Charlotte Gray was something of a box-office disaster in the States, which damaged its reputation in the rest of the world. While it's not hard to see why American audiences didn't go for it, it's harder to understand the malice European critics greeted it with. It's a pretty good portrait of resistance infighting (the Communists are setup by the De Gaullists as liberation approaches), local collaboration (the schoolteacher gladly helps the Nazis root out Jewish families) and the nuts and bolts of resistance work. No great heroics or big setpieces, which is probably why it tanked: the big climax is more an emotional risk than the rescue audiences probably wanted. Performances are mostly good - Blanchett is much better than contemporary reviews would have you believe in particular. There are better films, but it's a good movie and for my money better than the alright Lucie Aubrac. I liked it enough to buy the DVD.
139 Reviews
Beautiful depiction of 1940s France
garbagegal1622 December 2002
I adore this movie. It is an extraordinary tale of one woman's courage and passion during World War Two. Cate Blanchett is remarkable and vibrant as always. She is really one of the most talented actresses. Billy Crudup is very charismatic and charming. This movie is both beautiful and tragic. It is definitely worth watching if you are looking for a film that will keep you fascinated and entralled. It's worth renting just to see the excellent chemistry between Blanchett and Crudup.
A lovely film
rps-211 January 2003
If nothing else, the superb cinematography makes Charlotte Grey a winner. The picture is filmed through a creative and sensitive eye with wonderful angles, evocative moods and sensitive textures and shades. The rain and snow outside the train window in the opening scenes is somehow just so right. But photography aside, this is a gripping and well acted work that will satisfy fans of both war movies and love stories. Michael Gambon gives an Oscar worthy performance. It's also so nice to see a film that does not have one of those dreadful syrupy and impractical happy endings. Not that it's a totally sad ending. Call it a bitter sweet ending. In any case this film is an absolute delight from the titles to the closing scene.
An excellent Cate Blanchett in a superior "old school" war/romance
carpenoctum1879 August 2003
This film has a genuine feel for the grand old tradition of Hollywood war romances. It's elegantly crafted escapism of the highest order, beautiful to look at, with the added bonus of an intelligent script and great performances all around. As I've seen time and again where poor endings mar otherwise good films, I'm always keen on how the curtain falls. This one had what I felt was a great curtain line that nicely tied in the heroine's odyssey of identity confusion and moral ambiguity in the shadow world of undercover war espionage (a "gray" that was more than just her name) to her eventual discovery of self, strength, and purpose as her true character is slowly forged in the crucible of danger and strife. As war brings out the very worst of qualities in humanity, so too can heightened expressions of bravery, compassion, and loyalty serve to greatly ennoble the human spirit in times of blood and sorrow. The movie does a nice job of highlighting that theme in several of its characters. Cate Blanchett does a wonderful job with the title role and this film is a strong 9 out of 10.
Billy Crudup - practically perfect in every way
melp19813 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I know this is a serious board devoted to the merits of the movie... but I would like to just mention the fact that rarely does an actor have the effect on me that Billy Crudup did in this film. Oh my god what a beauty! Perfect in every way... And obviously extremely talented, made more perfect by his professional choices!
So, the film. Well, as a (some time ago) graduate of military history, with a particular interest in the sociological effects of war I have a special fondness for stories like this. I sought out the book and devoured it. I loved it, absolutely, as I do pretty much everything else by Sebastian Faulks. I also enjoyed this film immensely, but as a separate entity. A film is generally incapable of reaching the depths your imagination can take you to through reading a truly great book, maybe people should spend more time reading!
I don't agree with the mauling this film was given by the critics, it kept me engaged from beginning to end and the happy ending, although a little trite, is a smile worthy event!
Sod the dodgy Scottish, Kate Blanchet was believable as far as I'm concerned. Billy was perfect, as I think I might have mentioned! Michael Gambon - always worth watching and the chap that played the teacher was sufficiently creepy from first sight. The boys were sympathetic without being irritating child actors and the atmosphere was intimidating.
It was emotional without being over the top, the relationship between the leads was wonderfully portrayed and I feel it was a valuable description of the horrific situation of collaboration.
Not the best film I've ever seen but I definitely enjoyed it. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, and I don't like to bring it up, but Billy Crudup is a god among men.
Watch it with an open mind.
So, the film. Well, as a (some time ago) graduate of military history, with a particular interest in the sociological effects of war I have a special fondness for stories like this. I sought out the book and devoured it. I loved it, absolutely, as I do pretty much everything else by Sebastian Faulks. I also enjoyed this film immensely, but as a separate entity. A film is generally incapable of reaching the depths your imagination can take you to through reading a truly great book, maybe people should spend more time reading!
I don't agree with the mauling this film was given by the critics, it kept me engaged from beginning to end and the happy ending, although a little trite, is a smile worthy event!
Sod the dodgy Scottish, Kate Blanchet was believable as far as I'm concerned. Billy was perfect, as I think I might have mentioned! Michael Gambon - always worth watching and the chap that played the teacher was sufficiently creepy from first sight. The boys were sympathetic without being irritating child actors and the atmosphere was intimidating.
It was emotional without being over the top, the relationship between the leads was wonderfully portrayed and I feel it was a valuable description of the horrific situation of collaboration.
Not the best film I've ever seen but I definitely enjoyed it. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, and I don't like to bring it up, but Billy Crudup is a god among men.
Watch it with an open mind.
Satisfying
BetteMid26 March 2002
This film held my attention the entire time. The cinematography was absolutely stunning. This is a beautiful film. I was taken in by the beauty that Cate Blanchett and Billy Crudup possess. It wasn't the most exciting cinema ever, but none-the-less it still had it's wonderfully planned moments. Worth a watch!
Cate Blanchett is amazing!
reynsi19 May 2002
Charlotte Grey is the title character of this movie, set in WW2 Britain and France. Played by the extremely gifted Cate Blanchett, Charlotte is a young Scottish woman who, after having fallen in love with an army pilot, Peter Gregory (Rubert Penry-Jones), decides to participate in the English efforts to help the French resistance. A fluent French-speaker, Charlotte takes on the identity of Dominique, a married Parisienne, who's moved to the Vichy-governed part of France.
As Dominique, Charlotte gets involved with Julian Lavade, his father and two young Jewish boys, whose parents have just been taken away by the Vichy police. She soon realizes how serious the situation is, and that no one is to be trusted. And her courage and determination sees her through.
Cate Blanchett shows yet again what an amazing actress she is, the new Meryl Streep, but with a warmer aura. Watching her on the screen never gets boring, and even though the movie is somewhat slow moving at times, it really left me craving for more. 4 out of 5!
As Dominique, Charlotte gets involved with Julian Lavade, his father and two young Jewish boys, whose parents have just been taken away by the Vichy police. She soon realizes how serious the situation is, and that no one is to be trusted. And her courage and determination sees her through.
Cate Blanchett shows yet again what an amazing actress she is, the new Meryl Streep, but with a warmer aura. Watching her on the screen never gets boring, and even though the movie is somewhat slow moving at times, it really left me craving for more. 4 out of 5!
Based on the true story of "the White Mouse"
swanningaround21 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The story of Charlotte Gray is based upon the real life exploits of New Zealand heroine Nancy Wake, the most decorated Allied woman of WW2. Compared with Nancy's exploits, it is said that "Charlotte Gray" is an Enid Blyton story.
The Nazis called Nancy "the White Mouse" and she was number 1 on the Gestapo's wanted list in France. Nancy was also later became the leader of 7000 French Resistance fighters who took on 22,000 German troops. She led a small group who stormed the Gestapo headquarters and she personally killed the German sentries with karate chops. She also rode a bicycle 700 km to deliver an urgent dispatch.
The acting of Cate Blachett in this movie is excellent as usual. The period setting is also very good. It is a pity that American audiences did not like this film. It is time for some of them to grow up and recognize that the whole world doesn't revolve around American people.
The Nazis called Nancy "the White Mouse" and she was number 1 on the Gestapo's wanted list in France. Nancy was also later became the leader of 7000 French Resistance fighters who took on 22,000 German troops. She led a small group who stormed the Gestapo headquarters and she personally killed the German sentries with karate chops. She also rode a bicycle 700 km to deliver an urgent dispatch.
The acting of Cate Blachett in this movie is excellent as usual. The period setting is also very good. It is a pity that American audiences did not like this film. It is time for some of them to grow up and recognize that the whole world doesn't revolve around American people.
Unconvincing film following an excellent documentary
imdb-293010 October 2004
This film is a love story, loosely based on the real-life heroism of WWII. Those who enjoy such films would not have been disappointed by Charlotte Gray.
Unfortunately, Channel 4 decided to precede the film with the transmission of a documentary about the real-life heroines, whose personal sacrifices, pragmatic courage and strength of character shone out of my TV in a way that had me close to tears. The film, which followed, showed none of the iron self-discipline, the de-sensitising effect of war nor the constant fear of discovery these people lived with, but concerned itself with emotional story lines that would have been at home in any modern love story, loosely based on any social environment you care to choose. Far from blending into the background, along with the oppressed French population, Cate Blanchett was often portrayed parading in high heels and flattering autumnal colours, looking like a million francs
Too frequently for this viewer, it dipped into the downright absurd, e.g. having a) the male lead exposing himself to danger in an astonishing, barking tirade at German troops, b) the collaborationist French schoolteacher volunteering to the goodies that he was a snitch for the Germans and c) Charlotte herself somehow persuading a gendarme not to reveal her whereabouts to his search party colleagues, even when safely out of range of her pistol.
What a wonderful piece of history it was. And what a wonderful film could have been made of it (with the same cast too; the individual performances were all perfectly OK, especially in the minor roles).
Unfortunately, Channel 4 decided to precede the film with the transmission of a documentary about the real-life heroines, whose personal sacrifices, pragmatic courage and strength of character shone out of my TV in a way that had me close to tears. The film, which followed, showed none of the iron self-discipline, the de-sensitising effect of war nor the constant fear of discovery these people lived with, but concerned itself with emotional story lines that would have been at home in any modern love story, loosely based on any social environment you care to choose. Far from blending into the background, along with the oppressed French population, Cate Blanchett was often portrayed parading in high heels and flattering autumnal colours, looking like a million francs
Too frequently for this viewer, it dipped into the downright absurd, e.g. having a) the male lead exposing himself to danger in an astonishing, barking tirade at German troops, b) the collaborationist French schoolteacher volunteering to the goodies that he was a snitch for the Germans and c) Charlotte herself somehow persuading a gendarme not to reveal her whereabouts to his search party colleagues, even when safely out of range of her pistol.
What a wonderful piece of history it was. And what a wonderful film could have been made of it (with the same cast too; the individual performances were all perfectly OK, especially in the minor roles).
Grey Fading to White
tedg7 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.
There is no actress like Cate. She completely dissolves herself in the activity around her. She is the spice, not the meat, and therefore becomes the driving force in the meal.
Anderson is a rare visionary as well. She is interested in subtle misdirection. She tells a story just like others, but the story is not the matter of the experience. The meat of the story is secondary to the real but hidden focus. To even name it reduces it from that complex, fragile emotional fabric that Anderson targets. Together, these two women try something ambitious. With `Oscar and Lucinda' it succeeded wonderfully because the story was so unfamiliar. It didn't allow us to fall back on cinematic patterns. We therefore were allowed to focus on the femaleness of obsession versus compulsion. Lovely. Worth watching.
This project is no less artful or ambitious. But it fails because the story type is too familiar. People can watch it and think it is a movie about a spy in wartime France. That's too bad, because it probably will hurt the careers of these two women. Cate only a bit I assume.
This is film about what it means to be a woman: to always be in unfamiliar territory; to always have to reconcile who you `really' are with who you willingly pretend to be; to have to deal with tragedy rather than prevent it; to be of service to others while maintaining a center of self. But all that is placed behind the story, where it is supposed to be; but until we have a more cinematically literate audience, films like this will be shunted aside. Just like the women they portray.
There is no actress like Cate. She completely dissolves herself in the activity around her. She is the spice, not the meat, and therefore becomes the driving force in the meal.
Anderson is a rare visionary as well. She is interested in subtle misdirection. She tells a story just like others, but the story is not the matter of the experience. The meat of the story is secondary to the real but hidden focus. To even name it reduces it from that complex, fragile emotional fabric that Anderson targets. Together, these two women try something ambitious. With `Oscar and Lucinda' it succeeded wonderfully because the story was so unfamiliar. It didn't allow us to fall back on cinematic patterns. We therefore were allowed to focus on the femaleness of obsession versus compulsion. Lovely. Worth watching.
This project is no less artful or ambitious. But it fails because the story type is too familiar. People can watch it and think it is a movie about a spy in wartime France. That's too bad, because it probably will hurt the careers of these two women. Cate only a bit I assume.
This is film about what it means to be a woman: to always be in unfamiliar territory; to always have to reconcile who you `really' are with who you willingly pretend to be; to have to deal with tragedy rather than prevent it; to be of service to others while maintaining a center of self. But all that is placed behind the story, where it is supposed to be; but until we have a more cinematically literate audience, films like this will be shunted aside. Just like the women they portray.
Blanchette is once more moving!
Aribelusa9 September 2007
Serendipity! This relatively unknown movie -why?- is another compelling showcase of Blanchett's talent. She kept the storyline moving along and engages the audience with her wonderful camera presence. She is believable as our heroine because of her chemistry with both male interests, make resolve with her vulnerabilities, yet still able to be strong as a secret agent should and providing a motherly side, sheltering little ones from harsh truths in dangerous times.
France's beautiful & panoramic countryside was the backdrop during WW2. The clothing, locale and props of the period seem authentic. The actors delivered their parts very well, contributing credibility to the story's basis. Charlotte Gray conveys what people undergo and learn about the world and themselves in dreadfully gripping circumstances.
Realistic, moving, tear-dropping!
France's beautiful & panoramic countryside was the backdrop during WW2. The clothing, locale and props of the period seem authentic. The actors delivered their parts very well, contributing credibility to the story's basis. Charlotte Gray conveys what people undergo and learn about the world and themselves in dreadfully gripping circumstances.
Realistic, moving, tear-dropping!
I love it!!
Irina_4921 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Beautiful story about war, betrayal, and love. I bought this DVD without ever hearing about it or seeing it before: it was an impulse purchase. I barely read the summary on the back and new I had to buy it.
I watched it once, and already new it is on the top of my list. Cate Blanchette, again did an excellent job portraying a woman who joined the fight against the Nazis. She went through love, loss, hope, despair, love again and more loss. Blanchette is a fine actress and I am a big fan of her work. I look forward to seeing more masterpieces of hers and hope to be blown away by her performance again. An incredible picture. Beautiful. Colorful. A hook from the beginning.
I watched it once, and already new it is on the top of my list. Cate Blanchette, again did an excellent job portraying a woman who joined the fight against the Nazis. She went through love, loss, hope, despair, love again and more loss. Blanchette is a fine actress and I am a big fan of her work. I look forward to seeing more masterpieces of hers and hope to be blown away by her performance again. An incredible picture. Beautiful. Colorful. A hook from the beginning.
Charlotte Gray: huggable red lips of love and searing blue eyes of brilliance
musicbones30 December 2001
Take the drama and intelligent dialogue from the era in which this movie is set (1940s) and play it out with the sophisticated filming techniques and cinematography of today and you might begin to get an idea of how great this movie is.
Maddeningly dull
tvspace8 January 2002
Charlotte Gray is long, ponderous, shapeless, unpoetic, unconvincing and dull.
Cate Blanchett looks like a million bucks; I don't think there's any doubt that she is, like Helen of Troy in her day, the most beautiful woman on the planet, but even that isn't enough to liven up this misdirected and clumsy adventure. You feel like you're watching a retro fashion show, as Cate models a wool skirt, and then a tight-fitting green sweater, and there she is in a crimson outfit topped with a beret. The wardrobe is fantastic, but one can't be blamed for wondering how a Scottish agent dropped into Vichy France with nothing but a parachute and a pocketful of cyanide managed to assemble such a dashing wardrobe in a farming village.
The script essentially relies on sexual tension to function properly, and it doesn't, because the gentlemen cast opposite Kate are such bland pretty boys -- soap opera sidemen -- that you only feel uncomfortable for them when things start heating up in the bedroom. It may be that there actually aren't any leading men fit to play opposite Ms. Blanchett in this year 2002 as a consequence of 10 years of increasingly vapid and effeminite chiseled-jaw frat boys taking over the screen, but regardless of the systemic explanations, there's not much to do but blush or laugh when you note that Billy Crudup's voice is registering about an octave higher than Ms. Blanchett's. Tilt.
The direction is lamentable. The movie plays like a shoddily-constructed Merchant-Ivory film; you're left with the bad parts of the genre (artificiality, preciousness), without any of the good (smart, adult, sexy). While the movie isn't wretched in the fashion of pap like "The Majestic", it is indeed painful to sit through as one scene after another drags the stale plot through the French countryside. It's like the director, Gillian Armstrong, is trying to flog sentiment out of the audience in a battle of endurance. By the time the 3rd act rolls around and Armstrong starts throwing in title cards like "6 months later" and "1945: Peace" you've long since had enough and are only wanting to see one title card: The End.
Cate Blanchett looks like a million bucks; I don't think there's any doubt that she is, like Helen of Troy in her day, the most beautiful woman on the planet, but even that isn't enough to liven up this misdirected and clumsy adventure. You feel like you're watching a retro fashion show, as Cate models a wool skirt, and then a tight-fitting green sweater, and there she is in a crimson outfit topped with a beret. The wardrobe is fantastic, but one can't be blamed for wondering how a Scottish agent dropped into Vichy France with nothing but a parachute and a pocketful of cyanide managed to assemble such a dashing wardrobe in a farming village.
The script essentially relies on sexual tension to function properly, and it doesn't, because the gentlemen cast opposite Kate are such bland pretty boys -- soap opera sidemen -- that you only feel uncomfortable for them when things start heating up in the bedroom. It may be that there actually aren't any leading men fit to play opposite Ms. Blanchett in this year 2002 as a consequence of 10 years of increasingly vapid and effeminite chiseled-jaw frat boys taking over the screen, but regardless of the systemic explanations, there's not much to do but blush or laugh when you note that Billy Crudup's voice is registering about an octave higher than Ms. Blanchett's. Tilt.
The direction is lamentable. The movie plays like a shoddily-constructed Merchant-Ivory film; you're left with the bad parts of the genre (artificiality, preciousness), without any of the good (smart, adult, sexy). While the movie isn't wretched in the fashion of pap like "The Majestic", it is indeed painful to sit through as one scene after another drags the stale plot through the French countryside. It's like the director, Gillian Armstrong, is trying to flog sentiment out of the audience in a battle of endurance. By the time the 3rd act rolls around and Armstrong starts throwing in title cards like "6 months later" and "1945: Peace" you've long since had enough and are only wanting to see one title card: The End.
Brave, but lousy script
fadedGlory27 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Anybody who dares to make a French Resistance movie after the runaway success of the TV spoof 'Allo Allo' gets 5 points for bravery, no less.
Unfortunately, bravery is not enough to make a good movie. Even bravery coupled with excellent actors, nice cinematography and an eye for detail is not enough. Any film can be ruined by a poor script and Charlote Gray is no exception.
The whole tale is just so unlikely. The way Charlotte gets 'picked up' by the British Secret Service - the guy making the first approach is such an annoying bore, why on Earth would she accept his invitation for a party instead of throwing his business card in the first available bin? Then, she falls in love with this pilot (how's that for cliché's?) and of course he is shot down on his next mission ('don't worry' he said - naturally). So, she joins the Secret Service (as simple as that) and trains to become an agent in the hope to go to France and find him. Now that is really strange - this training would take months, so why would she expect him to still be at the place he was shot down if and when she ever manages to get there? Wouldn't he likely be back in England, or in a POW camp in Germany? Anyway, training over, she gets sent to France on her first mission. But this is very strange - we don't really get any insight in what this mission actually is. She delivers a couple of radio valves to a French contact, but why these haven't simply been dropped as a parcel is a mystery. Later in the film she acts as intermediary between a locally based English agent and the Resistance. Why do they need to send in another British agent to act as intermediary? Why not let the local agent liaise with the Resistance directly? There seems no rhyme or reason for her being there at all.
At the handover of the valves, her contact is arrested (more mysteries - why does this contact insist to receive the valves when she is about to be arrested? A sure way to torture and death!) and Charlotte has to hide. But does she hide? No, not really - she goes to live with the father of the young Resistance leader under the pretext of working as a housekeeper. And next thing, she happily cycles to town as if there was no risk at all that the initial contact would have told the Gestapo all about her drop! So why is she hiding in the first place? A mystery.
And so it goes on and on - every twist of the plot makes it more unlikely. Why do the Resistance take Charlotte along when they attack a train? Why does the Resistance leader risk his life and his group by standing on the street shouting at the Germans? Why do the Germans kill the Resistance fighters in a trap instead of capturing them for interrogation? How do the Germans know where the young Jewish boys are being hidden? In the end, the whole point of the movie seems to be to paint a love triangle against a backdrop of the French Resistance - wow, we really needed a film like that! The script simply sucks, and the actors don't know what to do with it either. The cinematography is very nice, but then of course it is hard to go wrong when filming in the French countryside.
Five stars for bravery, that's what I promised, so I will stick to that.
If only that policeman had said 'Good Moaning', I would have given it six stars for even more bravery.
Unfortunately, bravery is not enough to make a good movie. Even bravery coupled with excellent actors, nice cinematography and an eye for detail is not enough. Any film can be ruined by a poor script and Charlote Gray is no exception.
The whole tale is just so unlikely. The way Charlotte gets 'picked up' by the British Secret Service - the guy making the first approach is such an annoying bore, why on Earth would she accept his invitation for a party instead of throwing his business card in the first available bin? Then, she falls in love with this pilot (how's that for cliché's?) and of course he is shot down on his next mission ('don't worry' he said - naturally). So, she joins the Secret Service (as simple as that) and trains to become an agent in the hope to go to France and find him. Now that is really strange - this training would take months, so why would she expect him to still be at the place he was shot down if and when she ever manages to get there? Wouldn't he likely be back in England, or in a POW camp in Germany? Anyway, training over, she gets sent to France on her first mission. But this is very strange - we don't really get any insight in what this mission actually is. She delivers a couple of radio valves to a French contact, but why these haven't simply been dropped as a parcel is a mystery. Later in the film she acts as intermediary between a locally based English agent and the Resistance. Why do they need to send in another British agent to act as intermediary? Why not let the local agent liaise with the Resistance directly? There seems no rhyme or reason for her being there at all.
At the handover of the valves, her contact is arrested (more mysteries - why does this contact insist to receive the valves when she is about to be arrested? A sure way to torture and death!) and Charlotte has to hide. But does she hide? No, not really - she goes to live with the father of the young Resistance leader under the pretext of working as a housekeeper. And next thing, she happily cycles to town as if there was no risk at all that the initial contact would have told the Gestapo all about her drop! So why is she hiding in the first place? A mystery.
And so it goes on and on - every twist of the plot makes it more unlikely. Why do the Resistance take Charlotte along when they attack a train? Why does the Resistance leader risk his life and his group by standing on the street shouting at the Germans? Why do the Germans kill the Resistance fighters in a trap instead of capturing them for interrogation? How do the Germans know where the young Jewish boys are being hidden? In the end, the whole point of the movie seems to be to paint a love triangle against a backdrop of the French Resistance - wow, we really needed a film like that! The script simply sucks, and the actors don't know what to do with it either. The cinematography is very nice, but then of course it is hard to go wrong when filming in the French countryside.
Five stars for bravery, that's what I promised, so I will stick to that.
If only that policeman had said 'Good Moaning', I would have given it six stars for even more bravery.
Catalogue of errors
malcolmgsw13 April 2006
This film recently surfaced on Channel 4.I saw it when it came out and thought it awful then and my view has not changed.What grates with me is the fact that it trivialises the role that many brave women played in SOE.Cate Blanchett is approached on a train.Well that just would not have happened.She seems to have been sent to France without a defined role.One minute she is a courier then she is involved in the blowing up of the train.She is constantly asking people for their names,and then if that is not bad enough she tries to find out about her RAF boyfriend who is hiding in a French village.Then she becomes involved in trying to avoid the roundup of Jewish children.None of this is in any way true to life.Watch "Odette" or "Carve Her Name With Pride" to find a truer representation of SOE agents in France.
Coulour It Bland
writers_reign15 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, you know going in that it's yet another film about a female agent liaising with the Resistance in Occupied France during World War Two, some viewers may even have read the (undeservedly) best-selling novel on which it was based, but you go anyway, maybe you admire Cate Blanchett and I've no quarrel with that, she's a fine actress, maybe you like 'period' movies, again you won't hear a squawk out of me, in fact those two reasons were what prompted me. It's a good movie - well, it's not a BAD movie, but perhaps in this case the opposite of bad is NOT good. An indifferent movie is nearer the truth. Within the last couple of years an English newspaper gave away a series of dvds set in WWII one of which was Carve Her Name With Pride which covers much of the same ground except that it was about a REAL Resistance worker, Violette Szabo, who failed to survive the war unlike the fictional Gray; Carve Her Name, made in black and white is light years better than the Technicolored Charlotte Gray, Blanchett's fine performance notwithstanding. As long as we're making comparisons I also disagree with the person who unaccountably rated this movie higher than Claude Berri's Lucie Aubrac but then difference of opinion is what makes horse races.
One of those movies the 2x 4x 8x 16x DVD button was created for
deejtee13 January 2003
Not even worthy of a wet-Sunday afternoon C5 slot I'm afraid.
Take one gormless girl, add two competing handsome hunks (one home, one away), mix in a land of franglais where the locals say "good morning Madame" without a single sub-title and you wonder why the heroine had to know any French to become a spy... the kind of spy who keeps saying "what's your real name" while breaking the next person's cover and rushing up to warn the next safe house as the Bosche may or may not have got there before her.
Add in some duplicitous Vichy french (hiss hiss), some evil *ard Germans who even take Jewish children and you'll be wondering whatever made you rent twaddle like this.
Reminds me of that story of a very poor Anne Frank's Diary production where the audience were motivated to shout out 'she's in the Attic' when the German first came on stage.
I'd be shouting out Goodbye FilmFour if this is the best you can waste your production £££ on - and come to think of it unfortunately it was the best they could waste their £££ on and hence goodbye FilmFour :(
A shame...
Take one gormless girl, add two competing handsome hunks (one home, one away), mix in a land of franglais where the locals say "good morning Madame" without a single sub-title and you wonder why the heroine had to know any French to become a spy... the kind of spy who keeps saying "what's your real name" while breaking the next person's cover and rushing up to warn the next safe house as the Bosche may or may not have got there before her.
Add in some duplicitous Vichy french (hiss hiss), some evil *ard Germans who even take Jewish children and you'll be wondering whatever made you rent twaddle like this.
Reminds me of that story of a very poor Anne Frank's Diary production where the audience were motivated to shout out 'she's in the Attic' when the German first came on stage.
I'd be shouting out Goodbye FilmFour if this is the best you can waste your production £££ on - and come to think of it unfortunately it was the best they could waste their £££ on and hence goodbye FilmFour :(
A shame...
Never mind the war, here's a tatty novella
m-vinteuil11 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The story of The French Resistance is rarely told. When French cinema did tackle their national shame, the results were oblique, bold, and often the most honest films made about the war. Charlotte Gray is the opposite. It is a dime-store romance novella which uses occupied France as a backdrop. A script and basis which are stultifyingly hypocritical; The heroine (Cate Blanchett) establishing early that the occupation of France is nothing to joke about, then proceeding to trivialise it all in a quest to find her boyfriend. Australian director Gillian Armstrong dispenses with authenticity, and other cumbersome aspects that would hinder her making a popcorn time waster. In other words, she didn't even bother to rent Army of Shadows or Le Corbeau the night before principal photography began.
Grey is not a particularly enjoyable chick-flick either. The faults should be bleedin' obvious, but I will outline those of grating annoyance:
The Accent Problem
The story rests on Charlotte being fluent in French. Blanchett was more than willing to learn French for the part, but Armstrong didn't think that a few months of French lessons would be entirely convincing (or had no faith in Blanchett abilities). Her solution? Have Cate speak in a Scotch accent while in England, then affect an English accent while in France. Er... more convincing? Other actors in the French scenes have accents all over the shop, but then why should a film with such a serious subject matter be realistic?
The Romance(s)
A woman who risks her life, and the lives of others for her own half-baked affair, is a complete flake. Shortly after consummating her relationship with a dashing pilot (whom poses as though for a Biggles cover) he is shot down over enemy territory. The woman embarks on a what would seem like a noble quest to aid The French Resistance, but is actually a way for her to track down her square-jawed love interest. Her bumbling during a first mission gets another woman killed, and doesn't make her at all sympathetic (if all her hypocritical sanctimony at the beginning didn't already). She almost immediately starts peppering a romance with a Frenchman, making the "I will follow you to the ends of the Earth" love between her and Biggles a sad joke. Neither romance is realistic or enjoyable, to the point where you want to see Charlotte lose both.
The Ending
She doesn't lose both, in fact despite all her offensive nonsense throughout the film, she finds and rejects Biggles in peace time, in favour of melodramatic Frenchie! A departure from the book, apparently, and every chick-flick ever made. A slap in the face and a waste of time.
Grey is not a particularly enjoyable chick-flick either. The faults should be bleedin' obvious, but I will outline those of grating annoyance:
The Accent Problem
The story rests on Charlotte being fluent in French. Blanchett was more than willing to learn French for the part, but Armstrong didn't think that a few months of French lessons would be entirely convincing (or had no faith in Blanchett abilities). Her solution? Have Cate speak in a Scotch accent while in England, then affect an English accent while in France. Er... more convincing? Other actors in the French scenes have accents all over the shop, but then why should a film with such a serious subject matter be realistic?
The Romance(s)
A woman who risks her life, and the lives of others for her own half-baked affair, is a complete flake. Shortly after consummating her relationship with a dashing pilot (whom poses as though for a Biggles cover) he is shot down over enemy territory. The woman embarks on a what would seem like a noble quest to aid The French Resistance, but is actually a way for her to track down her square-jawed love interest. Her bumbling during a first mission gets another woman killed, and doesn't make her at all sympathetic (if all her hypocritical sanctimony at the beginning didn't already). She almost immediately starts peppering a romance with a Frenchman, making the "I will follow you to the ends of the Earth" love between her and Biggles a sad joke. Neither romance is realistic or enjoyable, to the point where you want to see Charlotte lose both.
The Ending
She doesn't lose both, in fact despite all her offensive nonsense throughout the film, she finds and rejects Biggles in peace time, in favour of melodramatic Frenchie! A departure from the book, apparently, and every chick-flick ever made. A slap in the face and a waste of time.
Could have been much better
benbrae7628 August 2006
If ever there was a pointless movie, then this is it. The story is basically the wartime experience of a Scots lass Charlotte Gray, who has a much needed talent of being able to speak fluent French. ("Oh Lord, not again", do I hear somebody say? Yep! Afraid so.) It begins with Charlotte sitting in a railway carriage rolling up a cigarette with a type of paper that wasn't on the market until after the war (i.e. with tapered corners). Still in the carriage she then talks to a complete stranger who is obviously after personal information. Whatever happened to the observance of the popular slogan of the time, "Be like Dad, keep Mum"? After the railway journey she is seen alighting in a supposedly war-torn, yet oddly blimp-free and undamaged London from a post-war (indeed relatively modern) London bus. After which it starts to get sensible, but only for a while.
After falling in love with an RAF officer (and to whom for some unexplained reason she has tried to teach French beneath the sheets...please don't laugh, it's supposed to be serious), she discovers that he has been posted missing in France, so decides to join SOE (Special Operations Executive) for the express purpose of finding him. Hold on! It gets sillier!
Notwithstanding the fact that never would such an emotional girl either have passed the scrutiny, or indeed the strict training of the SOE, she is sent to France on a probationary tryout. A tryout? In wartime France, albeit only in Vichy? Oh come on!
Considering that many (if not most) agents sent, were captured and/or killed within days of their arrival this idea is ridiculous. In wartime, or at any other time, there is no place for sentimentality in the furtherance of sabotage or espionage. Certainly no tryouts. Churchill's idea was to set Europe ablaze, not to send love-sick girls on errands of stupidity (or should that be Cupidity). I'm still actually wondering what her official mission was, or did I miss something?
Then we're given a ludicrous depiction of an air drop. Supplies are dropped from no more than 60-100 feet at which height the parachutes would not have time to open, but somehow they do. (Needless to say if a person is dropped from that height they would almost certainly be killed, with or without a parachute.)
A short while later comes a scene (after said airdrop, of which the enemy had got wind and ambushed it), which shows that the Germans have left bodies of resistant fighters lying unguarded in the middle of a field. I find it extremely puzzling that the Germans didn't remove them from the scene, if for nothing else than to glean vital information from them. But then I suppose the screenwriter thought that really the Germans weren't all that clever. What? In his dreams! In the meantime Charlotte learns that her pilot boyfriend is dead.
Although being somewhat tedious, the story then begins to take on a vestige of reality, regarding the fate of two parent-less Jewish children and the resistance group leader's father who is also of Jewish ancestry. I won't say any more on the plot for fear of any more spoilers, but suffice it to say that the end is even soppier than the beginning.
I was going to mention more goofs in the film, but some have already been noticed by other reviewers and placed in the "Goofs" board. I refer you to them.
It's all reasonably well acted, and has good cinematography, but in coping with such an empty-headed script, no-one shines through. I was hoping this production would be as good as both "Odette" and "Carve Her Name with Pride". I'm sorry to say it doesn't even come close to either. That said, there was the making of a really good movie here, and it could have been another fitting tribute to the courage of all wartime agents. However, somewhere along the line it got lost amongst the emotional twaddle and the scriptwriter's fantasy. Maybe in the future someone with more nous will try a remake, and sort out the mess.
After falling in love with an RAF officer (and to whom for some unexplained reason she has tried to teach French beneath the sheets...please don't laugh, it's supposed to be serious), she discovers that he has been posted missing in France, so decides to join SOE (Special Operations Executive) for the express purpose of finding him. Hold on! It gets sillier!
Notwithstanding the fact that never would such an emotional girl either have passed the scrutiny, or indeed the strict training of the SOE, she is sent to France on a probationary tryout. A tryout? In wartime France, albeit only in Vichy? Oh come on!
Considering that many (if not most) agents sent, were captured and/or killed within days of their arrival this idea is ridiculous. In wartime, or at any other time, there is no place for sentimentality in the furtherance of sabotage or espionage. Certainly no tryouts. Churchill's idea was to set Europe ablaze, not to send love-sick girls on errands of stupidity (or should that be Cupidity). I'm still actually wondering what her official mission was, or did I miss something?
Then we're given a ludicrous depiction of an air drop. Supplies are dropped from no more than 60-100 feet at which height the parachutes would not have time to open, but somehow they do. (Needless to say if a person is dropped from that height they would almost certainly be killed, with or without a parachute.)
A short while later comes a scene (after said airdrop, of which the enemy had got wind and ambushed it), which shows that the Germans have left bodies of resistant fighters lying unguarded in the middle of a field. I find it extremely puzzling that the Germans didn't remove them from the scene, if for nothing else than to glean vital information from them. But then I suppose the screenwriter thought that really the Germans weren't all that clever. What? In his dreams! In the meantime Charlotte learns that her pilot boyfriend is dead.
Although being somewhat tedious, the story then begins to take on a vestige of reality, regarding the fate of two parent-less Jewish children and the resistance group leader's father who is also of Jewish ancestry. I won't say any more on the plot for fear of any more spoilers, but suffice it to say that the end is even soppier than the beginning.
I was going to mention more goofs in the film, but some have already been noticed by other reviewers and placed in the "Goofs" board. I refer you to them.
It's all reasonably well acted, and has good cinematography, but in coping with such an empty-headed script, no-one shines through. I was hoping this production would be as good as both "Odette" and "Carve Her Name with Pride". I'm sorry to say it doesn't even come close to either. That said, there was the making of a really good movie here, and it could have been another fitting tribute to the courage of all wartime agents. However, somewhere along the line it got lost amongst the emotional twaddle and the scriptwriter's fantasy. Maybe in the future someone with more nous will try a remake, and sort out the mess.
What a pity
rominaferraro15 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
It's a real pity that a good actress such as Cate Blanchett (and also her co-stars, whom I don't know from before, but rendered very convincing performances) were wasted by a very weak script.
(OK, from now on, this will be a very long spoiler)
I couldn't understand the motivations of the main character. What's the point of risking her life only to write a fake letter to the boys (a letter they don't miss because they never knew it was written) instead of saving her life and doing something more useful or meaningful? I don't get the romance Charlotte/Julien completely either, because there is no progression of love. It seemed to me that it was just an infatuation, result of the war and its cruelty. The movie could very well survived without that over-sweet ending. And please, somebody tell me how she managed to return to England, when she has little experience in war affairs and has abandoned every chance of help she could!
When the movie started, I really thought that I could see a new angle of WWII, but I ended very disappointed. Hope the ones who make movies will think it better before doing another WWII cheesy film.
(OK, from now on, this will be a very long spoiler)
I couldn't understand the motivations of the main character. What's the point of risking her life only to write a fake letter to the boys (a letter they don't miss because they never knew it was written) instead of saving her life and doing something more useful or meaningful? I don't get the romance Charlotte/Julien completely either, because there is no progression of love. It seemed to me that it was just an infatuation, result of the war and its cruelty. The movie could very well survived without that over-sweet ending. And please, somebody tell me how she managed to return to England, when she has little experience in war affairs and has abandoned every chance of help she could!
When the movie started, I really thought that I could see a new angle of WWII, but I ended very disappointed. Hope the ones who make movies will think it better before doing another WWII cheesy film.
Mills et Boon
KelticKarma28 September 2002
I won't mince my words. This is a poorly put together chick flick, a glammed-up, (should have been) straight-to-video potboiler.
Here's what I believe the director thought:
(1) France looks nice - lets make a picture there (2) Cate Blanchett looks nice - lets put her in France (3) Berets are back in fashion - lets put Cate Blanchett in a beret, in France (4) Hmm.. maybe too nice so far. Lets have some Germans in there, they're not nice. (5) "Crudup" is a great name - lets have him in France, with Cate Blanchett, and her beret. (6) Lets rock !!
Heres what I thought:
(1) Cate Blanchett does look stunning throughout this film, and can certainly wear a beret. (2) It is completely preposterous to have her speak in a Scottish accent prior to her going to France, and in an English accent when she gets there. When she is supposed to be speaking fluent French. (3) Cate appears to have been sent into France by the British with no particular aim in mind. She wombles about, messing everything up, and appears to be completely superfluous; there is not one thing she does for the War effort which could not have been performed just as efficiently by a half-trained monkey - in a beret, of course. (4) Crudup, the heroic Maquis, is just about the most lamebrained person you could hope to meet. He spends a lot of his time shouting at Germans, which I would presume from my knowledge of goings-on in France at that time, is not the best way to remain incognito. (5) The Plot is awful. Yet again the Hollywood-pleasing formula of "Poor Old Jews + Bad Old Germans" is trotted out. Nothing new, cliche follows cliche. Oh, but we now have Bad French too. Big Deal.
This really is a laughably bad film. But it is more than that, it is insulting to the memory of those brave men and women who went into France during the War serving with SOE.
Forget this nonsense. If you want to know what really happened in France during the WW2, rent "Carve Her Name With Pride", the story of Violet Szabo, a real SOE operative.
Here's what I believe the director thought:
(1) France looks nice - lets make a picture there (2) Cate Blanchett looks nice - lets put her in France (3) Berets are back in fashion - lets put Cate Blanchett in a beret, in France (4) Hmm.. maybe too nice so far. Lets have some Germans in there, they're not nice. (5) "Crudup" is a great name - lets have him in France, with Cate Blanchett, and her beret. (6) Lets rock !!
Heres what I thought:
(1) Cate Blanchett does look stunning throughout this film, and can certainly wear a beret. (2) It is completely preposterous to have her speak in a Scottish accent prior to her going to France, and in an English accent when she gets there. When she is supposed to be speaking fluent French. (3) Cate appears to have been sent into France by the British with no particular aim in mind. She wombles about, messing everything up, and appears to be completely superfluous; there is not one thing she does for the War effort which could not have been performed just as efficiently by a half-trained monkey - in a beret, of course. (4) Crudup, the heroic Maquis, is just about the most lamebrained person you could hope to meet. He spends a lot of his time shouting at Germans, which I would presume from my knowledge of goings-on in France at that time, is not the best way to remain incognito. (5) The Plot is awful. Yet again the Hollywood-pleasing formula of "Poor Old Jews + Bad Old Germans" is trotted out. Nothing new, cliche follows cliche. Oh, but we now have Bad French too. Big Deal.
This really is a laughably bad film. But it is more than that, it is insulting to the memory of those brave men and women who went into France during the War serving with SOE.
Forget this nonsense. If you want to know what really happened in France during the WW2, rent "Carve Her Name With Pride", the story of Violet Szabo, a real SOE operative.
Sweetly Confected Wartime Artifice
Waerdnotte24 October 2011
Pretty dreadful adaptation of Faulks' novel.
Gillian Armstrong presents a sanitised version of the book, with much of the meat of Charlotte Gray's relationships removed. Unfortunately the story hangs off the intensity of these relationships she has - with Cannerly and Lavade in particular who are never really given screen time to develop. The acting is pretty dull, and the actors are not really helped by the witheringly dull script. Gambon does his best with what little he is given in the role of Lavade, as does Ron Cook as Mirabel, but Crudup and Blanchett are just not firing on all cylinders. Maybe this is because the story has been so acutely edited, paring away all the extraneous parts of the story but in the end offering a sequence of events that create no tension either as a thriller or a romance.
My other gripe is the art direction. This looks like a made-for-TV drama, with the costumes and mis-en-scene looking fresh, clean and unused. This drama is based in the 1940s during a war, life was dirty and shabby. Armstrong and her production designer give us an unrealistic picture of wartime France and Britain.
Unfortunately this is really just an average British Television Period Drama.
Gillian Armstrong presents a sanitised version of the book, with much of the meat of Charlotte Gray's relationships removed. Unfortunately the story hangs off the intensity of these relationships she has - with Cannerly and Lavade in particular who are never really given screen time to develop. The acting is pretty dull, and the actors are not really helped by the witheringly dull script. Gambon does his best with what little he is given in the role of Lavade, as does Ron Cook as Mirabel, but Crudup and Blanchett are just not firing on all cylinders. Maybe this is because the story has been so acutely edited, paring away all the extraneous parts of the story but in the end offering a sequence of events that create no tension either as a thriller or a romance.
My other gripe is the art direction. This looks like a made-for-TV drama, with the costumes and mis-en-scene looking fresh, clean and unused. This drama is based in the 1940s during a war, life was dirty and shabby. Armstrong and her production designer give us an unrealistic picture of wartime France and Britain.
Unfortunately this is really just an average British Television Period Drama.
In which a woman's got to do what a woman's got to do.'
ianlouisiana23 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Miss Gillian Armstrong directed "High Tide",arguably one of the best movies to come out of Australia in 30 years.Whilst I would not contend that "Charlotte Gray" is in the same class,I feel it deserves to be treated with a little more respect than it has been hitherto given by a great number of critics. Like "High Tide" it has a woman as the main character.I would go further and say that Miss Blanchett's character dominates the movie. Everybody else in it reacts to her right from the start.This is a film about how people react to a woman - any woman in effect - who is obliged by circumstances to conceal her true self and act out a role for which she is emotionally and temperamentally unsuited. It is clear from the beginning of the movie that Charlotte Gray is not natural secret agent material.Her chances of surviving more than a week or two in occupied France are very poor.She is not a stupid woman,she is well aware of the risks involved,but she wants to find her lover who has been shot down by the Luftwaffe. That's pretty standard stuff,British studios were churning out variations on that theme 50 years ago with game gels like Miss Anna Neagle and Miss Virginia Mckenna in them.But just about here,"Charlotte Gray" departs from the script.The much - vaunted Resistance is poorly - led,not particularly efficient and riven with in - fighting.After a mission to blow up a train ends up a debacle,Charlotte realises she is effectively on her own.The metaphorical marriage ,for which she sacrificed so much of her real self,is over. The conventions of the French Resistance movie have been hi - jacked to serve as a framework for an examination of the compromises, risks and deceptions women have to make in order to compete on a level playing field with men.With the exception of the father - figure Mr Michael Gambon most of the males in the movie want something from Charlotte,but by the use of her guile and intelligence and not inconsiderable courage she is able to retain the essence of her true self - any woman's greatest secret - and return home bloody but unbowed. Like the great Miss Judy Davis in "High Tide",Miss Blanchett can conceal her thoughts yet at the same time reveal so much through a blank face. Both these fine actresses have benefited from the direction of Miss Armstrong and,in turn,rewarded her with performances that transcend the genre. Watch "Charlotte Gray" as a movie about a British S.O.E.operative in wartime France and it's moderately gripping.Watch it as a movie about what a woman has to do to survive in a male - dominated world and it's a very fine piece of work indeed.
Nice film, shame about the inaccurate comments
paul-freegard19 August 2004
My wife and I watched this film last night. We both enjoyed it very much. However, I was disappointed to see such a low rating on this website. I think the film is worthy of at least a 7.
I think that several people are missing the point about language. Charlotte did not speak English when she landed; she spoke French. All you have to do is use your imagination. The director obviously chose to use English to avoid having to use subtitles. Besides, acting must be hard enough without having to speak your lines in a foreign language.
Miss Blanchett is high on my list of favourite actors. I thought she played her part exceptionally well. I challenge anyone to say that they were not moved by her displays of emotion. If anyone can recommend any of her other films, I would be grateful.
I think that several people are missing the point about language. Charlotte did not speak English when she landed; she spoke French. All you have to do is use your imagination. The director obviously chose to use English to avoid having to use subtitles. Besides, acting must be hard enough without having to speak your lines in a foreign language.
Miss Blanchett is high on my list of favourite actors. I thought she played her part exceptionally well. I challenge anyone to say that they were not moved by her displays of emotion. If anyone can recommend any of her other films, I would be grateful.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
