Summary
In the late summer of 1832, Europe is in the grip of a terrible cholera epidemic.
With the demise of Napoleon and the disintegration of the French Empire, Austria is poised
to overtake Italy. Against this turbulent backdrop, a brave young Italian soldier,
Angelo Pardi, undertakes a mission to help save his country. He flees to southern
France on horseback to join his fellows, intending to gather together a small army to
fight against the Austrians when they invade his country. The cholera outbreak
has decimated the region and, worse, Angelo and his allies are pursued by merciless Austrian
agents. When all appears lost, Angelo takes shelter in a house in the town of Manosque,
where he meets Pauline de Théus, a young noble lady who lives alone. Moved
by Pauline’s generosity towards him, Angelo takes her under his wing and helps her to
track down her missing husband.
Review
After his monumental and hugely successful Cyrano
de Bergerec, director Jean-Paul Rappeneau attempted an even more lavish super-production
with his next film, Le Hussard sur le toit. The film is based on a
novel of the same title by Jean Giono, many of whose works had already been adapted for
French cinema (notably by director Marcel Pagnol). Rappeneau admitted that the novel
Le Hussard sur le toit was virtually impossible to adapt for cinema, although he
was so impressed by it that he agreed to take on the challenge. At a cost
of 176 million French francs, this was to be the most expensive film made in France at
that time. The film was a worldwide success and was nominated for ten Césars
(although it won just two, for Best Sound and Best Cinematography).
The film stars Olivier Martinez, playing a conventional swash-buckling chivalrous hero
(with a pleasing touch of unconventional self-conscious irony), and Juliette Binoche as
a gutsy aristocrat who allies herself with him to find her husband. The chemistry
between the two leads is just about right, and the obvious stereotypical pitfalls are
skilfully avoided. Although the characters are clearly attracted towards one another,
their mutual respect, code of honour and sense of loyalty prevent their relationship from
being anything other than strictly platonic. The way the two characters evolve and
interact is one of film’s stronger points, having a subtlety and depth which goes way
beyond what is usually shown in modern cinema.
On the downside, the film takes an awfully long time to get established and the absence
of a strong narrative makes the film appear incohesive and rambling – at least for the
first hour. It is only when the character Angelo begins to talk that we get a sense
of his character and purpose, but this only happens well into the film, and for the first
third of the film the spectator is somewhat disenfranchised.
Where the film is strongest is in its beautiful depiction of its Provence setting.
This film is almost worth watching just for Thierry Arbogast’s stunning cinematography,
which really makes you want to go and visit the region. The aching beauty of the
location appears painfully incongruous alongside all the death and devastation wrought
by the cholera outbreak. Meanwhile, the costumes and sets provide an authentic reproduction
of the period, with crowd and fight scenes masterfully choreographed.
The film’s awkward start and abrupt ending prevent it from having the impact of Jean-Paul
Rappeneau’s earlier historical epic, Cyrano de Bergerac. At well over two
hours in length and short on dialogue, the film does feel overly long and unfocused for
much of its duration, with recurrent bouts of sporadic violence used as a poor substitute
for dramatic intensity. Despite such apparent imperfections, Le Hussard sur le
toit retains a certain indefinable charm which manages to hold the spectator’s attention.
Perhaps it is Binoche’s sensitive portrayal of a headstrong gentlewoman, or the idea of
a personal journey of discovery in and land blighted by disease and death. Or maybe
it is the sensual location filming, which makes this possibly the most beautifully filmed
“road movie” in cinema history. Whatever, this is certainly a film which is
worth seeing, even if it so obviously fails to do justice to the novel on which it is
based.
© James Travers 2003
|
