L'antiquaire

This film by François Margolin and starring an enigmatic, talented Anna Sigalevitch is an interesting movie to review because I liked it to a certain degree, but was baffled and irritated by it as well.

The story is about a Jewish magazine journalist in current day Paris who investigates her own family's history in order to learn the truth about her suspected theft of hundreds of pieces of her family's artwork via collaboration of her great uncle, who worked undercover for the Gestapo during World War II. It's a cat and mouse game, with Anna as Esther, a chainsmoking, determined, flawed woman, in a detective-like tan trenchcoat and scarf, who riffles through her own father's belongings - against his knowkedge - in search of evidence.

I liked the subject matter, the artwork, and found some of the cinematography alluring. I also learned some basics about the topic of artwork stolen from Jews during the Nazi regime, however the film felt muddled and confusing at times. It took a while to figure out who was who. I felt that showing old filmreels in color instead of black and white was an odd choice, and Esther's incessant smoking was distracting.

Although I hoped she would unravel and expose the secrets, lies, theft, and betrayals, there weren't likeable characters to care about. Also, there were two scenes that were both gratuitous and poorly executed that added to my overall frustration with the film.

So although L'Antiquaire is not a Masterpiece and has some flaws, I would recommend the film for the subject matter. I did enjoy it.

This is a very poorly made film with a badly written script. It has all the hallmarks of a French film e.g histrionic acting, innumerable closeups of facial anatomy, some gratuitous sex and nudity, and a lot of smoking. There are subplots that go nowhere and a tangled web of bad writing that tells the story poorly, leaving huge plot holes for the viewer. There are some ridiculous scenes of the lead actress who does her detective work dressed in a 1950s Private Eye costume of trench coat and a fedora! Overall, it's just too poorly executed to even warrant and average rating of 5.

The first half is acceptable. Around the half time it develops a huge sag. There are totally unnecessary scenes. The protagonist is taking a shower and we are treated to a view of her nipples behind the glass wall. Does this imply that noone else in the movie showers? What is the relation to the story? She also has a PG-13 sex scene with her partner. Totally unnecessary. There is a long confrontation with the two elderly relatives that should have been much shorter. And in half the scenes the heroine puts on a fedora like Sam Spade. A stronger movie with similar theme is Woman in Gold with Helen Mirren. No shower scenes though!

Subject: the looting by Nazi occupiers of art owned by Jewish families during the war. and the subsequent misappropriation of some of this art after the war.

The movie falls apart spectacularly after a few minutes. Anna Sigalevitch can act and has screen presence, but, she is in almost every scene and becomes tiresome after a while. We are even regaled (for no plausible reason) with prolonged samples of her singing and disco dancing. Her acting is frantic and overblown; true, her lines do her no favor.

Plot holes make their appearance early, increase in size and finally swallow the movie whole; at the same time the script is pretty predictable. The protagonist is faced by a vast conspiracy directed by her ancient great-uncle, played by Michel Bouquet. He has done good work in many other movies, but here engages another ancient played by Robert Hirsch in a contest of over-the-top acting.

The final insult: a character which we see as a young man in grainy old movies (in color?) reappears more that half a century later played by the same actor in the same garb and is greeted by the heroin shouting "Nazis age well, Klaus!" There must some hidden meaning here but if so it totally escaped me.

Well, something has to be right. Francois Berléand plays a late-middle-age crotchety character with authority and the reliable Louis-Do de Lencquesaing demonstrates that acting doesn't have to be frenetic. Otherwise, the movie is a complete miss.

...a beautiful film. Because the basic idea deserves that. And the actors. The basic problem is the ignorance of director to use the subject. The ambition to give a happy lesson about virtues. And the presence of veterans is a good virtue, too easy wasted. The problem of reconciliation with past is more delicate and the start point of the crusade of Esther is not real realistic. The story itself seems fake , against its profound echoes. And the couple scenes real inspired are more accusations than good points.