All films are inherently impossible, but this impossible story is so far-fetched and unconvincing it might work better if it were set in another universe. A totally unrealistic moral and intellectual conundrum involving sin, guilt, and atonement, as well as life and death, in many ways typical of Greene at his worst. The 5 stars are for the acting, which is competent, even skilled, but the writing is not good. Perhaps I should dock more stars, but I suppose the questions are mentally and philosophically engaging.
The actors do their best with the story, which really is fantastic. Greene wrote it in 1944, and then forgot about it for 40 years, until the early 1980s. And I'm frankly not surprised. Its first appearance in book form seems to have been in 1985, and the TV film appeared in 1988.
It gives an impression of being vaguely based on the crucifixion story, with Chavel, one man (of three) buying his life by giving another, named Mangeot, all his property and allowing him to take his place for execution, thereby incidentally redeeming the (non-existent) sins of the remaining Frenchmen, both in and out of prison. The Germans represent the Romans in this scenario. The imagery is picked up visually by having the three execution posts arranged to resemble crucifixion sites. You expect the three prisoners fated for death to arrive carrying their crosses. An additional philosophical implication is that since we are all going to die, does it matter when ? Or was the sacrificial lamb about to die soon anyway ? I thought he had a nasty cough.
Most of the other reviewers seem quite willing to disregard the enormous plot holes, although at least one notices that the Germans were shooting prisoners after two days, but Hopkins/Chavel makes it through three years. Go figure. After that, every plot objection is covered by some convenient special circumstance. The mother of the sacrificed boy thinks he earned and has bought the property that she and her daughter Therese have been given, and is unaware of the way he died. There seem to be no photographs of Chavel in the house, beyond the age of about ten. Nobody anywhere recognises him behind his beard.
In the end, the mother dies, and Chavel is pointlessly shot dead by a murdering impostor, thereby atoning for his shabby behaviour. I give up, but it is definitely hard on Therese, the sister, who has done nothing wrong at all. She is surrounded by her dead mother, her dead brother and her dead would-be lover. Still, she ends up with the château, the land and the cash. The Third Man is a long way better than this.
The actors do their best with the story, which really is fantastic. Greene wrote it in 1944, and then forgot about it for 40 years, until the early 1980s. And I'm frankly not surprised. Its first appearance in book form seems to have been in 1985, and the TV film appeared in 1988.
It gives an impression of being vaguely based on the crucifixion story, with Chavel, one man (of three) buying his life by giving another, named Mangeot, all his property and allowing him to take his place for execution, thereby incidentally redeeming the (non-existent) sins of the remaining Frenchmen, both in and out of prison. The Germans represent the Romans in this scenario. The imagery is picked up visually by having the three execution posts arranged to resemble crucifixion sites. You expect the three prisoners fated for death to arrive carrying their crosses. An additional philosophical implication is that since we are all going to die, does it matter when ? Or was the sacrificial lamb about to die soon anyway ? I thought he had a nasty cough.
Most of the other reviewers seem quite willing to disregard the enormous plot holes, although at least one notices that the Germans were shooting prisoners after two days, but Hopkins/Chavel makes it through three years. Go figure. After that, every plot objection is covered by some convenient special circumstance. The mother of the sacrificed boy thinks he earned and has bought the property that she and her daughter Therese have been given, and is unaware of the way he died. There seem to be no photographs of Chavel in the house, beyond the age of about ten. Nobody anywhere recognises him behind his beard.
In the end, the mother dies, and Chavel is pointlessly shot dead by a murdering impostor, thereby atoning for his shabby behaviour. I give up, but it is definitely hard on Therese, the sister, who has done nothing wrong at all. She is surrounded by her dead mother, her dead brother and her dead would-be lover. Still, she ends up with the château, the land and the cash. The Third Man is a long way better than this.