Cezanne et Moi

I'm surprised by the critics and bad ratings of this movie. Cézanne et Moi tells the relationship between Paul Cezzane and childhood friend Émile Zola, and their clash of personalities throughout their lives. Zola, shy and a little naif. Cezzane, conflictuous, at odds with his family and upset by his initial insuccesses, tries to hurt everyone around him, friends and lovers.

The film is a character study of artists in general, and of Cezzane and Zola in particular, including their ambition and selfishness. The constant flash back and forward in time has a purpose, as each conflict has a link to something happened in the past. All the cast delivers, with a special nod to the superb Guillaume Gallienne as Cezzane. On top of everything, the cherry on the cake: beautiful cinematography and scenary of Provance.

"Cezanne et Moi" (2016 release from France; 116 min.) brings the story of the ups and downs in the long friendship between French writer Emile Zola and the French painter Paul Cezanne. As the movie opens, we are in "Medan 1888", where Zola is awaiting the arrival of Cezanne, after not having seen each other for 2 years. We then go back in time to "Aix en Provence 1852", as we get to watch how they meet each other in 6th grade and become inseparable friends, Before we know it, we are in "Paris 1960" where the two are struggling to make it. At this point we're 15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from veteran writer and (later in life also) director Danièle Thompson, who is now in her mid-seventies, if you can believe it. Here, she brings us the story that on its face could be fascinating: how 2 legends from the 19th century interacted with each other over decades. Is this a true story? I have no idea, and the movie does not open with the usual "Based on a true story" or "Inspired by true events". But that is not the problem. The problem is in the script writing, which is way heavy and wooden, resulting in us the viewers watching acting performances that simple do not convince us or get us emotionally connected or invested in any way, shape or form. When at one point Cezanne gets mad/upset at Zola, it feels fake and very much "acted". In that sense, certain stretches of the movie feel like watching a theater play, rather than a movie. On the plus side, the scenes that play out in the south of France (Aix) are pure eye candy and provide a much needed boost to the film. Also noteworthy (for my anyway) is the excellent original movie score, courtesy of French composer Éric Neveux. But bottom line is that for me this movie feels like a missed opportunity, considering the potential involving large personalities of not just Cezanne and Zola, but other contemporary eventual celebrities appearing in the movie (Auguste Renoir, Guy de Maupassant, Eduart Manet, and more).

"Cezanne et Moi" opened this past weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The Tuesday evening screening where I saw this at was attended okay for a week night (about 10 people). Given the lack of critical acclaim or positive overall buzz, I can't see this playing in theaters very long, so is this movie sounds like it could be of interest to you, you're more likely to check it out on VOD or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray.

Well-made biographical drama is focused on the legends' complex and explosive friendship, with fully believable performances by Canet and Gallienne, and enhanced by Jean-Marie Dreujou's remarkable camerawork, but somehow neglects to explore or even explain the protagonists' importance in art and literature history.

Whew boy! Saw a really wonderful movie last night. It is entitled Cezanne et Moi. Yep, a French movie. Actually, it was a Bro-mance, but I absolutely could not tear my eyes off of it. It was a visual, feast for the eyes, and compliments to the Cinematographer. I don't know how he did it (I'm thinking some kinds of filters), but he was able to light his film with brilliant Cezanne blues and pink and rose colors. Which, btw, prevented me from being able to take the time to read the subtitles because I was so busy being dazzled by the kaliedoscopic colors. The result was similiar to mirroring the desired effect of the painters. The impressionists were madly trying to capture an image which was held in a particular moment during the day when sunlight evoked a particular feeling. So the brush was flying, causing the impressionistic feel and look. And someone, A HACKER, caused my computer to "go dark." Now, thank you, I have to watch it again. But I don't mind...really. You are going to love it, I saw many Manets, Monets, Degas, Cezannes, etc. when I went to the Palace of the Legion of Honor, a museum in San Francisco. Actually, when I got to the Dutch Masters, I fell in love with my favorite painting, Fishing under the Ice on the Maas. The scene takes place at daybreak, I think, where the colors evoke the same impressionistic feeling. Anyway, I will see it again. I won't say when though; I don't want my pc to go dark again. :)

Cezanne and I directed and written by Danièle Thompson is a movie that should never have been. It's a pragmatic and artless movie about artists of the second half of the XIXth Century.

It is a movie without purpose, the writing is poor and disjointed, it constantly jumps between different points in time without any purpose, or structure or even memory as some scenes seem to happen two or even three times.

What you will enjoy from this movie:

• the name dropping of some of the biggest artists of modern times
• the scenery towards the end of the movie

What you won't enjoy and the movie gets wrong:

• the portrayal of every character as a completely antipathetic, there is not one likeable character in the whole movie, even those with minimal texts such as Renoir or Manet who only talk to hate in this movie.
• the movie itself is deceiving, it isn't a movie about Cezanne but about Zola
• the artistic portraying of Cezanne who, apparently drew 99% of his canvas as portrait! What a strange choice from the director.
• the complete lack of artistry through the whole movie, be it from the cinematography, the direction, the writing or even the paintings shown through the movie.

The director clearly had no clue about art so why make a film about art other than self-indulgence?

Avoid.