Directed by | |||
| Claude Chabrol | |||
Writing credits | ||
| Gustave Flaubert | (based on the novel by) | |
| Claude Chabrol | (adaptation and dialogue) | |
Produced by | |||
| Marin Karmitz | .... | producer | |
Original Music by | |||
| Jean-Michel Bernard | |||
| Matthieu Chabrol | |||
| M.J. Coignard-Helison | (as Maurice Coignard) | ||
Cinematography by | |||
| Jean Rabier | |||
Film Editing by | |||
| Monique Fardoulis | |||
Production Design by | |||
| Michèle Abbé-Vannier | |||
Set Decoration by | |||
| Jacques Mollon | |||
Costume Design by | |||
| Corinne Jorry | |||
Production Management | |||
| Yvon Crenn | .... | production manager | |
Second Unit Director or Assistant Director | |||
| Cécile Maistre | .... | assistant director | |
| Alain Wermus | .... | assistant director | |
Art Department | |||
| Jean-René Coulon | .... | property master | |
| Serge Le Puil | .... | property buyer (as Serge Le Puyl) | |
Sound Department | |||
| Brigitte Grynblat | .... | sound editor | |
| André Naudin | .... | foley artist | |
| Gadou Naudin | .... | foley artist | |
| Philippe Richard | .... | boom operator | |
Music Department | |||
| Jean-Michel Bernard | .... | music arranger | |
| Michel Ganot | .... | conductor | |
Other crew | |||
| Aurore Chabrol | .... | script supervisor | |
| Eva Simonet | .... | press attache | |
| Recent Posts (updated daily) | User |
|---|---|
| Rodolphe or Leon had really loved Bovary? | malta54 |
| It is pointless to make this novel into a film | phil_manic |
| Arsenic Poisoning? | ellen_sar |
|
|
|
|
|
| Madame Bovary | Kings & Queen | The Children of the Century | Gone with the Wind | The White Ribbon |
|
IMDb User Rating: |
IMDb User Rating: |
IMDb User Rating: |
IMDb User Rating: |
IMDb User Rating: |
| Full cast and crew | Company credits | External reviews |
| News articles | IMDb Drama section | IMDb France section |
This movie was really deceptive to me. First, I wanted to watch it as I know that Isabelle Huppert and Claude Chabrol have amazing talents. After watching it, I thought that they both failed. I explain myself : Huppert is too pragmatic and cold to play this role. It seems like she plays every single scene as if she knew what kind of effect she will have on the people around. It's quite borrying. Emma Bovary is not Nana (from Zola's novel), she is someone who is not so interested in success, she is far more interested by passions. She is a woman living in dreams and thinking than life can be passionate as novels. I read the novel just a week before and I think that Flaubert describes well the fact that Emma Bovary is only interested in herself, in her feelings and in a "romanesque" conception of love. Huppert is far too pragmatic and not really romantic. Some scenes look "grotesque" as the one when after dancing with the Baron, she almost faints. It looks like Huppert uses a trick, which makes the scene look false. Moreover, she was probably too old to play the part of Emma Bovary (in the novel, Emma Bovary is twenty or thirty, surely not forty years old). Huppert got the part when she was almost forty and she looks too self-assured to play it well. For example, when she says to Rodolphe that she could have given her life for him, she bugles like mad woman though Emma is a passionate and really weak person. By never showing her weakness, Huppert don't find the good way to play this character.An actress like Anne Brochet or, Irène Jacob would have suited for the part perfectly (these two actresses look young enough). Isabelle Adjani would have probably been too passionate and not enough dreamy to play that part. Jeanne Balibar would have been great too. The other problem is in the way the movie is directed. The beginning of the story is all summed-up by Chabrol who doesn't show the fact that Emma Bovary and her husband Charles are far far different. The voice-over is not a great idea to explain that situation... and the fact that these scenes are so short make probably the actors play their part in a kind of caricature of themselves (which is the main problem of Huppert's interpretation). I think that Huppert and Chabrol were probably too confident to make that movie and that's probably why it can be so deceptive. The cinematography is not so intense and it looks like a movie made for TV. It could have been a quite good adaptation for a movie made for TV and released on a week evening but it's really not enough for a Cinema movie, made by two masters of Cinema.