Belle du Seigneur

Belle du seigneur (the book) is the most beautiful declaration of love I've ever read so obviously I was intrigued when I saw that the movie existed. What a disappointment. The actors are terrible. (Particularly Natalia Vodianova... seriously ?!). The movie can't even begin to describe Ariane and Solal's passion.

Anyone writing a bad review for this movie is either fenced in by there own misconceptions of the intricacies of human behavior, only reach as far as their own eyes will take them and do not have the ability to understand the story behind the actual novel itself which is complex, intense and utterly revealing of twisted emotions that day to day minds wouldn't stretch to, or would blindly chose to avoid thinking about.

This film got 100% less acknowledgment than it deserved, perhaps because people are more interested in shallow, fast-paced movies that keep them occupied for a couple of hours without having to delve into anything with depth because it uses too much brainpower and 'scares' them.

Look beyond what you know, expand your mind, thats what a film is meant to do.

Outstanding scenery in Italy and Switzerland, international struggle during WWII, human fragility, human struggle, conflict on issues and the directives from the League of Nations from a Jewish point of view. This is also the first time Natalia Vodianova has combined her modeling career with acting, which is promising. I particularly enjoyed seeing European hotels and houses and the architecture of the settings. Solal portrays a troubled individual who appears to be looking for a way out, believing in his position he cannot change the rigidity of the LON. There is also the issue of the role of women during that time-frame and some of Ariana's struggles. Adapted from a book of the same name from a respected French novelist. I would certainly watch this again, you get the feeling there's pieces of the story that you're missing the first time watching

This is also known as "A Grand Affair ".

The movie did nothing for me, though I enjoyed the glorious settings in Europe (especially Italy) and the stunning architecture. The era is WWII, the story portraying miserable, dislikable characters. We have the Don Juan scenario of Jonathan Rhys-Myers' character, Solal (a high level exec at the then League of Nations in Geneva) seducing his subordinate Adrien's wife Ariane (Natalia Vodianova). Ariane succumbs willingly after a couple of meetings, Adrien is kicked into professional obscurity and the other two embark on their journey of passion.

Then follows scene after scene of sex, fighting, self-introspection, more fighting, more sex. Solal, who - despite his self-assurance as an experienced seducer - seems unsure of himself, fixating on Ariane's past lovers and getting violent; she walks away, comes back (to more sex and introspection). And thus it goes.

Other viewers will no doubt find deeper meaning here, but really how much sex does one need to get it across? The backdrops, costumes, buildings are lovely to behold but ultimately cannot carry the story on their own. One has to be invested in the characters, and I wasn't.

The film is unfortunately a deceptive adaptation of this great and complicate XXth century love story novel by Albert Cohen. Some women friends of mine commented, it's pretty unconceivable to understand how a male writer could so well understand and describe and write (about) woman's psychology, woman's inside.

I loved the book a lot but not the film, pretty poor. I like Meyers as an actor but here, imho, he looks too young (he was 35 then) as Solal, even if Solal had a vertiginous social climb.

At about 31 minutes into the film, we can see a very nice wood house at the Geneva lake. I knew the (unnice) owners so I went there once or twice. For the ones interested, you can see it in Promenthoux at 46.391986° 6.267007° in Google Maps.