Pretty Good

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

"Une vie" or "A Woman's Life" is a new French-language movie co-produced by France and Belgium and this one has already managed a solid deal of awards recognition. Much more will not be added I guess as this one is originally from 2016 and it took until June 2018 almost until it got from France to Germany with its wide release. The director and co-writer here is Stéphane Brizé, one of France's more successful filmmakers these days. It runs for pretty much exactly 2 hours and for that it is fairly impressive how it really almost never drags. Lead actress Judith Chemla is the heart and soul of the film from start to finish and she has many outstanding scenes, one very early already when we see her suffer during the sex scene very early in the film when she loses her virginity to her new husband, the pain during this scene is a good indicator how it is somewhat doomed to fail overall. And that's how it goes too. Costumes and sets, maybe make-up too are an indicator of this being a period piece and it certainly is to some extent, but it is much more a biopic about the central character really, a woman named Jeanne and we follow her from her early years as a child and young woman herself to when she becomes a mother herself, very briefly scenes are included with the young boy and finally we see her years as an older, but not old, woman who has lost almost everybody in her life who meant something to her. So it certainly is a depressing film to some extent as there is a great deal of suffering involved and basically that's what defines the protagonist here, so it was a bit surprising to see the movie go out on a bit of a high note as these positive moments really are a rarity and I expected her friend and helper to arrive alone, but they took a different route. By the way the money parts about the son are almost a running gag in the second half regardless how tragic they may seem. The strong performance by the main character and the way that her character was written that the bad luck she has all the time is really just coinsidencal and not self-inflicted. You really cannot blame her for anything bad that happens to her and this includes perhaps especially the gruesome shooting scene where she makes the right decision when talking to the priest and the priest does not only make the decision that result in this tragedy, but even worse maybe does not care about the seal of the confessional, maybe because it was a woman confessing? Anyway, the film gets better and better the longer it goes and it is not a disappointment by any means early on. It's a success from start to finish, sometimes more, otherwise less. I definitely recommend seeing this one in the French original as the actors were all good yes, but their vocal performances are also top-notch. I may be biased as a fan of the French language, but let me say here that you should not go for a dubbed version. Maybe it is a film that overall will be more pleasant to watch for female audiences because perhaps they find it easier to identify with the main character in her most crucial moments, but I as a male enjoyed the watch as well as much as the two or three other men in my showing. See it. 2 hours you will not regret spending inside the theater, but it will also be a good watch at home I guess, the difference between cinema and TV screen is not as big here as it is during many other films. In any case, i give it a thumbs-up obviously.

The director's key narrative strategy is ellipses. We don't see the key events: Jeanne's acceptance of Julien's proposal, their wedding, his betrayal, her bedroom discovery, her forgiveness, Julien's second betrayal with Jeanne's second close friend, the husband's retribution. Jeanne's responses to her grown son Paul's pleas, etc etc. We see the events leading up to them and their consequences but not those key moments. That's because the events don't matter. What matters is the system in which the woman is trapped. The 19th Century French lady is a helpless cog in her rural aristocracy, with the illusion of making a decision but always remaining the instrument and victim of the male-cantered system. Of course a historical film is always a reflection of our present as well as in the imaged past. If we were entirely free from this condition, why make a movie about its earlier occurrence? The two priests confirm this abuse. The old priest coaxes Jeanne into forgiving Julien's first affair because he wants to retire with this affirmation of forgiveness. She must serve the priest's interest. Her mother supports his coercion and her father — unfortunately — is passive. The young priest instructs her to an activism she knows will be disastrous — and proves her right when he intervenes himself. Again the priest places his own moral impulse ahead of Jeanne's needs. The woman's instincts were more correct than the two priests' dictates, which in opposite ways ruin her. But that's the woman's role here — to cultivate her emotions and sentiments but not to wield any authority even over her own life. Jeanne can't raise her son how she wants to, which may — or may not — be a factor in Paul's adult failures. Assigning woman feelings but no power explains the film's other structural use of time — the constant use of flashbacks. The film intercuts the heroine's bleak last years with the intermingling of her early and her later years. The implication is that however harsh her misfortune and fate she continually seeks solace in memories of her brighter past. This nostalgia is less reassuring than debilitating. Remembering her happy days with her maid, Julien's rosy courtship, her cute young son's promise and devotion, prevents her from asserting her will against their manipulation and betrayal later. Not for Jeanne the joyful memories her mother carries from the passionate affair Jeanne discovers in her letters. The opening scene has the father teaching Jeanne to plant and tend her seedlings. That's the only useful thing the sheltered -- and thus doomed — woman is taught. The film returns to this gardening. The atmosphere darkens from the first sunny planting in the mud to the final pitch-dark harvest, the spirited Jeanne hardens and darkens. The seeds provide the same fruit in the human cycle. Son Paul proves a third-generation wastrel. Jeanne bankrupts herself paying off his debts as Julien did paying off his own father's. Jeanne's gift of a little steam whistle blossoms into Paul's disastrous investment in a steamship company, one of his many doomed adventures.The film's thesis is clear: the men screw up and the woman pays the price. That's a woman's life. Her one defence is sisterhood. Maid Rosalie is her girlhood chum, whom Julien coerces into an affair. Against his demands, Jeanne insists on keeping her on when she's pregnant, until she finds her in Julien's bed again. When Jeanne agrees to forgive him, her father gives Rosalie a farm in which she weds, raises her son, and prospers. When Jeanne is bankrupt and desolate Rosalie asks to return to serve her, unpaid, as return for the grace she was given. She suffers Jeanne's abuse and suspicion nonetheless, as Jeanne irrationally clings to her faith in her absent and exploiting son. The women's relationship ends the film on an optimistic note. Rosalie brings back from Paris an infant girl — supposedly Paul's — and his promise to return to Jeanne himself, after he clears up some business in Paris (a familiar story). Whether Paul returns is both doubtful and irrelevant. The film closes on the three females, the two lifelong friends and the infant, personifying the film's positive values and generous spirit in the face of the men's failure and abusive authority. As Rosalie assures us, "The world isn't as bad or as good as we think."

Is the story of an aristocratic 19th century French family of any interest today? I believe that it depends. Personally I think it is, as long as it touches some humanitarian aspects and allows the spectator to draw parallels to his present day aspirations. This film does that. It is not a masterpiece, but it is well focused and nicely narrated. To me the De Maupassant novel was just an excuse and, to be honest, I found the lyrical passages presented as commentaries to be the film's weakest points. The extensive use of close-ups was a great idea and added a special quality to the film. This does not mean that the wide shots were not good. The emphasis on the faces of the heroes was a very correct approach. The acting was very good and the unraveling of the story almost without flash backs was very helpful in understanding the changes in the family's fortunes. At the end of the day, I believe, that this was the point the film was trying to make. The ups and downs and it was very nicely depicted in the last sentence which closed the movie. It was really the summary of the adventures we watched.

Having already watched an earlier version (1958) of Guy De Maupassants' take on life in the bleak, harsh, Normandy of the 19th century, in which Maria Schell was tailor-made for the leading role and Alexandr Astruc did a fine job behind the camera albeit opting for a non-linear story-line I was drawn to this remake because of the director Stephan Brize, who delivered a small miracle in Not Here To Be Loved, and the outstanding actors Jean-Pierre Darroussin and Yolande Moreau as the parents of the heroine. Brize has opted to shoot this downbeat story with only something like 64 bars of music from start to finish so that great swathes of the film feature only dialogue and FX. Overall this is a good watch in spite of its glass-half empty take on the world.