Le colonel Chabert

This film will be variously be described in critical summaries as either a historical drama or dramatic tragedy. It is neither. It is a profoundly unsettling ghost story, as luridly horrifying as any classic film of the supernatural. It left me contemplating the permanence of loss that fate can decree for an individual as well as with an image of death more chillingly authentic than anything I have ever experienced in film or print.

Our "ghost" is one Colonel Chabert, a seedy and unpleasant vagrant who materializes in the streets of post Napoleonic Paris to solicit the services of a deliciously clever lawyer to legally prove his identity and therefore claim the legacy of his once considerable estate. 9 years previously, the Colonel had been mistaken for dead after the bitter winter battle of Eylau in 1807. Stripped naked and buried in a mass grave with hundreds of others, Chabert managed to claw his way out of the grave and recovers with the aid of local villagers. Now, after nine years of poverty and semi lucidity {brought about at least partly by the grievous head wound he received which has never fully healed} he has returned to find his wife remarried and his fortune being used to keep her in comfort as well as financing her new husband's political ambitions. It is this bleak situation that has him seeking out a smoothly Machiavellian lawyer who also happens to be his wife's attorney. The brilliant machinations of this lawyer will put the long suffering Chabert within reach of his goal, yet will also raise in his mind and ours a disturbing question: Did Chabert cheat deaths physical grip, only to realize ultimately that it had swallowed his soul, his very being, everything that made Chabert Chabert, and leave him with ethereal memories and an empty husk of a body? I will let the viewers of this film come to their own conclusions about that question.

To make such an emotional impact, most everything about a film must click in just right and this is no exception. The performances are no less than brilliant. Fanny Ardent hits all the marks as Chaberts scheming yet all too human wife. Fabrice Luchini almost steals the show with his searingly precise depiction of the masterly lawyer Derville. As for Chabert, Gerard Depardieu's is a pure manifestation of brilliance. An acting coach could probably break down his performance into instructive segments illustrating how to truly engender character thru subtle juxtapositions of gesture and voice. As an audience though, you never once think about what a great job Depardieu is doing, you are too interested in where he is going to take you next. A strong cry of "Auter!" also to Writer Director Yves Angelo for his sure handed story telling and a "Bravo!" to the exquisitely rich lensing of Bernard Autic.

If you start watching this film and feel my term of "Ghost story" is inaccurate, be patient and wait for the late night first interview between Chabert and Derville. Listen to Chabert describe the sensations of death. And then try to sleep well that night...

This is an unfortunately unrecognized classic.

The look is superb, the design, costumes etc are flawless, the post battle scenes and the cavalry charge are both chilling and exciting.

The characters are vivid and really human. Ardent is right and Fabrice Luchini as the lawyer Derville steals the movie with his clever pedantic rodent-like performance, delighting in the ups and downs of others' misfortunes. Depardieu is good but perhaps too large a presence for this role.

Where the film really excels is the story and also its changes from Balzac's novella. Those changes are editorial in that Balzac has lots of discussion on society and this film breaths with characters. Nevertheless Yves Angelo has retained the key ingredient, not just the missing man trying to regain his place in society but every character has to find their place in society: the Comte Ferraud is trying to buy a peerage, his wife (Ardent) comes from a lowly birth and when she was married to Colonel Chabert they achieved their position in the turbulence of post-revolutionary France. Everyone has something to lose in terms of status and that makes for a good drama as their objectives are in conflict with each other.

It also feels very modern: money is critical to buy status to reach power, but someone can go down as quickly as they go up. Derville enjoys the strategy, he has seen the worst of people he says to Chabert when he takes the case. This speech's original place is at the end of the novella as Balzac sums up the human comedy with huge irony.

Why risk your life in the battlefield for your country if all you achieve is helping social hyenas gain what they are after: money and social climbing. Great adaptation of Balzac's novel. Balzac knew the world of post-Napoleonic era well. Everything was for sale. Colonel Chabert who would renounce all his entitlements, except his honorable name, for his money-hungry ex-prostitute turned countess ex-wife, disgusted with the world of new hyenas, decides to retreat to the more truthful world of a mental asylum.

Wonderfully acted by Gerard Depardieu and Fanny Ardant, and beautifully shot.

A man re-emerges 10 years after being declared dead in the Napoleonic wars. He wants something, but even HE doesn't seem sure what – his money his wife kept, and brought to her new marriage? Revenge on her for forgetting him? To win her back?

Meanwhile, her own lawyer also takes on Chabert's side of the case, trying to broker a compromise, before word leaks out and all involved are ruined in scandal. (Fabrice Luchini is great as the lawyer who's motives are always a little mysterious).

An interesting, subtle study of what's really of value in life.

My only complaint is that some of the Machiavellian machinations are a little obviously played by both Ardant's character and her greedy, wormy new husband, who values a peerage over marriage, love or family. Somehow that artifice makes the film a bit less emotionally powerful than it might be. But I'd certainly see it again.

First, let me confess that I have not read this particular Balzac novel, so maybe I am directing my cavils unfairly at director and editor. Still my experience with Balzac in other stories is that he writes as a realist, not an obscurantist. This is most certainly a film worth one's while, but one is left sorely puzzled at the end. Was the Colonel a fraud, used by the lawyer for his own ends (or for whose beyond himself); or was the Colonel not a fraud, but used as aforesaid by the lawyer; or did the lawyer truly try to serve the honest Colonel? The director and/or the editor appear to me to have deliberately obscured these questions, which doesn't seem like Balzac, the realist. At the same time the film does an excellent job of delineating the characters, if not their motives, and the cast and production is superb. That opening battlefield scene is bound to haunt one's dreams. Still, one wonders at the all too common penchant among contemporary film makers to favor ambiguity above all else. Weren't the problems and motives of all these characters complicated enough for Yves Angelo?