills a pregnant woman and a child he informs Philippe that he can no longer stomach war and asks to return to the palace where he will continue being the tutor of Marie in Philippe's absence. Marie and Chabannes become close as he teaches her to read and write - during which time Chabannes secretly falls in love with Marie. But there are other men who would woo her: Duc d'Anjou (Raphaël Personnaz)- the youngest son of Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici (Christine Brücher), the man history books have described as gay and who courted England's Elizabeth I unsuccessfully, and Marie's childhood friend, the handsome but battle-scarred Henri de Guise (Gaspard Ulliel). The story successfully eaves the course of the war between the religious factions and the drives and promises and desires of the four men to win the affection of Marie. Court intrigues, duels, secret meetings and the power of nobility push the story to a surprising but well designed end; passion of the heart can be destructive.

Mélanie Thierry is brilliant as Princess Marie de Montpensier and is supported by equally fine performances by Wilson, Ulliel, Personnaz, Leprince-Ringuetand a very strong supporting cast. The period costumes and customs are perfectly realized, the cinematography by Bruno deKeyser and the musical score by Philippe Sarde enhance the rich tapestry of this Tavernier masterpiece. In French with English subtitles.

Grady Harp

Some of the best things in this lusciously mounted historical ramble are the battle and fight sequences. They are exciting and convincing, as is the picture's milieu. Some of the relationships sporadically command interest,despite the central character consistently failing to provide any spark. The Duke of Anjou is the most watchable; a wonderfully slimy character, whose complicated duplicity and arrogance is highly entertaining. The actress who plays the princess may have superficially attractive qualities, but she has no personality. She's a sponge, who gives almost nothing and inspires only restlessness and tedium. Had she been at least interesting this may well have been an exciting film. After a while this viewer couldn't care less what happened to her. A shame because everything around her is designed to make for a stimulating story. It should be shorter, and it should be re-cast. The real princess was supposed to be a beauty. Mlle Thierry is quite good looking, but I suppose, at the time of going into production there wasn't an available attractive actress who is also vivacious, and/or interesting, and not too expensive. Heigh ho.