Maybe it was the constant mention of designer art's items, supposedly of great value and extremely beautiful, which I found inane. Or it may have been its slowness, or its lack of emotional meaning to me. The case is that I think this film lacks "soul", "purpose" or even "beauty". I liked the way the 3 generations view differently their relationship with things. The older generation valued and lived with Art. The middle aged successful professionals strive between personal attachment to one item or another, and their need for money to develop their professional and personal lives. And the young... the only part that I thought meant something -although it wasn't very nice to look at- was near the end, at the teenager's party, one of the grandsons said, when confronted to the Corot paintings: (uninvolved and trying to be diplomatic) "they belong to another age". His parent Frédéric didn't seem to notice, but there lied the heart of the issue. The youngsters play ball inside the formerly beautiful French country mansion, listen to horrible rap speaking of social violence, or bubble gum female pop, smoke marijuana, drink heavily, behave and look like they didn't care anything for whatever could be inside the D'Orsay museum or something.
Demagogy: Of course on the other hand you have the daughter, who besides shoplifting and having awful manners shows she's sensitive for her grandma and has longings for the house. I thought that unlikely and unwarranted by what we see of her before. And the about 5 times we get to see "the phone that the sons gave for the mum and didn't fix for her". Hey, who hasn't forgotten something for somebody who loves, specially when in a hurry and while dealing with difficult issues like succession planning? I think I'd be hard to accuse specially the emotional Frédéric of not loving the elegant Éloïse! Or the maid "attempting in vain to enter the mansion, and then, beleaguered, leaving some flowers in her tomb". OK, she is faithful even on the afterlife, but I found the portrayal of it rather leftish like "only the poor have true feelings, and don't care for the money (when she takes 'only a flower pot') and are well bred (the moving letter even the devoted son didn't make himself time to answer) and who have perfectly good feelings (the emotional relative with the cab, leaving her at her mono block housing). By the way, Isabelle Sadoyan plays the part of Éloïse very convincingly! A distinguished lady who says, at the most beautiful image of the film by far: "When I die, so will my secrets, that interest no one" (the scene with blue lighting, at dusk). Her character has some Chabrolesque undertones. I mean "the upper classes who hold some secrets in the sake of moral respectability", "big mansions of the elite holding rather selfish people". Her daughter Adrienne seemed to take after the mother in the manipulativeness and ironic remarks like "this is a true present" and her rant against globalization and Jérémie's business. The mother at least has class! Anyway, Binoche is convincing at her unlikeable character, totally different to her usual "beauty at 40" ones.
I enjoyed the director's Les Destinées sentimentales way more. At least that was a true melodrama, with beautiful settings and old fashioned feelings. I'm afraid he could have done here something more authentic,
for instance, as "the decadence of values" -like the house itself-. Instead, he obviously feels like Frédéric who says to his wife something awfully stupid about works of art "having to live in the proprietor's house, for the seem 'trapped' in a museum". Even if it's true that most museum goers don't care much for what they're force fed like hamster: a) They could have sold them. The high tax they have to endure is an accident of French bureaucracy, not a moral imperative. Besides, b) how many people enjoy works that way (in private collections, like F. extols)? For instance, how many people would have enjoyed, say, this wooden desk had it remained at their haughty house? So if you want to be a socialist like most French intellos do, I think it'd be at least more coherent that they accept "socialized" art instead of harping on a romantic vision of "art for those who 'really value it' that besides being rather arbitrary and potentially 'fascist', it is rather self-centered and childish.
Overall, I think this film delivers much less than what it promises. But, as always, it's better than the average US blockbuster, that's for sure!
Demagogy: Of course on the other hand you have the daughter, who besides shoplifting and having awful manners shows she's sensitive for her grandma and has longings for the house. I thought that unlikely and unwarranted by what we see of her before. And the about 5 times we get to see "the phone that the sons gave for the mum and didn't fix for her". Hey, who hasn't forgotten something for somebody who loves, specially when in a hurry and while dealing with difficult issues like succession planning? I think I'd be hard to accuse specially the emotional Frédéric of not loving the elegant Éloïse! Or the maid "attempting in vain to enter the mansion, and then, beleaguered, leaving some flowers in her tomb". OK, she is faithful even on the afterlife, but I found the portrayal of it rather leftish like "only the poor have true feelings, and don't care for the money (when she takes 'only a flower pot') and are well bred (the moving letter even the devoted son didn't make himself time to answer) and who have perfectly good feelings (the emotional relative with the cab, leaving her at her mono block housing). By the way, Isabelle Sadoyan plays the part of Éloïse very convincingly! A distinguished lady who says, at the most beautiful image of the film by far: "When I die, so will my secrets, that interest no one" (the scene with blue lighting, at dusk). Her character has some Chabrolesque undertones. I mean "the upper classes who hold some secrets in the sake of moral respectability", "big mansions of the elite holding rather selfish people". Her daughter Adrienne seemed to take after the mother in the manipulativeness and ironic remarks like "this is a true present" and her rant against globalization and Jérémie's business. The mother at least has class! Anyway, Binoche is convincing at her unlikeable character, totally different to her usual "beauty at 40" ones.
I enjoyed the director's Les Destinées sentimentales way more. At least that was a true melodrama, with beautiful settings and old fashioned feelings. I'm afraid he could have done here something more authentic,
for instance, as "the decadence of values" -like the house itself-. Instead, he obviously feels like Frédéric who says to his wife something awfully stupid about works of art "having to live in the proprietor's house, for the seem 'trapped' in a museum". Even if it's true that most museum goers don't care much for what they're force fed like hamster: a) They could have sold them. The high tax they have to endure is an accident of French bureaucracy, not a moral imperative. Besides, b) how many people enjoy works that way (in private collections, like F. extols)? For instance, how many people would have enjoyed, say, this wooden desk had it remained at their haughty house? So if you want to be a socialist like most French intellos do, I think it'd be at least more coherent that they accept "socialized" art instead of harping on a romantic vision of "art for those who 'really value it' that besides being rather arbitrary and potentially 'fascist', it is rather self-centered and childish.
Overall, I think this film delivers much less than what it promises. But, as always, it's better than the average US blockbuster, that's for sure!