Plot intro
A French provincial farm-owner, Cesar “Le Papet” Soubeyran (Yves Montand) and his nephew, Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil) have their greedy little eyes on getting hold of a local farm, where Ugolin can start his business of growing and selling carnations. They accidentally murder the owner of the farm land, and block off the farm’s natural water-supply in the hope that the farm will be sold off to them at a cheap price. However, the farm is inherited by a city-dwelling, tax-collector hunchback named Jean Cadoret (or “Jean de Florette”) who hopes that his new-found rural life will bring peace and a stronger connection to nature. But Papet and Ugolin have no intention of telling him about the blocked water supply, as they hope to secretly drive Jean off the land. Their plans lead to horrific tragedy, both for Jean and for them…
Paul says
These films are comparable to Call Me By Your Name in that the director spends a huge amount of time evoking the life and climate of the setting. All throughout both films (which are better viewed as one 4-hour epic), you can feel the heat radiating off the dying crops, the sweat of Jean and his family as they desperately hike several times a day for water, the lethargy and slowness of life in these cut-off, minuscule villages who perceive the city as a far-away, fantastical place full of snobbish imbeciles. It’s no wonder that Jean de Florette is credited with improving tourism to rural France (although, bearing in mind the nefarious actions of its inhabitants, I can’t think why!)
Not only are they beautiful to look at, but beautifully acted and written. Doug is right that the first film is slower, less eventful, and perhaps less satisfying from a cathartic perspective. But that’s why it is necessary to watch the second film almost immediately afterwards, because it is essentially a series of “microphone drop” moments in which the quiet, drama-free, self-satisfied life of these hostile villagers comes crumbling around them.
The whole thing works like a Greek tragedy, with Papet being the Agamemnon/Oedipus/Hippolytus of the tale. His downfall is entirely due to his own greed, pride and dedication to Ugolin’s inheritance. And bloody hell, what a downfall he has! Not only is he publicly shamed and shunned by the entire village, he also loses his only heir and ally. And just when you thought that was bad, in walks a blind old lady who drops the sort of revelations that only Cassandra, the blind ancient Greek prophetess, could have revealed. It even involves lost letters, and decades-old secrets, just like any of the best Greek tragedies. Note to self: if a blind old lady with dark secrets ever comes to Streatham, I’m moving out.
It’s pretty dramatic stuff, and after a few gins we were fully, and vocally, involved in events before us. Hopefully our neighbours don’t think we’re exacting revenge on some poor peasant farmers.
Not much else remains to be said other than I highly recommend a Sunday afternoon where you watch both these film back-to-back, and I don’t care what your thoughts are on miserable, slow-moving French dramas. The lethargy of the first half perfectly juxtaposes the action of the second, as it shows how the slowness and “heads down, no drama” philosophy of provincial French life leads to utter devastation when your morals and conscience slip away.
And Yves Montand gives one of the best performances I’ve ever seen in cinema. Formidable!
Highlight
The blind old lady’s big scene towards the end. Prepare thyself for a twist you won’t see coming.
Lowlight
Perhaps the first film could do with some editing. But I still think it’s exquisite.
Mark
10/10
Doug says
Split across two films, it’s important to note that this is definitely one work, and should be seen ideally in one evening. That’s because Jean de Florette is not particularly great, and Manon des Sources is triumphant.
But the reason Florette is not brilliant is that it’s slowly telling you the backstory that you need to understand in order to fully access Manon. It establishes the villains, and shows you to what extent they are prepared to go in the name of something actually pretty trivial. You need it because you need to go in to Manon, gunning for their downfall. I kept thinking of Kill Bill and how during that revenge story, Tarantino utilises flashbacks to show how The Bride has been abused, and why her revenge is necessary.
Perhaps if they made this story today, they’d do the same. But there’s actually something to be said for the slower route. I didn’t particularly enjoy Florette because there’s one plot and it’s pretty simple to follow: how the two greedy farmers bring down Jean without wavering. I’m not a massive Gerard Depardieu fan and here he turns in a good but not particularly memorable performance. From the get-go, these films belong to Daniel Auteuil as the snivelling, obsequious Ugolin who just wants to grow flowers and Yves Montand as Le Papet, the manipulative old patriarch desperate to win at any cost. Auteuil and Montand give fantastic performances, obsessing over Jean and slowly turning everyone against him. But it’s a story that could be told in 45 minutes and while the beautiful French scenery is lovely to watch, I found myself a little bored.
It’s the final moments of Florette that grab you and establish a new protagonist, and within minutes of Manon, it’s clear that this is the real story. Florette is a long, necessary prologue and once you’re into the actual film, it’s tremendous. How the now adult Manon avenges herself upon the villagers who turned a blind eye to her father’s struggle is magnificent, and Auteuil does fantastic work as Ugolin in love, now obsessed with Manon to the extent that he sews her abandoned hair-ribbon to his chest (we actually could not watch this scene, it’s too realistically done). It’s also full of catharsis - when the villagers realise that Jean de Florette had been descended from their village and was one of them, their guilt and horror is palpable. There’s a tremendous scene when the water runs out, where a farmer sets upon the town council, smashing plaster busts with his staff. This whole film is full of destruction - but mostly positive - smashing the blindness and webs of lies carefully constructed in Florette.
The strongest element of Manon though is the downfall of the horrendous Le Papet. Yves Montand doesn’t pull any punches. Montand is considered one of the great French actors, with a forty-five year career in cinema, dying in 1991. Here he proves it. It’s a towering performance, with moments of insiduous evil, and then a slowly unfolding horror at what he has done and the unexpected consequences. In a scene when Manon confronts him in front of the villagers, he scrambles defiantly, accusing everyone but himself, while later after Ugolin kills himself, he becomes shrunken, unable to look anyone in the eye or even move. But the narrative isn’t done yet, and thanks to Florette, nor are the audience. We are gunning for his downfall the entire film, and perhaps the length of Florette is necessary to ensure we never start to pity him. This is an evil man, and yet the shock of the film’s final punch left me open-mouthed for ten minutes after. It’s a brilliant piece of storytelling and pulls the rug from under the viewer, despite having been dropping hints throughout. We are left shocked, but appeased. Try as you might — the film says — but evil deeds will reap their rightful rewards.
Highlight
The scene when Manon turns on Le Papet in front of the villagers, and then a poacher with useful information chimes in is fabulous. Montand is at his scrambling best, Auteil shows a man in love beginning to realise with horror that he’s messed up his own chances at happiness, the villagers suddenly clock their own complicity in Jean’s death and Emmanuelle Béart as Manon delivers the anger that we have been craving since the end of Florette. Marvellous drama.
Lowlight
While I understand that Jean de Florette is essential for Manon des Sources to work, I still feel it could have been a bit more engaging. It does great work for the French Tourist Board though.
Mark
9/10
No comments:
Post a Comment