The Return of Martin Guerre
(1982)
|
|
| 0Share... |
The Return of Martin Guerre
(1982)
|
|
| 0Share... |
| Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
| Gérard Depardieu | ... | ||
| Nathalie Baye | ... |
Bertrande de Rols
|
|
|
|
Maurice Barrier | ... |
Uncle Pierre Guerre
|
|
|
Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu | ... |
Martin Guerre
|
|
|
Isabelle Sadoyan | ... |
Catherine Boëre
|
|
|
Rose Thiéry | ... |
Raimonde de Rols
|
|
|
Chantal Deruaz | ... |
Jeanne
|
|
|
Maurice Jacquemont | ... |
Judge Rieux
|
|
|
Roger Planchon | ... |
Jean de Coras
|
|
|
Francis Arnaud |
|
|
|
|
Philippe Babin | ... |
Jacques
|
|
|
Axel Bogousslavsky |
|
|
|
|
Valérie Chassigneux | ... |
Guillemette
|
|
|
Neige Dolsky |
|
|
|
|
Adrien Duquesne | ... |
Sanxi Guerre
|
During the medieval times, Martin Guerre returns to his hometown in the middle of France, after being away in the war since he was a child. Nobody recognise him, and the people who knew him suspect he is not Martin, but he knows all about his family and friends, even the most unusual things. Is this man really Martin Guerre? Written by Michel Rudoy <mdrc@hp9000a1.uam.mx>
This isn't a comment on the actual quality of the movie itself, but rather a response to the number of postings which have suggested this movie is not an original concept.
I have some shocking news for you, but there really was a Martin Guerre. His court case in the mid-16th century is well documented in primary sources and this movie attempts to retell this story.
In 1983, historian Natalie Zemon Davis, who incidentally was originally involved with the film as an historical consultant, wrote a well received micro-history on the court case and it's outcome. (The Return of Martin Guerre - published by Harvard University Press, 1983)
This case was thought of as unusual even during the 16th century. So much so, that it became part of French folklore. Earlier Hollywood movies likely tapped into this folklore, when they penned similar stories.
So this film, rather than simply being another in a long line of similar movies, is the first to tackle the "original story". That being said, the movie is not perfect and strays from the facts a great deal. Natalie Zemon Davis, herself, states in her introduction to her book that she was troubled by the film's creative license with history.
Nevertheless, I recommend anyone to see this film yourself and make up your own mind. Better yet, read the book!