Madame de... (1953)

Director:

Max Ophüls

Writers:

Louise de Vilmorin (novel)
Marcel Achard (screenplay) ...

Release Date:

19 July 1954 (USA)

Genre:

Drama | Romance

Tagline:

It was her vanity that destroyed her.

Plot:

In the Paris of the late 19th century, Louise, wife of a general, sells the earrings her husband gave...

Plot Keywords:

Earring | Countess | Debt | Lover | Diplomat

Awards:

Nominated for Oscar.

Cast

Charles Boyer	...	Général André de...
Danielle Darrieux	...	Comtesse Louise de...
Vittorio De Sica	...	Baron Fabrizio Donati
Jean Debucourt	...	Monsieur Rémy
Jean Galland	...	Monsieur de Bernac
Mireille Perrey	...	La Nourrice
Paul Azaïs	...	Le premier cocher
Josselin
Hubert Noël	...	Henri de Maleville
Lia Di Leo	...	Lola

Also Known As:

Gioielli di Madame de ... (Italy)
The Earrings of Madame de... (USA)

Runtime:

105 min

Country:

France | Italy

Language:

French

Color:

Black and White

Sound Mix:

Mono (Western Electric Sound System)

Certification:

Australia:G | Finland:K-12 | USA:Approved

Filming Locations:

Forêt de Rambouillet, Yvelines, France

Company:

Franco London Films

Trivia:

Was originally released with a longer ending where you see the earrings being passed from a young Nun to a young woman marrying a General. This was meant to create a circular structure for the film with the young woman representing the next Madam DE. However 'Max Ophuls' felt it weakened the film when it was finished and personally cut it from the final prints.

Goofs:

Continuity: When the general gives the earrings to Lola on the train, she is crying and has her little bag on her lap. In the next cut, the bag is on the table.

Movie Connections:

Featured in Working with Max Ophuls: Alain Jessua on the Making of 'Madame de...' (2006) (V)

Sublime, Graceful, Charming, Ruthless

It strains the imagination and saddens the heart to wonder at the existence of those people, long past, who would strive for such a sublime accomplishment.

"It's when we've the most to say that we're silent"

The dramatic situations develop so that we feel every word the characters leave unsaid. The situation speaks, and then the characters comment cleverly, explain themselves to their best advantage in that momentary sparkle that is "life"

The relationship of the director to his characters: they are allowed to be witty, to be beautiful, profound, and deeply human, yet in this humanity is their futility, a charming futility. As in the classics, The passions rule all humans. The characters are as puppets, not to the director, but to the passions.

The camera moves, yes, and you may have heard of Ophuls' flowing camera. It is not empty style, but dynamism, concision, and, more importantly, the flow of life that is his moving camera. It is the flowing movement of Ovid's Metamorphoses, the inexorable flow of life. The camera doesn't so much follow the actors, but that the flow of life is happening, and the characters are swimming in that stream of happening.

Why does he persistenly show the characters through a pain of glass? These are the boundaries of social propriety, the confines of their situation. Ophuls knew it best: life is a movie

Vladimir Nabokov wrote a short story entitled "La Veneziana"... Have I strayed from the subject? But, aren't all things sublime closely related?

I have learned, through persistent trial, that '98 is a fine year for Rhone. I suggest that you open a bottle, pour a glass, and push "Play" on "The Earrings Of Madame De..."

"unhappiness is an invented thing"

grace