I believe it is not abridged. However, the author was said to not care for the film, as it was almost completely different from her novel. That’s probably a good thing. Although I have yet to read the novel, I think the film is a masterpiece.
Thanks. I haven’t seen the film yet, but from what you said I guess it’s one of those very, very rare cases where the film is as good as the book it is based upon no matter how it strays from the original story.
The film is a masterpiece! Awesome every scene… what an artist was Max Ophüls! I’m speechless every time I watch “Madame de…”
I read the entire booklet today. The novel was awesome. I’m gonna watch it for the first time tonight. I’m excited to find out how different it is from the novel.
Divinem:
Go now for the marvelous “Le Plaisir”… the first story is magical, with the most glorious camerawork!
Ophuls deserves more credit these days. Perhaps exquisite romantic confections aren’t taken seriously enough. Kubrick was a great admirer, and i wonder if we’d have had those tracking shots in Paths of Glory without Ophuls
This is one of the best films I have ever seen.
I posted some thoughts on the Madame de… page a while back, you can find them here: http://www.theauteurs.com/films/571
Madame De… is probably the poster child for a film that I will acknowledge as a truly great work, but one for which I have a certain personal contempt, even going so far as to say that I dislike it on a moral basis (though that may be a bit far).
Mainly because Ophuls is attempting to portray Madame De—‘s life as tragic and heartbroken, when all of her problems are essentially self-inflicted. She chose to marry for wealth (and for those rushing to defend her with the idea that it’s the society that has conditioned her to do such a thing: Society is never an excuse for lack of principle); she chose to go behind her husband’s back; she chose to lie all of the times she did, to all those people whether or not they ultimately found out; she chose to buy all of those things (especially the furs that she’s just “too fond of”); and she chose to be a stupid bitch about how she conducted her life. (couldn’t resist ;) That her life spins beyond control is the fault of none but herself.
That is not to say that I’m implicating only the hypotenuse of this love triangle: Andre De— is just as guilty for marrying a woman for her looks, and not for any real love they had (or at least is responsible for the consequeces [misery or not] of such a decision). And Baron Donati is to blame for inserting himself into a position where he’s little more than a wealthy homewrecker. Furthermore, that Donati and Madame De— are in “love” does not excuse their actions. Am I absolved if I breach a contract on the basis that my “emotions feel differently”? And even then, does a woman with such superficiality and pride really understand what love really is? (Part of the film is that she does come to understand what love is to a certain extent, but what’s not entirely convincing is that she never makes any attempt to love the person she’s married to [or at least understand the responsibility she has towards him {and if it’s that her emotions get the better of her, again: principle and the lack thereof}]).
That said, the marvelously aesthetic narrative could not have really worked any other way, had these people not been wealthy (and therefore been surrounded by an aesthetic milieu), or not been selfish, conceited, etc… as they were, the film could not have had the intricate and fascinating structure it has. Almost every shot is some sort of achievement, both of direction, camera placement, but, above all, visual style almost seamlessly dovetailing with subject matter: Cuts could not serve people whose lives move more leisurely than our own. And about visual style, could one not immediately tell who is behind the camera after seeing a minimal amount of the film? Finally, an idea of Ophuls (if Truffaut is to be believed, as quoted here: http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/03/25/madame_de.html) was to have the film shot as the series of reflections in mirrors, which calls to mind a certain quote by Da Vinci (not about this subject, but whose central idea can be paraphrased):
“[Those of principle and integrity, as compared with charlatans and phonies], must be regarded and not otherwise esteemed than as the object in front of a mirror, when compared with its image seen in the mirror. For the first is something in itself, and the other nothingness”
Which is all that keeps me from believing that Ophuls doesn’t totally buy the “tragedy” (what little there really is) of Madame De—
In short, I feel it is a beautiful picture, if morally confused (and somewhat hollow).
Well, Matthias i find your post very rewarding in its coverage of the strengths of Ophuls and the suitability of style to subject, but i think you’re being a bit too harsh and judgmental. I don’t think we’re expected to gloss over Madame’s and others’ failings, they are apparent, and i’m no friend of the self-serving rich, but your moral standards are high indeed, and everyone has their reasons, right or wrong. Great tragedies (in theatre tradition certainly) often reveal how a character fault leads to suffering, yet we can still feel some compassion, without absolving the hero or heroine of responsibility for their own fate. Now of course if there was a holocaust or great cruelty involved, rather than a triangle of selfishness, i would more easily be with you.
I saw MADAME DE…. about a year ago when the new print was making the rounds of the few remaining art houses. After hearing so much about what a masterpiece the film is, I was very surprised to find myself bored senseless at it. I just didn’t give a damn about anyone or anything in the film. A lot of filmmakers and people I respect are mad for the film, and I just didn’t see what all the fuss was about. Help? Please?
I see the characters as an extension of the idol fakers in “Rules of the Game”. Can’t say I enjoyed the film any less for being a voyeur.
Madame’s act of charity to the church doesn’t strike me as any more sincere that what was going on in Renoir, either. Ophul’s didn’t sell that for me and that get’s my voe for the films main weakness.
Also, you have to love a film that has such beautiful camera movement that even the dolly grips should have received an Academy award.
Well, i have to say my favourite Ophuls is Letter from an Unknown Woman, just as exquisite, but with extra emotional pangs; i find it very poignant and lovely and romantic. His earlier Liebelei deserves to be better known.
I’ve never seen a Max Ophuls movie…should I start off with this one?
Well, i don’t see why not, it’s pretty typical of his style. Smooth flowing camerawork, beautiful decor, elegant period romantic (melo)drama cum tragedy. Lola Montes, La Ronde and Le Plaisir are all fine too. He also did some noirish American films (try The Reckless Moment), but the European ones and Letter from an Unknown Woman are more typical of his overall image
divineM
I just got “The Earrings of Madame De….” I’m gonna read the booklet first before sitting through the film. Is the novel in the booklet complete or abridged?