Thérèse (2012)

Catching up on what is happening in the UK General Election,I started to talk to friends on Twitter about their views on events. During the chats,a friend told me that the BBC were about to show a Audrey Tautou that he has been interested in seeing for ages. Charmed by Tautou in He Loves Me... He Loves Me Not,I got set to meet Thérèse Desqueyroux.The plot:Living life as a free spirit in late 1920's France, Thérèse Laroque begins moving away from her open nature,to instead keep with tradition and get together with Bernard Desqueyroux for a marriage of convenience. Originally hoping that the marriage would clear a path that would allow the life goals to be seen, Thérèse finds herself stuck in a loveless marriage,which burns Thérèse's life away.View on the film:Creating a final work whilst dying from cancer,co-writer (with Natalie Carter) director Claude Miller & cinematographer Gérard de Battista give the Costume Drama a funeral atmosphere,lit in dour yellow lights that beam on the stark face of Desqueyroux. Sketching the misery of Desqueyroux's life,Miller digs into the period with elegant charcoal browns and blacks covering any light coming into Desqueyroux. Removing her distinctive kooky smile, Audrey Tautou gives a marvellous performance as Desqueyroux,with Tautou pulling Miller's Desqueyroux down to a burning ember.

This movie was very confusing at first. Audrey Tatou was simply too old to play the supposed age of the lead character whom I believe as 18 when she was engaged and not much older when she married. Her friend/sister-in-law Anne looked more age appropriate.At first when I realized the theme the film was taking, I imagined that this was a story based on a real murder case. No, that wasn't the story at all. It is the story of an insipid, aimless woman, who likes to read and not much else. We see her doing nothing interesting (she won't even take a walk) she shows no real love for anyone except her aunt.I actually found her very unpleasant to look at. the house and the woods were lovely. the other actors all very good. As a film it really just missed, but exactly how I don't know.

Contains spoilers! Well this is a very odd little movie, and one that has a lot of similarities to another movie I saw (and reviewed) recently, the "Kate Winslet" version of "Mildred Pierce". Both movies are based on novels of no great distinction that should have otherwise been relegated to the pulping machines. Inexplicably this is the second film version to be made of both novels. Since both novels are now quite old the latest movie renditions are now period pieces, and that seems to be the only possible interest to a viewer and rationale for making a film which if not deep is at least "beautiful". Both movies feature woman protagonists of low/no charisma, yet both are played by actresses of considerable talent and acclaim. Both actresses are called upon to display absolutely none of the skills for which they are noted, producing what is probably the nadir in both actresses portfolios.The movie opens with a breathless and hopelessly overacted sequence involving two young girls, and we gather there is a special bond between them, possibly to the extent of lesbianism. For reasons which are unclear one of them not only shoots a bird but considers it necessary to also wring its neck. This scene is apparently significant because it is reprised later in the movie. The dialog implies that it is intended that one girl's sister will in the not too distant future marry the other girl. We then abruptly cut to this predicted courtship but, at least to my surprise, the "girl" now looks about 40 and the brother/fiancé looks about 50. In the intervening 20 years since the introductory sequence the girl seems to have morphed from a flighty, babbling youth to a middle age woman with all the warmth and passion of a sack of spuds. The girl/woman and the brother duly marry not out of love but out of duty to their families and their mutual business interests, and the marriage is consummated with the girl acting like the afore-mentioned sack of spuds. Meanwhile the husband's sister has found the real deal, or so she thinks, she has fallen head over heels in love with a guy who sails a nice boat but who unfortunately does not pass muster in the social stakes. The sister's family lock her away in the time honored tradition of discouraging unsuitable suitors, and her old friend (her brother's wife – are you following all this...?) is called upon to encourage her lover to desist from the relationship. As it happens the "lover" is just a big scumbag who doesn't care about the girl at all. He is a "free spirit", a liberal, an avantgarde who quotes poetry and philosophy, the world is his oyster, he was just having a bit of fun and no one is going to tie him down, he is off to Paris. All this talk of freedom ignites a little spark in the brother's unfulfilled wife and she goes off into a little fantasy world which seems to suggest that she might shack up with this neer do well. But all this comes to nothing, that little thread peters out and goes nowhere. The wife has a baby she doesn't like, she tries to poison her husband and she may or may not have had a hand in burning down a good part of their combined pine plantation. She moons about a lot not looking very happy and she doesn't seem to know what she wants. Eventually her long suffering husband agrees to let her go to Paris to start a new life. In the final scene she still doesn't know what she wants, she doesn't know why she tried to poison her husband, in fact she doesn't really know anything. She is really a complete waste of space.Was there a message here? Was this novel/movie supposed to be some sort of comment on the role of women and their suppression by men and society? Was it supposed to be a celebration of liberation? A triumph of passion over societal expectations? Should we care about this woman, someone of zero passion, drive or warmth, or about her not very likable husband? What happened to the only interesting character in the story, the husband's sister? Or to her baby? Why were so many story threads started only to be abandoned? Why did they take a talented and attractive actress like Audry Tatou and made her look so ugly, boring and stupid? All these questions and more.All in all, much ado about nothing.

Is there anything this actress can't do? I went into the film to see a woman deal with the social pressures of a period, maybe a film that reminded me of "The Age of Innocence", a time where women had to sit, listen, and maybe "obey" the social conventions. The preview was a bit elusive because it made you forget that you are dealing with France, Paris, and the unexpected, and that's exactly what you get.By the end, the main character has grown tired and despondent, but she has left a mark that earns everyone attention if not respect, and the most interesting scene is at the end, in a conversation between her and a leading character that reveals life is not as simple as it appears. This was a period of change, and Therese found a way to at least get on her way to some peace, but nothing is perfect.Therese is a child of privilege. Everything is in place for her set up marriage to improve all of those involved. Unfortunately, as she admits early in the film, she must deal with her own personal conflicts, and this might not be possible. She eventually finds a possible solution to her problems, but this might lead to even more problematic resolutions. What makes the film even more interesting is that her husband eventually becomes the more puzzling of the characters. He is not the standard chauvinistic and domineering standard. There is more to him, and that only leads to Therese becoming even more traumatized.The film is beautifully scored and photographed, and the art direction/costume design work here is reason enough to sit through the film, but as I said before, it's the entire cast's work that expands on that idea behind "Midnight in Paris", a kernel of a premise that Allen delivered with grace and fun. This is a serious film, and it shows that there is plenty of substance in everyone. Yes, powerful minds can be more than an asset at the right time. Just imagine what the lead character in "Frances" could have been if she had better luck. Therese is lucky she lives in the country, and that there is loyalty in her world. In the end, the film stops at a crucial time of her existence. Things are not over, just a new beginning.