Angélique (2013)
Warning: Some spoilers. Strong personal opinions abound. Comparisons with Borderie's films and the book are inevitable and numerous. Those who do love the film passionately, read at your own risk.
I admit I was very biased towards it. In fact, I began to hate Ariel Zeitoun's film before I even watched it.
As a teenager, I liked Angélique books; and even now I daresay that no one ever gave such a full and convincing picture of Louis XIV's reign as Anne Golon did, in a work of fiction. The Michèle Mercier films were very beautiful, of course, but in their light-hearted, happy-go-lucky way they lacked seriousness and complexity. When Zeitoun proclaimed that he was going to film something totally different from Borderie's stuff and to create a more faithful adaptation of the novels, I was interested and even had hopes.
They were promptly crushed. Zeitoun did create something totally different from Borderie's films - and also totally different from the books.
At all costs, he tried to avoid presenting Angélique as an erotic (or romantic) sentimental story. Instead, the film is more of an adventure, even a thriller.
Maybe for this noble purpose the 17-year-old heroine is married to a man who looks eighty instead of the canonic 29. For the director it may be okay (he is not very young himself), but how are your standard teenage viewers supposed to understand it? (To the young Angélique, twenty-nine seemed advanced age well enough; when I read the book, being even younger than the heroine, I totally agreed with her. Now that I think of it - I could have strangled the two stupid teenagers, Angélique and myself.)
If it was made to "desexualise" the love story and show that Angélique's attraction to her distinguished spouse was elevatedly intellectual rather than basely carnal, why then insert a big erotic scene into the film? (Apart from the obvious answer, "To attract the audience and make it sell well!")
The huge age rift between the protagonists has absolutely no point, unless the director plans to alter the subsequent events and make Peyrac perish (of old age, if nothing else), thus leaving his widow with her charming, kind and helpful cousin Philippe du Plessis-Bellière.
I cannot see how some folks think that those are not very significant changes from the original story. The two key male characters are as different from their book prototypes as night and day - is that nothing?
All in all, the new film tells another story. Not Borderie's, not Golon's. It is a story of how a poor but spirited virgin married a benevolent rich old man and eventually had to accept him out of duty and gratitude, all the while ignoring her vigorous charming young cousin out of sheer incurable stubborness. (spoiler?) She begins to feel love for her husband only at the threat of losing him. And all for what? (end of spoiler)
Angélique's new face
To tell the truth... At the first sight, compared to the exquisite beauty Michèle Mercier, Nora Arnezeder seems somewhat simple. While the first one was extraordinary, the second one is a sweet and nice 'girl next door'.
Michèle Mercier (left) and Nora Arnezeder (right)
As Angélique, the first one is infinitely more feminine, more graceful (an ex-ballerina!), more tragically fragile. The second one is naughtier, more reckless, less feminine. She has more dare-devilry in her.
The book heroine was capable of doing things that men usually did, and that scandalised her contemporaries. She was sometimes crazy. At the same time, she was very womanly. So we can safely say that Michèle and Nora express the two different sides of Angélique's personality.
My ideal Angelique would look like Michele Mercier minus the too-elaborate make-up and with a simpler hairstyle. See how beautiful she is in this photo:
As the majority of modern films, this one is pointedly feminist, which, in itself, is not bad. Unfortunately, the zeal of the fim creators sometimes overreaches the limits, so the 2013 heroine is more emancipated than one could ever dream. It sometimes borders on the ridiculous. So, Angélique rides huge horses (fast!), wears trousers to church and orders about her elders. She also reads a book of Ninon de Lenclos' letters in bed (I will return to that, later) and knows who Copernicus is and what he wrote... Not too cool for an impoverished nobleman's younger daughter?
Yet, strangely, Arnezeder's Angélique is the most beautiful thing in this strange product of modern cinematography.
What is beautiful in the film?
Nora Arnezeder's clear profile
Surprisingly, the camera does occasionally create an image of timeless charm out of her modern beauty.
A pity that such shots are only occasional! They could have made her very, very beautiful if they chose to. Unfortunately, the director of photography seems not to think it worth the effort. In the times of Mercier, they could make any woman look a goddess onscreen.
The atmosphere of the new film is generally oppressive. Beggars really look beggars, crippled and covered with grime; murders are done quite realistically; men in black, the secret agents of the powerful princes, sneak around everywhere; the interiors are gloomy, … with candlelight, often with bare walls (to accentuate the genuine feel of the époque, I suppose).
And in all this ugliness, the golden profile of the heroine. No, it does not sparkle with extraordinary beauty or exceptional allure. If she is a ray of light in all this realm of blackness, dirt and injustice, it is a very thin and elusive light. One has to hope that it will not be extinguished too easily. In that world of intrigue saturated with ugliness, among dirty, old, cruel, merciless men, she is alone. If that is really the idea of the film…
And mind, later the golden one has to become black in order to survive - to adapt to the blackness.
Some nature shots
Nature always rocks.
Nice castles seen from afar
Angelique's home
Plessis
Children Angélique and Philippe
Charming, both.
And the scene when the girl hides from the conspirators is really scary, look!
What if she falls down from there?
Random shots
Also, I quite like this scene:
The Beauty in the Beast's castle, exploring his library.
The original story of Angélique and Joffrey is that of the beauty and the beast. Okay, here is something to be reminded of the immortal cartoon at least. :)
Hides the dangerous book behind her back when the noisome Archbishop sneaks in. A really stupid, if touching, gesture, for a whole bookcase of prohibited literature remains clearly visible.
She tells off her husband because of Copernicus and other progressive writers.
- The only moving scene for me is the one in which Peyrac is condemned to death and Angélique realises that all her desperate efforts to save him, all her sacrifice must have been in vain.
No matter that, as he says, he is an old man and has lived enough (what a difference from the book’s sarcastic hero!). Great injustice always can move you and bring real tears to your eyes. Only they switch to the next scene so quickly, they don’t let one pity Angélique for long.
It is hard to understand why Angélique has to cut her hair and dye it black (especially as she later expects to be recognised by the king in such a disguise). Formally, she does it to sneak into her husband’s prison cell (another melodramatic scene never present in the books; part of the book! Angélique’s tragedy was that she never spoke to Joffrey after he was arrested). On the larger scale… I have an idea. Like a legendary heroine, here is a wife who is ready to sacrifice everything for her love: her possessions, even her beauty. It should be really moving… if only I could convince myself that Lanvin’s character could inspire such strong affection.
What is ugly in the film?
All the rest.
The changed plot has, let’s face it, many ugly moments.
Visually (apart from the above-mentioned all-pervading ugliness that seems to be important for the concept), the faces of the actors are stunningly unattractive. I will not repeat the racist comments of some viewers, but I was not happy that the only more or less handsome masculine face was to be found among some third-rate villainous killers. I even have a suspicion that the casting directors put all their efforts into finding the ‘right’ Angélique. As soon as they chose Ms Arnezeder, did they cease to care about all the other characters? Why, anyone would do!
Thomer Sisley is, of course, a very popular and much-loved contemporary French actor, and I have heard it said that the new Angélique is largely his film. Personally, I cannot say that he is handsome, but he does have charm and some essential warmth that makes him attractive - and as much unlike the glacial Philippe du Plessis-Bellière of the book as possible. I will not disclose his increased importance in the new film. It is an absolutely new character. Anne Golon never wrote him.
Well, as he was chosen to attract viewers, I wonder what would have resulted if he was chosen to play Peyrac instead. In any case he would have been better than what we have got.
‘Joffrey de Peyrac’… I have no wish to put any photo here. The actor is … sixty-three, and they make him look even older than he really is, adding wrinkles, grizzled hair and that impossible white beard! (It is not useful to remember that the noblemen of that time used to be clean-shaven - look at the portraits of the period! Or did that particular Joffrey remember the times of Henri IV?)
It is not that I have any problems with the idea of loving romantically a person much older than you. I am perfectly okay with it, and I never grumbled about such couples. It is just…
…Just Angélique is not about that.
…Just there are aged men… and old men. There are those who are, even at a very advanced age, constantly sparkling with energy, wit and charm. (The real Peyrac would be like that in his eighties, I guess.) And there are just tired, bent and faded folks who hardly really care about anything anymore. Isn’t the guy in the film like that? Serene, indifferent, tired. Okay, girl, if you don’t like me, we can arrange our divorce on the grounds of my impotence. *facepalm*
…Just I hate Gérard Lanvin as Peyrac. It is a matter of personal taste, of course, but I think he was pretty unattractive even when young. Where is the fabled charm? What is more, he lacks that intellect and that aristocratic quality essential to Peyrac: a richest nobleman of the highest lineage, master of Toulouse, an intellectual, a scientist! A singer with a beautiful voice, pardi. Much as I strain my eyes, I see none of this here. I see just an ordinary tired old man, a sad piece of humanity. It is possible to feel pity for him, but to love??
I ignore the why of it, but all of ‘Angelique’s men’ are significantly older than they must be! “Nicolas” is a sombre unpleasant individual of about thirty, not the same age as the heroine. Where is the merry young shepherd? “Desgrez” is about fifty, face lined and tired, an experienced dog of the taverns and slums, whom nothing in the world can surprise. Where is the ambitious fiery young advocate who risked everything for Peyrac’s process?
I had to look for nice young men specifically. Here is one I have hunted (seated in the middle):
The king is young, but… Poor Louis XIV, how cinematographers must hate him! In this film, the Sun King has the misfortune to be portrayed by a slim boy with definitely Eastern features who is constantly pouting or sulking.
It is pointed out in the book that he had reasons to sulk, that is, to feel weak and insecure, but he tried to hide it. Anyway, the open pouting proves not only unpleasant to the eye, but also historically untrue.
“L’etat, c’est moi!” So said Louis XIV after Mazarini’s death, intending to rule France himself. It will not last long, said everybody. It lasted 54 years. So says Anne Golon in her book. Why, everybody knows it without Mme Golon anyway.
In the film:
“Colbert, do you think people will take me in earnest?” (within the hearing of a whole crowd of feral courtiers)
No comment.
Here is the time to pass on to another ‘issue’: that of the so-called historical accuracy or at least some semblance of it that is necessary for decency’s sake.
Well, in a way, Zeitoun does not gain many points for ‘history’, but even loses to Borderie, who showed us real French chateaus and the real Versailles. It lent unforgettable splendour and authenticity, even though relative (e.g. at the moment of Angélique’s arrival on 1661, the Château Versailles was unfinished yet, the two great wings lacking; there was a balcony in place of the famous Galerie des Glaces, etc).
The 2013 film lacks such splendour. It was not even filmed in France. The interiors are mostly bleak, with one exception:
And this looks like a computer-drawn picture. I am not an expert in computer graphics, but it looks unnatural.
So, the feel of ‘history’ is to be found rather in the above-mentioned gloominess, through the general darkness of the picture, but not through the sets (or costumes).
Moreover, there are quite obvious mistakes:
1) “The Countess Lazareff”, who replaces the Carmencita of the original version.
‘Who is that?’
‘A courtesan’.
(quoted from the film)
The character thus named does behave as a courtesan, that is, a loose woman, even though she is supposed to be an aristocratic lady, a countess. Wait. A countess?
Lazarev is a Russian surname. The title of count did not exist in Russia in the 1660s, nor did it in the 1670s… They ‘appeared’ only during the reign of the reformer Peter I. The very first count was Fiodor Golovin, and the title was given to him by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1701. Sheremetyev was to become the first ‘Russian-made’ count, five years later.
So you see, there could be no Countess Lazareff, unless it was her nickname (and it was not, since she is addressed like that by the court officials). A definite mistake.
2) Why should an aristocratic daughter of the 17th century think that arranged marriages were something unnatural and even sinful, if it was a common practice in her times?
3) This!
The stiff old man with a goatee is supposed to be Nicolas de La Reynie, the superior of Desgrez. De La Reynie advises against helping the Peyrac family.
Wait. How is it that La Reynie commands Desgrez? La Reynie being chief of Paris police, is Desgrez then a policeman? Is it possible to be a policeman and advocate at the same time?
(None of that stuff in the books, needless to say. Desgrez had studied to become an advocate, then after Peyrac’s process he lost any opportunity to continue his career in court and became a policeman, hunting for criminals in the backstreets of Paris. That was a definite step down in his career.)
That is not all. Gabriel Nicolas de La Reynie was born in 1625, so in 1661 he must have been 36, not more. Another character made significantly older! Only now it is a mistake. You can meddle with Peyrac's age, but not with the age of real historical characters. Or you can? *sad*
Not finished yet. Colbert inaugurated the new office of Lieutenant General of Police in 1667. Only then Gabriel Nicolas de La Reynie was appointed to the office (which he held from March 1667 to January 1697). His views were very advanced for his time, and it can be said that he founded the first modern police force. (By the way, it was he who introduced the system of street lighting into Paris.)
Now we see that the film scenes with him are pure fantasy. I bet many people know that and ask themselves why on earth it was done. Such a shame.
4) It refers rather to the history of the language. In “Desgrez”, the final “z” is pronounced, so that the name sounds like “desgraise”.
Why?! I re-read the whole textbook on the history of the French language, and it is still a mystery for me. The final consonants were dropped in the Old French already! (By the Old French period, I mean 9th - 13th centuries.) Not to speak of the Middle French or the times of Angélique. So why do they pronounce this “z”?
I admit I may be ignorant in anthroponymy. If anyone knows the reason for the “z”, please kindly inform me. Or I’m in danger of believing that someone misspelt the surname in the script occasionally, and no one noticed or cared! (Except me! Except me!)
5) On her wedding night, the clever Angélique locks the door against her husband and settles cosily on her bed to read Ninon de Lenclos.
We are supposed to admire the intellectually gifted heroine.
We are not supposed to think: how is it she reads the printed and published version of Ninon’s letters, if the famous courtesan is still living and shocking the society?
I checked the French sites of antique books (e.g. this one), and voila:
The book was published in 1750.
You should have given her Copernicus to read, after all.
It may be that there are other historical inaccuracies, I mentioned only those that were immediately noticeable. Mind you, I checked all my information several times in order not to be too cruel to the film. Alas, all those are indeed mistakes.
Apart from that, occasional moments seem crazy or strange (again, none of that in the book). I will give just one example.
Young Angélique is an unwilling witness of the complot against the king. Too important people are mixed up into it. From that stems all her tragedy: she had the misfortune to be in the wrong place in the wrong moment, and more, the unforgiveable audacity to act upon it.
The 2013 Angélique did not carelessly brag about her cleverness to the chief conspirator, like Mercier did. Instead she chose the matter as a subject of her confession (!) to an unreliable priest (together with the sin of marrying without love). If she just kept her mouth shut, the whole “spy-thriller’ plotline would have been inexistent. But is there another, logical, reason for her chattering except that it was necessary for the plot?
Quotes from Borderie’s film
For all that they claim that the new Angélique is not a remake of the old one, there are some suspiciously similar scenes and moments.
The idea that the beggars should try to save the man condemned to death is taken from Borderie’s film. Of course it is very cinematographic. It was never in the book.
Some phrases are the same.
“Il faut vivre! Il faut vivre, madame!”
(The same remark, at a similar moment, only given to another character)
Some frames. That reverence in the gold dress.
Of the not so obvious similarities, there is also that utterly disgusting scene with the courtesan. Read at your own risk. On the wedding night, the bride is left alone. A well as in the old film (NOT in the book), she chooses the moment to look around the house and explore.
She witnesses a drunken orgy. Her husband is caressing a semi-naked masked woman. When he guesses that Angélique is there, he begins to tell the woman love words really intended for his bride. That is his way of seduction. Now aren’t you bound to agree with the Archbishop of Toulouse: “Peyrac, vous avez de l’esprit pervers!”?
One cannot speak for sure, but this passage of doubtful taste may have been inspired by a scene from Borderie’s first film: that one when Joffrey speaks of love to Angélique, caressing an ancient statue of Venus.
The episode was allegedly invented by Roger Vadim; the books are not the source. Mind you, I never was too fond of that scene with Hossein. But replacing a stone goddess by a courtesan seems to me… beyond anything.
Michel Magne’s wonderful music is directly quoted in the film. Everyone likes it. Not me. Never me.
Magne’s music does not fit in.
Michel Magne was a very experienced composer. His music for Angélique is meticulously and thoughtfully arranged. (Apart from the main theme exploited to the full, there are nice stylised pieces like a bourré or a court dance. All the melodies are simple, bright and memorable.) There is the main theme (that one). In fact, it consists of two subthemes and their variations. There are further variations of those subthemes. For example, when the girl Angélique sneaks into and out of the room, the stealthy short clavicord chords belong, in fact, to the same melody.
There was a special variation of the theme for the king, his court and gala occasions, and it fitted marvellously:
In the 2013 film, when they ride to greet the king and meet the monarch and his court, it is not that pointedly pompous, almost march-like variation that sounds, but the tender one, originally intended for young Angélique in love with life.
The soundtrack is okay, but there is nothing really outstanding. They tried to make authentic-sounding pieces, I guess. They are nice, but they will be forgotten as soon as they are over. Pleasant background music, totally unlike Magne’s which had a personality to it and could live its own life (while complementing the film perfectly).
I think one day I will write something about Michel Magne. He deserves much more respect than he gets.
Interesting how the creators of the film, same as the creators of the Czech musical Angelika some years before, chose to introduce Magne’s music into their own, but it shines out there too mercilessly, and its alien beauty makes other melodies look somewhat drab in comparison.
Don’t tell me you don’t like this music - it means you don’t like Beethoven! (I see definite similarities in Angélique’s theme with some famous piece; of course they are not pronounced, but one could speak of inspiration.)
Enough said.
Conclusion? A film like any other adventure film, not too bad. The thing is not to be deceived: it is only loosely based on the original novels and not a faithful adaptation at all.