by Allan Fish
(France 1953 105m) DVD2
Aka. The Earrings of Madame de…
Hearts will never be practical until they can be safely sold
p H.Baum, Ralph Baum d Max Ophuls w Marcel Achard, Annette Wademant, Max Ophuls novel Louise de Vilmorin ph Christian Matras ed Boris Lewin m Oscar Straus, Georges Van Parys art Jean d’Eaubonne cos Georges Annenkov, Rosine Delamare
Danielle Darrieux (Countess Louise de…), Charles Boyer (Gen.André de…), Vittorio de Sica (Baron Fabrizio Donati), Jean Debucourt (Mons.Remy), Lia de Léa (Lola), Mireille Perry (nurse), Jean Galland (Bernac), Hubert Noel (Henri de Malville), Leon Walther (theatre manager),
Someone once said of Max Ophuls that the mere mention of his name makes all cameras stand rigidly to attention. Never was it more evident than here in this wonderfully cynical yet romantic eulogy to the very idea of romance and, indeed, truth. Its protagonists belong to an altogether more civilised era, but an era no less open to falsehood and deceit. “I lie so badly” the heroine tells her husband, but both we and the husband know the opposite is true. Yet he doesn’t mind, the reason being that he is equally adept at deceit. It also seems to have a plot determined almost by predestination. In La Ronde we saw love itself go on a merry go round, in de… it’s a token of love, but the idea remains the same.
Louise, whose surname we never find out (hence the title) is a Countess who has spent too much and needs to sell something to pay off her debts. She decides to sell the diamond heart earrings given to her by her husband when they married and takes them to the very same jeweller who sold them to her spouse, a general. However, when she fabricates losing them at the opera, the husband thinks they’ve been stolen. The jeweller then explains the situation, but the husband does not return them to his wife, instead going along with her innocent charade. He instead gives them to his mistress, who is leaving to start a new life in Constantinople. However, down on her luck, she loses them over the roulette table and they come into the possession of an Italian baron, who soon after falls in love with a French countess, none other than Louise…
Not since Dumas’ Anne of Austria gave Buckingham her twelve diamond studs has a token of jewelled affection lead to such intricate drama. It’s also quite a modern tale, with its wife in debt certainly paralleling those modern young wives who go mad with credit cards. But Ophuls’ women are altogether more genteel, if also knowing their weaknesses. “A woman can refuse jewellery before she has seen it; after, it takes heroism” the departing de Léa murmurs. His heroines, as the opening caption states, “seemed destined for a delightful, untroubled existence“, and are draped in the most unimaginable finery, like relics of a bygone era, born to waltz along to the immortal waltzes of Oscar Straus. Even the finery is lingered over in a slow opening pan along Louise’s wardrobe.
Of course Ophuls’ technicians contribute perfectly to the tone of the film, with Matras’ camerawork and d’Eaubonne’s decors as exemplary as one might expect. Van Parys’ music likewise perfectly depicts the whirls of romantic emotion felt by the characters, and into which Straus’ waltz fits so seamlessly. As for the cast, how can they be topped? Darrieux, still gorgeous sixteen years after starring at eighteen in Club de Femmes and Mayerling, radiating eternal mystery and ageless beauty, paired once again with her co-star in the latter film, Boyer. Here was a man who could never be less than debonair, always charming and a consistent joy to watch. Yet the real star here is not human, but Ophuls’ camera, whether slowly panning along station platforms or whirling giddily and dextrously though a crowded ballroom. Its speed dictates the rhythms of the film and the emotions of the protagonists. At times, we’re almost breathless to keep up with his toy, but are carried along by its almost Wildean plot to the last. My opening tagline may be cynical, but considering its producers’ names, not inappropriately so.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Ophuls made two three films that rank among the greatest films in the history of the cinema. MADAME DE, LOLA MONTES and LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN. Of course several others are excellent too.
This film, which Allan has beautifully evoked, is probably his penultimate masterpiece.
I saw it many times in my life, the last of which was last year at the Film Forum with Kaleem Hasan in a gloriously restored print.
This is art incarnate.
This is my #1 film of the 50’s, as I noted in my previously-submitted list. It’s artistry in all departments is top-rank. Outstanding review.
This is a masterwork. I saw this many years ago, but that recent re-viewing we spoke of really opened my eyes to it. Allan is right to say that the “camera” is the real “star” of this film.
To Max Ophuls, movement is life, and elegant tracking shots are of course, a hallmark of his movies. (One is almost forced here to mention “La Ronde” in this sense.)Anyway, I think they are most effectively done in “Madame de.”. There is a musical quality to them, like the waltz theme hummed by Louise in the beginning and repeated throughout the film. A classic example of Ophuls’ genius with the moving camera can be found in the legendary ballroom waltz sequence that follows Louise and the Baron. At points in the dance sequence the swirling pair dissolve and reappear in different settings, time frames, from different perspectives, and with nuances in speech and expression, that ingeniously show the deepening of their relationship. Ophuls also delights in repeatedly using things like staircases, windows, doors, candles, and mirrors to facilitate the isolation or coupling of the characters and highlight themes as the plot develops. The ensemble cast could not be bettered.
Allan Fish is quite right to mention the cameraman Matras and the composer Van Parys. A marvelous work of cinema.
And this one is an elegant and exquisite gem.
One of the greatest of all films. One of Max Ophuls’ crowning achievements, which says volumes. Truly excellent write-up, Allan.
Allan, I just finished watching this (my first time), and I must say you covered the salient points and further that the way you did so clearly shows your reverence for this film. Having just finished watching it, I haven’t had time for all its subtleties, ironies, complexity, and elegant beauty to sink in or begin resonating fully in my mind. But I can say already that this is a magnificent film.
The costumes, music, decor, and camerawork all create an air of opulence, and I fully expected that. Despite all I’ve read about Ophuls’ constantly moving camera, I was still surprised at how much the rest of the film moved. The plot and characters were also in constant motion and flux, and the brisk pace and continuous evolution of events made an intriguing contrast to the stately look and technique of the movie. I was also surprised at the irony and cynicism of the plot, which balanced its romanticism. All three principals were magnificent, but it was the complexity and final mutability of Boyer that most amazed me.
One thing I noticed was the repetition of events, or the be more precise, their restatement, the same event recurring in an altered form and meaning. One that immediately comes to mind is the two visits of Mme. to the church and the very different tone of each. Another is the two times Boyer saw first his mistress then his wife off on the train, one on a voyage from which she would never physically return, the other on a voyage from which she would never emotionally return. Then, of course, there’s all the times those earring changed hands, being bought and sold, presented and re-presented.
Just an amazing viewing experience that will keep me thinking about it for a long time.
Alexander, you estimation is dead-on and to the point! Great seeing your words again!
“Elegant” and “exquisite,” Frederick, those are vital words when speaking of this film!
R.D. You must had a cinematic epiphany of sorts, seeing this masterpiece yesterday and now embarking to sort things out. The “repetition” of events, the difference of tone, etc. is fascinating stuff, and is “the plot and characters” in contant flu. Like Alexander, your “comments” are enthralling reviews in and of themselves. This is simply one of the greatest films in the history of the cinema, but that’s no revelation!
Allan, I would have been surprised if “Madame de …” hadn’t been high on the list. What a great film, and a fine review. you did it justice.
Great movie.
Watch the trailer here