A movie which is highly praised by French critics.
The first thing to bear is mind is that it's based on Falkner's novel.It's not "Falkner's novel transferred to the screen".People who read the book might be disappointed.
Jeremy Fox was created from start to finish by the script writers.We can wonder why it roughly replaces Elzevir Block (who's featured in the movie but in a minor role).Part of the reason can be found,I think,in Lang's work.In the book ,Block was a very good man ,and Lang's characters had always been very ambiguous .Is Fox the boy's friend?I have my doubts .He always betrays him and when he finally sides with him,it is beyond death.The boy's waiting (final scene) is a metaphor for the fear of losing childhood's illusions.But Jeremy epitomizes an already lost fight.The end of the novel(which ends when the child is an adult ,cause it spreads its plot over ten years )paraphrases the proverb "ill gotten ill spent" .John the man has sailed the sea and like Ulysses has returned to live peacefully.
One can easily understand what was appealing in Falkner's "Moonfleet" for a director like Lang.The underground world,the characters who lead a double life,the secret places , any Lang fan already met them ("Metropolis" "M","secret beyond the door" "hangmen also die"...) and would later ("beyond a reasonable doubt","der tiger von Eschnapur" "das indische Grabmal").The atmosphere of the novel fitted him like a glove but the characters probably did not.However,Lord and Lady Ashwood characters (not featured in the novel too)get in the way:George Sanders delivers a funny line ("the boy would be my grandson" ) but their presence adds nothing to the plot.And Meade's characters (Ratsey,Maskew,Grace,Block) are too often sacrificed to the "new " ones.Okay they were a bit cardboard ,but they were colorful.
Unlike some other users,I think that the color is dazzling.There's something circular in the directing: Liliane Montevecchi's dance,,the creek,the sinister-looking smugglers' faces surrounding the boy,the well..I think that Lang's intention was to show his story through the boy's eyes.That's probably why the scenes dealing with the aristocrats do not work.
That was Lang's first attempt at an adventures movie.He would continue (IMHO,with better results) in the two German movies "der Tiger..." and "das Indische..." ,but even when he made apparently "entertaining" flicks,we could feel his inimitable touch.
The first thing to bear is mind is that it's based on Falkner's novel.It's not "Falkner's novel transferred to the screen".People who read the book might be disappointed.
Jeremy Fox was created from start to finish by the script writers.We can wonder why it roughly replaces Elzevir Block (who's featured in the movie but in a minor role).Part of the reason can be found,I think,in Lang's work.In the book ,Block was a very good man ,and Lang's characters had always been very ambiguous .Is Fox the boy's friend?I have my doubts .He always betrays him and when he finally sides with him,it is beyond death.The boy's waiting (final scene) is a metaphor for the fear of losing childhood's illusions.But Jeremy epitomizes an already lost fight.The end of the novel(which ends when the child is an adult ,cause it spreads its plot over ten years )paraphrases the proverb "ill gotten ill spent" .John the man has sailed the sea and like Ulysses has returned to live peacefully.
One can easily understand what was appealing in Falkner's "Moonfleet" for a director like Lang.The underground world,the characters who lead a double life,the secret places , any Lang fan already met them ("Metropolis" "M","secret beyond the door" "hangmen also die"...) and would later ("beyond a reasonable doubt","der tiger von Eschnapur" "das indische Grabmal").The atmosphere of the novel fitted him like a glove but the characters probably did not.However,Lord and Lady Ashwood characters (not featured in the novel too)get in the way:George Sanders delivers a funny line ("the boy would be my grandson" ) but their presence adds nothing to the plot.And Meade's characters (Ratsey,Maskew,Grace,Block) are too often sacrificed to the "new " ones.Okay they were a bit cardboard ,but they were colorful.
Unlike some other users,I think that the color is dazzling.There's something circular in the directing: Liliane Montevecchi's dance,,the creek,the sinister-looking smugglers' faces surrounding the boy,the well..I think that Lang's intention was to show his story through the boy's eyes.That's probably why the scenes dealing with the aristocrats do not work.
That was Lang's first attempt at an adventures movie.He would continue (IMHO,with better results) in the two German movies "der Tiger..." and "das Indische..." ,but even when he made apparently "entertaining" flicks,we could feel his inimitable touch.