User reviews

The story itself is simple: a young boy is the odd one out. His parents are much older; his mother unmercifully picks on him, favoring his near-adult siblings, while his long-suffering father has withdrawn into the small pleasures of hunting and meeting with friends. Really, it's a sort of Cinderella: the wicked step-mother (only it's his real mother), the vain pampered older siblings, his having to work and slave for them, wearing tattered hand-me-downs. But it's told with a wonderful leisurely anecdotal naturalism, laced with delightful moments of surrealism (he's surrounded by double-exposure goblins when told to close up the hen house at night, for example). The greatest scene in the film combines the two, as the boy and a young girl "rehearse" a marriage ceremony, marching through the fields while the animals about them burst into song. The father, as delineated by Baur, and the maid, also immeasurably enriched by a subtle performance, are marvelous characters. The film was made during that brief period when the French countryside was a pre-technological world, yet technology was sufficiently advanced so that sound films could document that existence. Certainly there are "literary" story telling elements, such as the family being "introduced" by the father, the older maid telling the new maid what to expect, and the boy's school essay about his miserable family life. But the wonderful thing about the film is its ineffable technique and its enigmatic moments that are the purest styleless cinema. There are many visual joys, like the shot of boys playing leap-frog with the town spread out below them, that are presented with simplicity and unostentatious naturalism. All told, this is a film of the highest cinematic art, approaching the level of Renoir and Ozu.

I saw this film at the unlikely venue of the Walter Reade Theatre in New York. The film was introduced by David Grossman, a retired exhibitor who dedicated the showing to film historian and enthusiast William K. Everson. Grossman was so full of love for the film that he could hardly express himself. The print was his, cobbled together from several sources. The original US and British release was missing most of the wedding rehearsal and all of the scene where the boy swims while his uncle fishes (the latter because the boy is nude). He spoke of Duvivier's great love for making movies. The film, he said, ran a year in Paris in its initial release, unheard of during the depression. At the end of the film, he stood from his seat and stated that the actor who played the young boy was later executed by the Nazis for being in the resistance, and that Baur was also executed by the Nazis, only a few weeks before the liberation, for reasons not clear. He apologized for the poor subtitles (the reinserted scenes had none, and the rest had those intermittent titles that, as he said, was typical of the thirties), though he needn't have apologized since full translation was unnecessary. And he asked for comments from the audience in the manner of someone who's just taken a friend to see his very favorite film. and asks, "Well, wasn't it great?" A very appropriate introduction to this wonderful film.

This is a film that cries out for restoration and wider release. I wonder if the print shown on Ontario TV and the video offered on Amazon (probably the same) are complete.

A remake was made by Graziani in 1972.Although it featured Philippe Noiret,ideally cast as M.Lepic,it did not work.

Part of the reason can be found,IMHO, in the very structure of the book.Jules Renard's literature classic ,from which

the FRench young students study at least one chapter ,is a very hard work to transfer to the screen: it is made of small vignettes,small scenes ;it's not really a linear plot.One could have thought that Duvivier,who was the absolute master of the movie made up of sketches ,would opt for this technique for his "Poil de Carotte" .You are underestimating him:he knew,forty years before Graziani ,that he would have got a listless film.

Duvivier wrote himself the screenplay -as he had done in the past and as he would almost always do in the future;to think that he was not looked upon by some people as an auteur!- and he connected all the links of the chain.Using Renard's short scenes (the melon,the hens,Mathilde,the girlie) ,Duvivier perfectly integrated them into a whole.There is a progression in his movie which did not exist in the book.Only the masters of the seventh art know how to make a book their very own (other examples:Jean Renoir and Zola's "la Bete Humaine" ;Alfred Hitchcock and Boileau -Narcejac's "D'Entre les Morts" ("Vertigo").

A minor quibble:Catherine Fontenay's Madame Lepic is too theatrical and her shrill delivery is in direct contrast to Robert Lynen's and Harry Baur's very modern playing.Frontenay seems to be still living in the silent age.The monstrous mother,almost like in Hitchcock 's canon,would come back in Duvivier's huge body of work: a crazy mother in "Un carnet de Bal" who thinks that her dead son is still with her ; the over possessive one in "Voici le Temps des assassins" ,the absent one (replaced by a terrifying stepmother ) in "Boulevard" ;the selfish one ,protrayed by Danielle Darrieux in one sketch of "Le Diable et Les Dix Commandements".She was already here in "David Golder" (1930) ,asking dying Baur for a few Francs more....

Robert Lynen ,whose fate was tragic-see the first comment-,gives a performance so modern I do not think any contemporary whiz kid could approach .His Poil de Carotte refuses to be a martyr.He is a rebel,and even if he almost commits suicide (in a scene that would remain one of the peaks of Duvivier's works) he's a rebel and the last lines of the movie have something of a happy end ,which is very rare in the director's work.Happy end ,relatively speaking:actually a new war has begun:"now there are two of us" M.Lepic says.In the book,Renard wrote:"I can assure you that you will have comforting surprises" .One should note that "Poil de Carotte" was an autobiographical book.

Nobody ,not François Truffaut in "les Quatre Cents Coups " ,not even Maurice Pialat in his harrowing " L'Enfance Nue" equaled Duvivier when it came to depicting stolen childhood.Duvivier's peers are rather Bunuel ("los Olvidados" )Loach ("Kes" ) or Comencini ("Incompreso" "Cuore" ).

This is in my opinion one of the greatest French films, and yet the censors of the time in the UK banned it from being seen. And still in the UK it has not been available to see, and sadly I believe this is a great loss. Both of the lead actors were executed by the Nazis during WW2 and this adds an added poignance to the film. The essence of the film for me is how the red-headed boy contemplates and attempts suicide because he can no longer endure the frustrated wrath of his mother, and how his loving but weak father is unable to intervene and finally literally takes the rope from around his son's neck. The scenes of the child's despair still pack a punch at the audience, and my only wish is that this film should be restored by the BFI. If any film deserves it it is this Duvivier version of Jules Renard's novel from 1932.

Julien Duvivier is not only one the most important French directors ("Golgotha"), he is also one of the most important American directors there ever was ("Tales of Manhattan" and so many others). His "Poil de carotte", which I saw on French Ontario television tonight, is not only an immortal classic for its interpretation by a ten year old Robert Lynen, but also for its script, its photography - which didn't age at all since 1932 -, its sound and music and its general air of realism. It's about the suffering of unloved children. As such, it is certainly one of the inspirations behind Kubrick's and Spielberg's "A.I.". Many directors have borrowed from this film, notably Robert Bresson in "Mouchette" and Walt Disney in "Cinderella" (the scene where the wicked stepmother - here, the hero's real mother - sneaks up behind Cinderella to lock her up in her room).

If Truffaut had bothered to see this gem before penning his infamous essay in which he tarred master craftsmen like Duvivier (who wrote and directed this film), Carne, Renoir, Allegret, Jeanson, Bost, Aurenche, Prevert, etc with the same 'incompetent' brush he would not have had the gall to shoot even one frame of his own take on the subject, 'The 400 Yawns'. As it is Duvivier is still being revived after 70 years whilst with any luck the Truffaut-Godard drek will sink without trace long before that. Here Duvivier obtains an exquisite and heartbreaking performance from ten-year-old Robert Lynen (one of the few French actors to take an active part in the 'Resistance' for which he paid with his life) and it's difficult to imagine what Duvivier said or did to Lynen prior to shooting the scene in the barn where he trembles on the brink of suicide but whatever it was he should bottle it and make it available to directors everywhere. There have, of course, been 'child' actors before - one thinks of Bobby Henry in 'The Fallen Idol', Claude Jarman Jnr, in 'The Yearling', Brandon de Wilde in 'Shane' - and there will be again but it is doubtful indeed if one will ever eclipse Lynen. The story is unashamedly lifted from Cinderella and comes complete with two ugly siblings, one of each sex and a wicked Mother instead of a Stepmother, which Comedie Francaise actress Catherine Fonteney brings off to a fare-thee-well without resorting to chewing the scenery a la Charles Laughton. Harry Baur turns in sterling work as the father whose only crime is in failing to notice he has a young son whose life is reduced to misery by a cold, uncaring mother and two spoiled brats. Duvivier was a master director (he would use Lynen again first in his poetic La Belle Equipe with the great Gabin and later in Un Carnet de Bal with Raimu, Louis Jouvet and Harry Baur (also a victim of the nazis). In sum: a wonderful, lyrical evocation of a tainted childhood. 9/10