The most positive aspect of this movie is the meticulous evocation of the social environment of the French and international jet-set residing in Paris during the beginning of the 20nth century in the "golden", at least for some, years of the 3rd French Republic, which after the horrors of the 1st World War was named "Belle Epoque". Those rich people had also potent sexual needs for which a specialized class of women was called to cater for, a sort of elevated form of prostitutes, similar to the "heterai" of ancient Athens, enjoying riches and high-life but also excluded from respectable society, known also as "demi-mondaines", in the sense that they neither low enough to be part of the underworld neither good enough for normal society.
One of them Lea de Lonval, played by Michelle Pfeiffer has aged for the standards of that age and her profession, when a former colleague and antagonist, requests her help to train her 19 year-old son, not even an adult but the criteria of early 20nth century, in the ways of the world and of love, in order to save him from his spendthrift and promiscuous life, guiding him through her expert hands.
Unfortunately this temporary solution, that was going to be superseded by an arranged marriage for the boy, develops to a deep love which eventually brings tragedy to the couple.
A study of perhaps outgrown social conventions of a bygone age and of a social environment which is rich but rife with antagonism and resentment, this movie based on two novels by the acclaimed and controversial French author Collete, is a fine evocation of a charming but flawed world, which may be found wanting in moral fibre by Anglosaxon Protestant moral criteria.
Regardless of the personal opinion one may have about the people portrayed in this film, it is true that they are very ably presented both in their emotional profile as well as in their material surroundings. The mental picture of this era that I have coincides with what I saw in this film, although I have not read the novels themselves to judge if the movie is loyal to their letter;I guess it is loyal to their spirit.
The negative aspects of the movie are the rather vulgar voice of the narrator who speaks in a tone, as if in a TV show concerned with the sexual escapades of modern Hollywood celebrities. Not that the "demi-mondaines" of the Third Republic were morally better than modern Hollywood celebrities, but the passing of time has let an aura to them, destroyed by the intrusion of the annoying voice of the narrator.
The other point is that the language of the movie is English, while it describes an environment who spoke French, given that the international language of the rich was still French, at least of those residing in Paris, in early 2Onth century, that is before the USA had totally eclipsed Old Europe in the world stage.
But those details are minor and you should watch this film, to savour the beautiful costumes, rich interiors, fine landscapes and all those elements that were unable to offer true happiness to the protagonists given that social convention barred their love from flourishing.
One of them Lea de Lonval, played by Michelle Pfeiffer has aged for the standards of that age and her profession, when a former colleague and antagonist, requests her help to train her 19 year-old son, not even an adult but the criteria of early 20nth century, in the ways of the world and of love, in order to save him from his spendthrift and promiscuous life, guiding him through her expert hands.
Unfortunately this temporary solution, that was going to be superseded by an arranged marriage for the boy, develops to a deep love which eventually brings tragedy to the couple.
A study of perhaps outgrown social conventions of a bygone age and of a social environment which is rich but rife with antagonism and resentment, this movie based on two novels by the acclaimed and controversial French author Collete, is a fine evocation of a charming but flawed world, which may be found wanting in moral fibre by Anglosaxon Protestant moral criteria.
Regardless of the personal opinion one may have about the people portrayed in this film, it is true that they are very ably presented both in their emotional profile as well as in their material surroundings. The mental picture of this era that I have coincides with what I saw in this film, although I have not read the novels themselves to judge if the movie is loyal to their letter;I guess it is loyal to their spirit.
The negative aspects of the movie are the rather vulgar voice of the narrator who speaks in a tone, as if in a TV show concerned with the sexual escapades of modern Hollywood celebrities. Not that the "demi-mondaines" of the Third Republic were morally better than modern Hollywood celebrities, but the passing of time has let an aura to them, destroyed by the intrusion of the annoying voice of the narrator.
The other point is that the language of the movie is English, while it describes an environment who spoke French, given that the international language of the rich was still French, at least of those residing in Paris, in early 2Onth century, that is before the USA had totally eclipsed Old Europe in the world stage.
But those details are minor and you should watch this film, to savour the beautiful costumes, rich interiors, fine landscapes and all those elements that were unable to offer true happiness to the protagonists given that social convention barred their love from flourishing.