Illusions perdues

I started to read "Lost Illusions" once and didn't get very far. Not that I thought it was bad, but rather that I just wasn't in the mood for Balzac's style of writing just then. I'll probably revisit it some day.

So I can't speak to how good an adaptation this movie is, but man is it a good movie in its own right. I love stories about women in big dresses and men in cravats exchanging significant glances in drawing rooms, which is pretty much all this movie is. The young actor Benjamin Voisin carries this movie admirably on his slim shoulders, and the whole thing is a scathing indictment of the relationship between journalism, wealth, and power. It's eye opening, not necessarily because it's surprising, but because it makes Paris of the 1800s relevant to the world of 2023.

And I don't think I've ever seen a more effective and artistic closeup of male genitalia in a film before. The juxtaposition of a fistful of money against a male penis says in a single image what Balzac spent pages and pages communicating to his readers.

Grade: A.

Lost illusions is for many critics, the best Balzac's novel and the adaptation that Xavier Giannoli (the director) delivers is not only fairly pleasant, dynamic and very well interpreted, it also has a special resonance in our world controled by social networks, search for buzz, influencers, fake news and a few rich media owners.

However, the story seems quite far from our world as it takes place in the first part of the 19th century (around 1820-1830) during the period of "Restauration", when monarchy came back to power in France but also when the liberals were pushing for changing the regime or at least experimenting new liberties such as parliamentarism and freedom of the press.

Lucien de Rubempré is this young man full of dreams who comes from the French country side eager to live from his literary talents, driven by his forbidden love to a rich aristocrat . Sent away to Paris, little by little Lucien will lose his illusions to discover a world full of greed, machiavellianism and dishonesty.

Xavier Giannoli tackles lots of topics in what we understand is a very rich novel. One of the topic is the transformation of literature into merchandise. The depiction of the book publishers is machiavellian. The depiction of a new kind of journalism based on sensacional news is quite shocking. In fact, Xavier Giannoli doesn't make a plea for journalists, on the contrary, he even tries to discredit them and presents them as filthy people, greedy for money. It's sometimes a little bit too much but we understand that the new liberties conceded by the government back in those days have a repercussion on different fields of the society and we also understand it concerns a certain type of journalism and not all journalisms. However the resonence in our 21st century world is quite obvious concerning the search of buzz.

We clearly understand that what the director wants to make us some winks thoughout his film, winks that the attentive spectator cannot miss. There is notably the explanation of how the buzz is created among the press, but also how the media (for the time, mainly newspapers) are controlled and owned by rich entrepreneurs or by the big bosses of advertising agencies and how these influencers of the 19th century try to invade the parliament and get the hold of the main positions among the government. The sentence "there will be a time a bankier will be president of the republic" is clearly a wink to our French president Macron, former banker himself.

All in all, Xavier Giannoli makes a great adaptation, with a lot of characters and a fine depiction and understanding of the changes that were at stake back in the 19th century and that have a special resonance nowadays.

I'm not against the use of a narrator in a movie by principle. Narration can be useful to set context, or, even better, have an interesting dialogue with the action. However, I struggle to understand what the writers of this movie were thinking when they decided that every beat of this story needed narration. I felt like I was reading a picture book. It really diminished my enjoyment of the movie. Too bad, because it's a good story, served by excellent actors (I particularly loved Salomé Dewaels) and beautiful costumes and sets. A lot of the narration could have been cut by being more creative with the script and telling us things in different ways, or by simply leaving a few things unsaid and trusting the audience to cope with some ambiguity.

I'm frankly baffled by the fact that it won the "best movie" and "best adapted scenario" César awards (admittedly, I haven't seen its competition).

Also, the little nods to our present time, mostly done by that same narration, were very unsubtle. In a better film, I might have funnier, but there they tended to annoy me.

I was a little scared before watching this film; I was scared to get bored, because romance in costume is not my stuff. Speaking of costume movies, this is not BARRY LYNDON but a captivating French film, which could have been made seventy years ago by an Albert Lewin, starring George Sanders, except maybe that the lead character here is not as nasty, selfish, cynical as Sanders was in his films, and mabe not only in his films... This is the itinerary of an idealistic young man, not naive but ambitious, who tries to survive in the Paris jungle: journalism, theater, publishing, politics, a cruel, superficial, cynical, rotten, insecere, opportunist world where sharks spread everywhere. I guess Claude Chabrol could have made it too, and I think Xavier Gianolli is an authentic heir ofChabrol. It is brilliant, sensitive, bittersweet and full of details of the atmosphere of this period. Adapted from Honoré de Balzac, this would be great if this kind of films could be made about more novels from Balzac or even Zola, why not? This is millions of times better than stupid French comedies for red necks where you need someone near you to tell you when to laugh. It is after all a rise and fall scheme, which makes it more interesting.

It's a 600 page novel that had to be boiled down to fit the running time of 2 1/2 hours, some minor characters had to be thrown out. The third part of the book is dispensed with--no great loss.

We are left with a wonderful satire of the popular press in France circa 1830. Graft and bribery are part of the game, and our hero Lucien is never quite sure where the next knife is going to come from that will enter his back. My favourite character is Sarfati, the claque leader, whose mob can be bought for whomever pays top dollar. The acting is superb, as you might imagine: Depardieu, de France, de Lenquesaing all acquit themselves well, and Vincent Lacoste as Lucien's changeable buddy Lousteau is marvellous. Only Benjamin Voisin doesn't quite meet the demands of the role, and he's in almost every scene. Sets and costumes are very good, and Giannoli's direction is assured.