---spoilers--- I haven't read the book as I never could get on with Balzac - those movie or TV adaptations I've seen were always interesting but didn't touch my heart. So I can't comment on whether this movie seems faithful to the book. I found the movie is very good and very well acted. I was readily able to admire Cousin Bette who has been treated disgracefully over her life one way and another, lost the first man she loved to another woman and later loses another man to his daughter.... and eventually loses patience with being taken advantage of. I could also happily despise the nasty young Germanm sculptor she so unwisely falls for, what an arrogant irritating twerp. Being English I'm used to Hugh Laurie being only a comedian and it was interesting to see him in a more serious part as the family's patriach.
But I'm mystified by one aspect of the story. Toby Stephens is cast as a son of the family, Victorin, and the only one with a brain in his head and one feels for his frustration as the rest of his family behave like idiots. Is he intended to be priggish? Hardly surprising since without him managing the estate and the shockingly large loans that're all keeping them going and his father so determinedly squanders on a showgirl and general stupidity, they'd all have been in the poorhouse long ago. Yet when it comes to retribution time, why is Victorin forced to flee with his family so as to avoid being murdered by one of the lenders calling in the money whilst no-one else suffers or does someone pay off the debts?
If the theme is Bette's retribution, what on earth has she got against Victorin? And if the theme is wider than her personal retribution, it's not exactly clear. Perhaps there is an explanation in the book that was omittied from the movie, or the theme is that Victorin must suffer because he doesn't stop his father's excesses. But at least it seems he escapes to build a new, safer life with his family, whilst the rest of them suffer far worse. As people who live to excess and get themselves into trouble are colourful but also can be considerable bores, I would have liked to hear more about the financial aspects and seen Victorin used more in the movie.
But what happens to the extensive debts? At the end we see Bette living in the great house but what do they live on? Perhaps the book explains this, I certainly hope so.
I'd have given 8 stars but for those two quibbles.
But I'm mystified by one aspect of the story. Toby Stephens is cast as a son of the family, Victorin, and the only one with a brain in his head and one feels for his frustration as the rest of his family behave like idiots. Is he intended to be priggish? Hardly surprising since without him managing the estate and the shockingly large loans that're all keeping them going and his father so determinedly squanders on a showgirl and general stupidity, they'd all have been in the poorhouse long ago. Yet when it comes to retribution time, why is Victorin forced to flee with his family so as to avoid being murdered by one of the lenders calling in the money whilst no-one else suffers or does someone pay off the debts?
If the theme is Bette's retribution, what on earth has she got against Victorin? And if the theme is wider than her personal retribution, it's not exactly clear. Perhaps there is an explanation in the book that was omittied from the movie, or the theme is that Victorin must suffer because he doesn't stop his father's excesses. But at least it seems he escapes to build a new, safer life with his family, whilst the rest of them suffer far worse. As people who live to excess and get themselves into trouble are colourful but also can be considerable bores, I would have liked to hear more about the financial aspects and seen Victorin used more in the movie.
But what happens to the extensive debts? At the end we see Bette living in the great house but what do they live on? Perhaps the book explains this, I certainly hope so.
I'd have given 8 stars but for those two quibbles.