The Duchess of Langeais (2008)

Best movie of this year hands down!

The greatest movie ever made..!

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

I find it ironic that many reviewers walked out of this movie because, for me, the characters constantly walking on and off scene were what killed the movie for me. I dare someone to count the abrupt entrances/exits through darkened doorways. Ohhh, what do these darkened portals portend? NOTHING. They serve as clunky scene transitions AND the director felt these weren't clues enough because the story is also interrupted with narratives informing us that the next scene continues two weeks later, one month later, five years earlier, ad nauseum...A poor film must provide a written narrative to be understood; a good film will let the story speak for itself.

Set in the earlier part of the 19th century in Europe, this story is about a war hero General and the duchess of the title. They carry on an affair which in this film is more words as promises than words as actions. I like the fact that the film begins far from where the film is mainly set, years later. Antoinette, played by Ms. Balibar, is a pretty lady, and their affair is carried out over time. The duchess, however, is married, which of course complicates matters. The film may be a little too long to get to its conclusion, but it is well acted and somewhat absorbing. I would recommend it to anyone who likes these kind of period pieces, if not anyone who craves action mostly. It held my interest though, as I said, it would have been better if they shaved twenty minutes off of it. You may like it.

Rivette has already shown he is a master in directing movies in historical settings, as in Jeanne la pucelle or Suzanne Simonin. But in this one he actually surpassed himself. I find it incredible how he recreates the atmosphere of the early 19th century, how everything comes naturally and how details that probably took a lot of time to research are presented "en passant" rather than pointing out how different the world was back then, which is a frequent flaw in historic movies. Also the pictures are are incredibly dense and of rare beauty. If you want to get an idea what bored aristocrats in the early 19th century felt like and how they killed their time, this is the movie for you.If you are looking for action, a simple plot or references to current issues, stay away from it. Actually I think it is one of the greatest strengths of the movie that Rivette leaves the story in its time and does not try to adapt it to the taste of today's audience (also a very common flaw in historic movies - and a reason why I generally hate them).As for the story itself, I find it quite plausible and the actors get it across very credibly. However, if you are a sane person with no neurotic traits (I admit I have some) you might find it difficult to understand why the main characters torture each other that way. On the other hand, much of this is also rooted in the time in which the book was written.And yes, it is artificial, but it is so intently and I don't see anything wrong with that...

Jacques Rivette is strongly associated with the infamous New Wavelet which tried its level best via meaningless tracking shots, hand-held cameras, jump cuts and an almost pathological hatred for anything shot in a Studio by professional technicians and/or adapted from a Literary source to bring the French Cinema to its knees.In the fullness of time most of the mavericks - with Godard a notable exception - put their toys back in the pram and turned to kissing rather than biting the hand that fed them, witness Truffaut's Le Dernier Metro, for example. It's difficult to find something less New Wavelet than Honore Balzac yet here he is, aristocrats, society balls and all and finding his name juxtaposed with that of Rivette.Rivette, of course, is not known for dashing off a story in 90 minutes when he can take four hours and here he splits the difference bringing it in at two hours fifteen although it FEELS like watching the Entire Human Comedy without the laughs. Ironically Rivette resorts to punctuating his movie with title cards that read 'one hour later' or, even better 'a short time later' when you could have sworn it was more like three decades since the opening credits. There is absolutely no chemistry at all between Jeanne Balibar (who was so good in Rivette's Va Savoir) and Guillaume Depardieu who appears seriously fossilized throughout. The Academics/pseuds are gonna LOVE this one.