Film Review
If you thought Norman Taurog's
Boys
Town (1938) was screen slushiness at is most abject, René
Guissart's
Ménilmontant will make you wish cinema had never
been invented.
Indeed, it's hard to sit through the entire film without
a large sick bucket and a sharp implement to stab repeatedly into your head
as you do so, just to take away one pain and replace it with another that
is slightly more bearable. The film was made at a time - the first
few months of the Popular Front government - when France was in a state of
collective euphoria bordering on insanity. It was thought that a hastily
cobbled together leftwing coalition could solve all of France's problems
- economic, social and political - in a spirit of solidarity and general
good will. The Popular Front did achieve many great things when
it was in power but the scale of the challenge meant that it would be short-lived,
and by the autumn of 1938 the party was over. Like Duvivier's
(superior and more realistic)
La
Belle équipe, Guissart's film captures this moment of insane
optimism well, and its heart is definitely in the right place, but as a piece
of cinema it is frankly dreadful.
René Guissart owes his place in film history not to the dozen or so
mostly lacklustre films that he directed, but to the many more that he worked
on as a cinematographer. His most notable work was in American during
the silent era, including several important early films by Maurice Tourneur
-
Victory (1919) and
While
Paris Sleeps (1923) - and some big productions such as the original
Ben-Hur
(1925). Guissart began directing films on his return to France at the
start of the sound era, his best work, arguably, being his mischievous satire
L'École des contribuables
(1934).
Ménilmontant was one of his later films, and
given how half-heartedly he directs this film, it looks as if he can't wait
to get out and do something more constructive with his life.
Adapted from Roger Dévigne's 1924 novel of the same title by Yves
Mirande (who also directed a few interesting films),
Ménilmontant
is a well-meaning attempt at social realism that somehow ended up as the
treacliest of third rate melodramas. The action is situated in the
popular district of Paris after which the film is named. Here, three amiable old men live together
in a modest abode, earning an honest crust making and selling toys for small
children. They live with a fourth, younger man, Roland, who aspires
to be an artist and is in love with Julie. One day, two
of the old men - Jos and Chinelle - find a lost diamond ring in the park.
Realising that the ring must be worth hundreds of francs, Chinelle insists
that they return to the park and wait until they see someone looking for
it, so that they may return it to its rightful owner. This is the point
at which the film's credibility takes a sharp nose dive.
Right on cue, a well-dressed man appears looking for the ring and when they present the
ring to him Jos and Chinelle are invited to the superb town residence of
the wealthy Madame Collinet to receive her gratitude. Impressed by
the men's honesty, Madame Collinet offers them a reward, which they duly
refuse. Instead, they accept her offer to do something for the poor
children of Ménilmontant. Chinelle's dream is to see an area
of wasteland converted into a public garden for children, and with his benefactor's
money the dream can now become reality. But, thanks to the city's administrators,
there are delays and setbacks, and it looks as if old Chinelle will not live
to see the fulfilment of his dream. If you have vomit, prepare to shed it now.
This really is a muddle of a film, and it's hard to dismiss it out of hand,
despite the dire plot. What is most striking is the mismatch between
the authentic-looking location exteriors and studio-filmed interiors, which gives
the impression that it is actually two films that have been badly cut together.
The sequences filmed out of doors in Paris (of which there are surprisingly
many for a film of this era) give
Ménilmontant an astonishing
realism and modernity, anticipating not only the neo-realism movement (which
began in France in the mid-1930s before flourishing in Italy in the 1940s)
but also the French New Wave of the late 1950s, early '60s. Among the
children playing in the streets we instantly recognise little Marcel Mouloudji,
whose budding screen career would soon be eclipsed by his phenomenal career
as a popular singer.
It is when the cast and cameras move into the studio that the film loses
its credibility, helped by some dodgy set design (which shows a distinct
lack of money) and appalling script, which reduces every character to the
worst kind of caricature. The film has an impressive cast consisting
of notable character actors of the period, all of whom would have been utterly
convincing had the script been of better quality. But hampered with
the most cringe-worthy, mawkish dialogue, not even the combined efforts of
Gabriel Signoret, Pierre Larquey, Josette Day and Valentine Tessier can save
the film. It is only Larquey's presence that prevents the film from
drowning beneath a tsunami of cloying lachrymose sentiment. As ever,
this most likeable of screen actors anchors the film in something approaching
reality and brings a welcome note of scepticism that it badly needs to offset
the deluge of sickeningly false bonhomie. Larquey's final line 'Let's
hope' brings a cautionary note to the film's unconvincing happy ending. Along
with the doubtful look on the actor's face, it leaves us feeling that perhaps
France's newly discovered Utopia may turn out to be mere delusion.
© James Travers 2016
The above content is owned by filmsdefrance.com and must not be copied.