User reviews

If you can get by the first fifteen minutes, get into the leisurely pacing and that fact that nothing is going to explode and no one shoots anybody or stabs anyone in the eye, and the film is about learning to live with other human beings, about being a parent, about falling and staying in love, perhaps you'll come to love this film, too.

The trilogy is set in another time long gone--Marseilles, a provincial fishing village, where Cesar and his son operate a sort of bar where locals drift in and out and play cards; a pretty young woman sells seafood outside, and she's known son Marius since they were children. Enough said: except that the acting is amazingly naturalistic for a 1930's film, that the performance by famed French entertainer Raimu is beyond words, is simply astounding in his range of emotions, his understanding of the human condition. This understated drama is a quiet masterpiece.

Part two of Marcel Pagnol's wonderfully simple, but, mind me, not simple-minded Marseilles trilogy is even funnier and more touching than its predecessor, thanks to expanded supporting roles and a broader variety of outdoor locations.

The dialogue is as humorously and emotionally rich as ever and the cast, almost outshone by Raimu's terrific performance, works wonders with their lines.

The pace may drag slightly from time to time and some story aspects feel redundant, but the basic concerns of Pagnol's deeply philanthropic approach to issues like paternal love, social constraints and diverging attitudes towards life offer more than enough pleasures.

8 out of 10 suspicious premature births

"Fanny", the second chapter of Marcel Pagnol's 'Marseilles' trilogy, takes us right to the spot the first movie ended. There's no summary, no flashbacks, no flash forward either, it's just as if the director, Marc Allegret trusted the good memory of his audience, and I guess in these times, cinema was still such a new thing that an experience like the first "Marius" would have left unforgettable memories.

Marius (Pierre Fresnay), the idealistic and romantic son of colorful barkeeper César (the one and only Raimu), has just sailed to the seven seas, following both his lifelong dream and the guidance of his beloved Fanny (Orane Demazis). We left César delighted after hearing that his son and Fanny would marry, and give him grandchildren in the years to come. But "Fanny" starts with Marius' departure. And you can see the light of joy vanish from César's face, he welcomes the news like a knife in his heart and sinks into melancholy like an ice cube in a Pastis drink. The first act shows both César and Fanny trying to deal with Marius' absence, their deep and inconsolable sorrow makes Marius the most present character despite his absence.

But the worst is yet to come, Fanny is pregnant and Marius is the father. Her mother Honorine throws a tantrum and was about to disown her when she passed out, that's the kind of blow to their honor they don't need in the family. The situation seems unsolvable but there's a gateway: brave old Panisse (Henri Charpin) who's still maintaining his offer to marry Fanny. What I liked about the film is that you kind of secrecy to run in the narrative, but it doesn't, for one simple reason, this is a film with fully developed characters. Their personality are not reliant on the plot, they make the plot. Fanny is not a bad woman, when Panisse proposes her, she can't hide her pregnancy, because lying would be more dishonorable. And I loved Panisse's response, he's aware that their age gap will inspire a lot of gossipy talks, but he's always wanted to be a father, so his marriage with Fanny is benefiting for both, it's a win-win situation.

Any ounce of guilt or discomfort is dissipated; by marrying Fanny, Panisse keeps her honor and his self-esteem.. It is a marriage of convenience but Panisse makes good points, what's more, he's rich, so Fanny doesn't have much a choice, between a bastard and a rich heir. But here 's how the film teases your expectations again, just when you're wondering how they'll keep the secret, César does his best keeping Fanny's spirit up confident that Marius will come back, and does his best keeping Panisse away from her, dismissing his idea of marrying her. In a lesser movie, Fanny would have held the truth and César would have called her as a whore or a venal woman, but Fanny can't stand the insult and asks Panisse to reveal their secret. It takes a few minutes but César realizes they do have a point and waiting for Marius would bring dishonor for poor Fanny. But he also looks at the bright side of things, he'll still have a grandson and a heir, the name doesn't matter, he'd be twice wealthier.

There's a poignant scene where the older man of Panisse family thanks Fanny for the baby and at this point, there's no way you'd believe they did something wrong. It is a win-win indeed and a fragile equilibrium is reached… until Marius comes back. And again, Fanny tells him the truth Panisse can let Fanny go back to Marius but he won't abandon his child and even César, César who had always put his son above any other man, who had a nasty quarrel with Panisse, defended him. What a climax! You have plenty of characters with desires and dreams colliding together, Marius' love for Fanny, Fanny's honor, Panisse needing a child, César for a grandson to play with, each one is right, but they can't all be satisfied, even Fanny can't abandon Panisse despite the fact that she loves Marius. It's pure Cornelian dilemmas and it works on a very emotional and realistic level, not resorting to the clichés or "idiot script" formula where it's more convenient to keep a mystery, the film doesn't care for mysteries, it cares about people who're so passionate, so involved that they end up knowing what the others were about to hide. Like life I guess, you can't have secrets for too long.

The film was directed by another director but the continuity with the first film is so well-done you'd think it was made by the same person. Well, the film is based on Marcel Pagnol's play and he's the real "director" and the actors are so into their characters that they make any directorial stunt unnecessary, it's a character-study, a story of people driven to the most extreme compromises by their morals, feelings and duties, to keep the appearances. The film ends with its bleak note, leaving us eager to look forward to a suitable conclusion, this time named "César" and directed by Marcel Pagnol himself.

Needless to say, I'm looking forward to discovering it

FANNY is the second film of a trilogy, based upon a play by Marcel Pagnol, from which all three works are taken, featuring most of the cast of excellent actors which made the stage original a great artistic and popular success, including Raimu, Charpin, Pierre Fresnay, and Orane Demazis as Fanny, an assemblage which remains faithful to the heart of the original. By repudiating the normal placement of concurrent French films made in Parisian studios, and producing the work in his native Marseilles, in Provence, Pagnol achieves a finely-hewn naturalism which is very congenial to the scenario, dealing as it does with a hard-working bourgeoisie whose lives are in concert with rhythms of a major seaport. Fanny's passionate attention to Marius (Fresnay) results in her pregnancy from their farewell coupling at the denouement of the first of the trilogy, MARIUS, with her lover falling prey to the lure of a seafaring life and she, abandoned, accepts a proposal of marriage from a much older M. Panisse (Charpin), in order to save the reputation of her family. The love of Panisse for the child of Fanny is the moving force in what must be the inevitable fulfillment of the storyline, i.e., the return of Marius to claim his erstwhile fiancée and his true child in a scene which brings the best from Demazis, Fresnay, and Raimu as Cesar, the father of Marius and lifelong friend of Panisse. Pagnol directed only the finale of the trio, and selects for FANNY Marc Allegret, who leads the cast with distinction, displaying particular skill when allowing Pagnol's magnificent dialogue to be developed in what is essentially a filmed work for the stage, with few sets, and who allows liberal emphasis upon the plastic Raimu, who is, after all, the most important presence in this romantic masterpiece.

The sequel to "Marius" the year before stays in the same vein and is the same kind of staged theatre all the way, with the same kind of virtuoso performances by all the actors, but there is another director, and you miss the Alexander Korda flamboyance and liberal sweeps and flow of the movie tempo. This film is more like chamber theatre all the way, and you don't even see much of the harbour, the glorious ships, the street life and the joints. Fanny, left alone and pregnant by Marius going to sea for five years, marries another older suitor, just to give her child a future and safe environment, and it works out well, until Marius comes back after only two years as a most unsuspected surprise and does his best to complicate things but immediately leaves again. The story isn't much, it is very inferior to the first part, but there is a third part four years later, which will show the end of the story, directed by Marcel Pagnol, the author, himself - he made many films besides being a prolific Provence writer.

This is the second film of Pagnol's famous trilogy set on the quay of the Old Port of Marseilles. It follows immediately upon Part One, MARIUS (1931, see my review) and is succeeded by CÉSAR (1936, see my review), in which the action takes place many years later. These films were made over a period of at least six years, with a total running time of 375 minutes, with the same actors playing the same characters. Whereas Part One largely dealt with the character Marius (played by Pierre Fresnay), this film concentrates on the girl Fanny who is deeply in love with him. Fanny is wonderfully played by Orane Demazis, with haunting emotional depth. In Part One, after a night of love with Fanny, Marius then abandons his plans to marry her and instead follows his dream and goes to sea on a long five-year voyage on a sailing ship bearing scientists who want to measure the bottom of the Indian Ocean. He does not tell his father, César (played by Raimu), that he is leaving, because he knows he will try to stop him. This film commences immediately after the departure of Marius on the sailing ship. César and Fanny are both left desolate. César knows that Fanny and Marius have spent a night together, which at that time was considered deeply shocking and 'a loss of honour'. He had wanted them to marry, but now Marius has gone to sea and will not be back for years. Then, Fanny discovers that she is pregnant. At that time, such a social disgrace could not be endured if a girl remained single. If Marius were still there, they would have married and the problem would have been solved. But he does not even know about the pregnancy and cannot return in any case. What is Fanny to do? She is desperate, and so are her mother and Marius's father, César. They all live on the same quay together with the wealthy sail-maker Honoré Panisse, eloquently played by Fernand Charpin (sometimes known simply as Charpin). Panisse is made aware of the problem and renews his offer to marry Fanny and does not mind that the child is not his. So the wedding takes place and Fanny's honour is saved, and the child does not have to be given away, but can be brought up as the son and heir of Panisse. After the marriage, Marius returns unexpectedly and is horrified at what has happened. He wants to reclaim 'my wife and child' but is persuaded to go away and leave things as they are. So he and Fanny, both heartbroken at their fate, part again. All of this may sound like a trite story, but it is far from that as presented on the screen. This second film is directed by Marc Allégret, who does an excellent job, just as Alexander Korda had done with the preceding film. (Marcel Pagnol himself would direct the third and final film, CÉSAR, 1936, see my review). The earnestness and passion of the remarkable actors in these three films is so intense and real that one feels that one is really there on the quay with these people. Daniel Auteil is doing remakes of these three films, and has completed MARIUS and FANNY (both 2013), but the production of the final one, CÉSAR, has apparently not yet commenced, although it has long been announced. Auteil is directing the films and plays the part of César. The first two Auteil versions have been released and are readily available on DVD, but have not yet been released with English subtitles. One even wonders whether CÉSAR will really be made by Auteil, as perhaps some funding problem has arisen. Auteil's public association with filmed Marcel Pagnol stories began in 1986 when he played the role of Ugolin in JEAN DE FLORETTE and MANON DES SOURCES, which were hugely successful around the world. In 2011 he appeared in and directed Pagnol's story THE WELL DIGGER'S DAUGHTER (see my review), which was a superb film. Certainly Auteil's obvious love of the Pagnol stories is a most endearing characteristic of his. He himself is not from Provence but was born in Algiers. After this film finishes, many years elapse in the story before the episodes of the final film, CÉSAR (1936, see my review), which brings the intensely emotional saga to its conclusion.

I have just finished watching Proof, a film released in the year of our Lord, 2005, which is adapted from a stage play in which the director has gone to great pains to hide the fact that his work is based on the play. flash back 70 years and we have a movie made that looks like a filmed stage play with real locations replacing the stage sets. All early sound movies feel set-locked as people talk and deliver within the range of the camera. Therefore, to hold the interest to the modern viewer, the dialogue and acting must be believable and engaging. The film fails to achieve it for the most part because the performance of the actress playing Fanny is a total success even though she was reprising her role from the stage. First time director, Pagnol adapting his own stage works suffers from a non-visual eye. The delight, is French star Raimu who delivers a performance still worthy to the eye even today. There is a reason Orson Welles called him a genius. The melodramatic plot of a scorned, (maybe that is too strong a word: even abandoned is too strong because she never lets on to her man that she does not want him to leave) woman who is pregnant is passé though common in the literature of the period. I remember a tracking shot that impressed me as the camera follows Fanny through the streets as she suspects she is pregnant. In the way it is handled and executed, it is cinematic authorship at its finest. It is a film in the middle of the trilogy, therefore there are loose ends left to be resolved. All movies are time capsules, it is said, therefore approach this with the right attitude and you might be rewarded.

Part the Second of this trilogy reminds us that at heart it is pure melodrama and if not quite 'dead! and never called me mother', it is certainly from the same stable. Arguably Orane Demazis - replicating here, as indeed are all the principals, her stage role as the eponymous seduced and abandoned and slightly enceinte ingenue - is the weakest link in an unusually strong chain yet even then with the handicap of being saddled with a role that today would be risible (I doubt if it is possible to 'SPOIL' a classic which is now some 72 years old so suffice it to say that as a result of 'giving herself' to Marius, shortly before he ships out on an extended cruise, Fanny finds herself in an 'interesting' position and must make some tough choices. Today, of course, it is practically an honor to fall pregnant with no father material in sight and a State standing by to cosset the resulting infant from cradle to grave but in 1932 the resulting 'shame' embraced not only the mother-to-be but also her family) she manages to elicit our compassion and keep our humor at bay. Pedants will have a field day with the dodgy arithmetic - Marius has supposedly signed up for a five-year voyage yet on his return Fanny's son is a mere 10 months old - but what matters is the acting-plus-believability factor and here, thanks as always to the great Raimu, aided and abetted by Fernand Charpin, Alida Rouffe and Milly Mathis they bring it off to a fare-thee-well. Pierre Fresnay as Marius does little more than play the fly-in-the-ointment in the closing quarter of the movie and may well have been looking ahead one full decade to 'Le Corbeau'. Building on the first part and moving seamlessly to the next stage this is a worthy successor to 'Marius'. 9/10

Fanny (1932) : Brief Review -

The best possible follow-up to Cult Classic 'Marius' and a highly sensitive content far ahead of its time. So this was exactly 37 years before Bollywood adopted this concept with "Ek Phool Do Mali" in 1969, which was considered ahead of its time due to the sensitivity of the topic then just imagine how far ahead Fanny was for its time? Truly unthinkable. And the maturity of this concept was beyond acceptance for 30s audience. French Cinema created a Classic Tear-jerker like 'Marius' (1931) but the way that film ends certainly gives a chance to a great follow-up which could have easily been predicted while watching Marius only. Fanny begins right where Marius ended as we see Fanny getting pregnant by Marius child after Marius had left to acquire his wild dreams. Panisse asks her to Marry him and promises to love the child like his own but things get messy as all of sudden Marius returns to visit the town for a short time of period. Okay, this was highly predictable and even the next things coming were pretty easy to predict or rather i would say things go exactly as you would have liked it to predict and therefore Fanny ends on an matured and fulfilling note. The problem here is, Fanny follows a Cult film which puts a lot of burden on it so obviously it stays behind its predecessor. The emotional quotient is not high when there was a potential for it and most importantly it doesn't make the characters look intellectual which it should have done considering their intellectual behaviour in the predecessor. However, for any Normal film it is overwhelming for sure. I dare everyone, beat the time limit of this content if you can. It was at least 2-3 decades ahead of its time for the impact in real life. Overall, its a deserving sequel which deserves individual love instead of underwhelming praise caused by comparison with its prequel.

RATING - 7.5/10*

By - #samthebestest

The previous part of Marcel Pagnol's Marseille Trilogy 'Marius' is a wonderful film, and gets my vote as the best of the trilogy. It set up the characters, managing to make them remarkably complex, and what was to come later on in the storytelling, basically an epic love story, in the rest of the trilogy with aplomb. It also more than successfully avoids the traps that early sound films and films adapted from stage plays (like 'Marius' was) frequently fell into at the time.

1932's 'Fanny' is the second of the three, and although Marc Allegret replaces Alexander Korda as director and Vincent Scotto replaces Francis Gromon as composer all the original cast return and so does Pagnol as writer. 'Fanny' is almost as good as 'Marius' and has all of its great things, again done superbly. At the same time, it isn't quite as brilliant as it is not as consistently paced and Fanny herself is not as strong a character. It is still a great film though.

'Fanny' is a bit too slow at first, a problem that 'Marius' did not have.

Also felt like Fanny herself was more interesting before and that she was a little underwritten here.

On the other hand, the production values are still lovely to watch. The locations have such a realistic and rustic look that makes one feel they are there instead of looking sparse studio sets. The photography opens up the action beautifully, again there is not a filmed play feel here like some early talkies fell into the trap of doing so, while not trying to do too much that it risked swamping it. The music from Scotto is charming and whimsical and 'Fanny' may be the best directed film of the trilogy, if only marginally.

With Allegret capturing the setting perhaps the most vividly of him, Korda and Pagnol. Pagnol's dialogue is again clever and even more heart-breaking in its drama than the drama in 'Marius'. While also balancing some disarmingly funny moments, that did make me laugh if not with much quite as memorable as the humour in 'Marius'.

Unlike other stage to film adaptations, with it also being based on Pagnol's 1929 stage play like 'Marius', there is a lean feel and it doesn't get too talky. The story is as human, entertaining and poignant as before, without immature slapstick or soapy melodrama. The characters again feel like real people in still relevant and realistically written situations worth rooting for, really appreciated that the supporting characters were expanded a little more. Even if it did come at the cost of slightly underwriting the titular character herself.

All the acting is great, the weak link is Demazis but it is mainly down to the other characterisations being much richer in depth. Raimu's very nuanced performance is the standout.

In summary, great and almost as good as 'Marius'. 9/10

This is the second of the three part "Fanny Trilogy" by the French writer, Marcel Pagnol. Originally, they were a stage play, then a movie and then many years later in 1961, the three movies were combined to make one movie named FANNY. I've always loved the 1961 movie, so I was thrilled to see the original three movies--all part of a 4 disk set by Kino Video.

Throughout much of the 1932 movie, the lines were identical or very close to the 1961 film. Of the three movies, I think this one is closest to the 1961 film except that this one is in French with subtitles and is black and white. The 1961 version is simply a lot prettier--with great music, lighting, and acting. The earlier version, though wonderful, is a little more flat. Not bad--in fact, very good,...just kind of flat in comparison. If you only have the patience, see the 1961 combined film. If you are a cinephile, then see all of the films--the writing by Pagnol is amazing.

I've watched this movie several times now, each time hoping I will like it more than the time before. But that doesn't happen. The first movie in the so-called Marseilles Trilogy, Marius (1931), is one of the masterpieces of world cinema, and not surprisingly one of the most beloved of French movies by the French. This movie, based on Pagnol's sequel play of the same name, has much more melodrama and much less humor than Marius, and frankly, the melodrama is not good melodrama (whatever that would be). The scene between Panisse and Fanny, when he explains why he will marry her even though she is pregnant by another man (Marius), is moving and funny. The final scene is interesting for the definition of fatherhood that it puts forward. There are interesting moments here and there throughout the movie. But the whole falls far short of Marius, and too often comes off as just another 1930s movie melodrama. If you liked Marius - and how could you not? - you would want to see this, but don't get your expectations up too high. More's the shame.

This is a French film so you will need to find one that is closed captioned or dubbed. There are three parts of the story starting with the film "Marius" released in 1931, then "Fanny" in 1932, and finally "César" that will be coming up in 1936.

In "Marius", the title character, the son of barkeeper César, has a romance with Fanny, a neighborhood girl and daughter of the fish salesman in the harbor. Marius follows his dreams by sailing away to travel the seven seas and leaving Fanny after a night of passion. She knows she can not hold him back from his dreams.

This film picks up where the last film ended. We now see Fanny holding out for Marius to return, though it is unsure if he ever will or if he intends to come back. In the meantime, Fanny finds she is going to have a baby. Her family is disgraced because she is unwed.

There is a wealthy man in town who has been wooing Fanny for a long time but he is over 30 years older than Fanny. Fanny sees no way out of her dilemma. But she does not want to marry him unless she tells him about her pregnancy. He is delighted and wants to have a son since he can not, being sterile. They wed and they pretend the baby is premature. Fanny is happy and all seems to be working out for the couple. However, Marius decides to come back and declare his love for Fanny. When he finds out she had his child, he plans to take Fanny and his new son away.

For being a controversial subject matter, the film is very well done and not sentimental or preachy. Orane Demazis as Fanny Cabanis is perfect in her vulnerability and strength.

The film is almost 2 hours, but the time went by quickly as the film is entertaining and very well done. I will look forward to seeing the third installment, "César".

Check out this French film. It is a Classy Classic.

Criterion / Janus Films

Marius (1931) + Fanny (1932) + César (1936)

Directed by Marc Allégret, "Fanny" holds a significant place in the golden age of French cinema as the second film in Marcel Pagnol's renowned Marseille Trilogy. I'm only discovering this now because these films have never been shown in my country (Turkey) on any platform, past or present.

Within the context of the trilogy, "Fanny" continues the story that began with "Marius" (1931) and forms a crucial part of the epic love and family saga that will conclude with "César" (1936), which is my next stop and yet to be watched, based on my research.

From the perspective of cinema in its time, "Fanny" is considered a remarkable example of the power of dialogue and performance, even though the era of sound film was still in its early stages. Pagnol's theatrical writing style has been successfully adapted to the screen, masterfully reflecting the depth of the characters and the emotional intensity of the story.

The film, dealing with universal themes such as love, sacrifice, family ties, and societal expectations, manages to appeal to modern audiences as well. From the perspective of today's cinema, "Fanny" stands out with its themes that still resonate with contemporary viewers. Its importance within the Marseille Trilogy is undeniable. According to my research, many authorities consider "Fanny" to be the heart of the trilogy.

The impressive performances of Orane Demazis and Pierre Fresnay create unforgettable moments in the film. In particular, Orane Demazis's portrayal of Fanny perfectly reflects the character's inner conflicts and emotional journey. "Fanny" stands out not only as a period film but also for its exploration of the complexities of human nature and the impact of societal norms on individuals' lives. The film addresses moral dilemmas and characters' difficult decisions with understanding, without judgment, and manages to do so without ever boring the audience.

Next stop: César (1936)

French playwright Marcel Pagnol, hooked on cinema since 1929, knew a sequel to one of his most famous plays which was turned into a movie would be a winner. When Paramount Pictures refused to produce a follow-up to 'Marius,' Pagnol formed his own film production company, and with the assistance of director Marc Allegret, released October 1932 "Fanny" to great acclaim.

Pagnol had seen his 1929 play 'Marius,' adapted into a 1931 film of the same name, directed by Alexander Korda. The story centered around a son of a Marseilles, France, bar-owner, Marius, who yearns to see the world by getting a job for a long sea voyage even though he had a serious relationship with his girlfriend Fanny. "Marius" was a success for Paramount. After the studio turned down Pagnol's offer for a sequel, the playwright proceeded to write a script penned as "Fanny" and make a movie from it. The difference in quality between the two films reflects the evolution of film technology that progressed quickly during that short period. Whereas the original was a stage-bound affair with most of its scenes constricted inside the tavern, 1932's "Fanny's" camera is more mobile, capturing exterior footage of Marseilles and tracking Fanny (Orane Demazis) throughout the city. Director Allegret hid his camera inside a van to capture the city's residents going about their business unaware they were on film. Because of such shots, producer Pagnol has been called a pioneer in cinema Neorealism, mixing both the dramatic plot of the movie with real-life scenes.

In "Fanny," the last night the two lovers spend together before Marius sets out on his five-year voyage results in a pregnancy. Upon discovering the budding life in her womb, Fanny turns to Honore Panisse (Charpin), a prosperous sea merchant who's 30 years older. In 'Marius,' he had proposed to Fanny, only to be rejected. In the sequel, Fanny is resigned to accept his proposal to marry for the sake of her newborn. Then, after two years at sea, Marius, on shore leave, surprises Fanny. That's when Pagnol makes things very interesting for all those involved. Film critic Jamie Rich said "the acting is so good, you might find yourself wishing this were an ongoing series."

Riding on the success of "Fanny," Pagnol wrote a sequel to the sequel. He gave up composing stage plays to make feature films, and he directed the third of his so-called 'Marseilles Trilogy,' 1936's 'Cesar.' The movie picks up the story of Fanny where her son, Cesariot, is a young man and is told about who his real father is after his adopted father Panisse died.

"Fanny's" international popularity gave French cinema a boast in both quality and popularity. Pagnol's trilogy has been made into several motion pictures, the first a James Whale directed and Preston Sturges scripted, 1938s "Port of Seven Seas." The three stories were combined into a 1954 Broadway musical, running an astounding 888 performances. The 1961 Technicolor film, "Fanny," with Leslie Caron, Maurice Chevalier and Charles Boyer, blends all three scripts of Pagnol's into one full-length film. And the Daniel Auteuil directed, written and acted 2013 "Fanny" was based on the 1932 version.