Colonel Chabert has been severely wounded in the French-Russian Napoleonic war to the point that the medical examiner has signed his death certificate. When he regains his health and memory...
See full summary »
Colonel Chabert has been severely wounded in the French-Russian Napoleonic war to the point that the medical examiner has signed his death certificate. When he regains his health and memory, he goes back to Paris, where his "widow", Anne has married the Count Ferraud and is financing his rise to power using Chabert's money. Chabert hires a lawyer to help him get back his money and his honor.Written by
Dragomir R. Radev <email@example.com>
Most of other reactions by subscribers to this service were very apt, although that some found it slow or ambiguous puzzled me. Rather than ambiguous, it was complex and multi-layered in its meanings. One can see it as anti-war, because of the opening and closing scenes, and the folly of pretended grandeur, as how wonderful the cavalry men looked as they prepared for the great charge at Eylau, contrasted with its so horrible and disturbing conclusion, when we see the bloody uniforms, the boyish dead, etc--but chiefly, I see the film as about a moral man in an immoral society. At the end Chabert chooses retreat from the corrupt post-Napoleonic French world and opts for the simple pleasures provided by Derville (who himself is saved by his recognition of Chabert's basic decency and the morality of his choice of renunciation)--white bread, cheese, some wine and tobacco--over the riches he leaves to his wife, and her and society's dishonor. In her case, we can see the film as also feminist, in the position of women at that time, in which the only weapons Mme Chabert has are her charm, beauty, wiles and, ultimately, money.
7 of 7 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this