Children of the Century (1999) User Reviews (16)

Beautiful but Flawed

[donalohanlon · 7/10 · 10 January 2003]

Diane Kury's oppulent film is a mixed bag. In it's favour it features

real life lovers Juliette Binoche and Benoît Magimel on excellent

form. As Alfred de Musset Magimel gives us a young man

completely out of his mind on a cocktail of opium and absinthe. A

man deeply creative and talented, but unable to function as a

human being. Binoche's George Sand is a strong a determined

woman. The scene where she finds that Musset may die after

overdosing is wonderfully performed with passion and grandeur.

The film comes alive in her eyes. As filmed by Vilko Filac and

dressed by Christian La Croix, Binoche has never looked more

beautiful or sensual.

However Kurys' direction and her screenplay, co-written by

Francois Olivier Rousseau and Murray Head, lacks direction and

understanding of her period. The brothel scenes are particularly

over the top. Yet her direction of her actor is magnificent.

What is missing from Kurys' film most of all however is Sand and

Musset as writers, as creative masters. There is no sense of their

value in the film beyond their doomed love affair.

Les Enfants du Siecle is a mixed bag, but certainly worth a look.

a well-made movie about two really annoying lovers

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 27 March 2006]

While this movie wasn't exactly faithful to the lives of George Sand and Alfred de Musset, it is difficult to imagine the movie being technically better. They really got the period represented well and the cinematography is lovely. The problem, then, is I doubt if this movie should have been made in the first place. I found BOTH real-life characters to be among the most annoying and pointless characters I have ever watched. It's hard to care about people when they are like Musset--selfish, boorish and showing all the signs of a Borderline Personality Disorder. And, likewise, it's hard to care about a woman so fundamentally screwed up that she MUST have this worthless jerk in her life! Now that I think about it, it's like taking a couple who are featured on the Jerry Springer Show, giving them gobs of money and sending them back to the 1830s to live. It's just really hard to care about spoiled, rich idiots. Stop whining about your lives--you pampered fools--get real jobs and stop spending your life in search of hookers and drugs--or trying to win back this guy who seems to be trying to win the "pimp of the year" award! Frankly, after the movie was over, I just wanted them all to go to #$*@!! Next time, spend the time and effort and talent involved on doing a biography on someone who is interesting and not grating like these two knuckleheads. Their literature may be great (though after seeing this film, I'll never try reading it), but as human beings they were both sadly lacking.

PS--Although in the movie Alfred de Musset and George Sand broke up when it appeared to be around 1834 and he seemed to die unknown to the French public a year or so later (or at least a short time later), he did not die until about 20 years later and had been pretty prolific with his writing after their breakup. So much for presenting the story faithfully.

PPS--Don't let your kids see this boring movie, as it is very graphic. Alfred de Musset goes from brothel to brothel boinking everything that breathes. Gee, I could sure see why Sand wanted him for a lover!

PPPS (wow)--Don't feel too sorry for Sand. Despite the rather monogamous image we see in the film, she had a long string of affairs with very famous men. By the time the real Musset died, she'd slept with more than her share of men (and, some say women as well--but that's open to speculation).

A Delacroix Painting

[tatyanna_patten-1 · 9 June 2004]

If Romanticism, as a movement, can be defined as an "infinite longing" which combines passion and erotic tension with death, despair, and the cycles of nature, then Kurys film portrayal is aptly named and her protagonists--Alfred de Musset and Georges Sand--are indeed children of their century.

The key to understanding the point of this film is to think of it as a painting. It does not give you an insider's view of the relationship between these two literary giants; it does not break down their psychology; and you do not even understand why you, as an audience member, should like either of them. Yet their obsessive love was a monument for the first major artistic movement of the 19th century. Kurys paints them as Delacroix would--in all their lurid color, capturing the details of high emotion without explaining a thing. As painting on film, Les Enfants succeeds as wildly as any Romantic dreamscape and, thus, captures the mood of that era and the sentiment which spawned it more perfectly than 1,000 words on the subject.

Les Enfants du Siecle

[jackdanube · 9/10 · 21 June 2005]

If you have any interest in French Romanticism, or romanticism in general, see this film. The story is taken from both Musset's & Sand's accounts of the affair that took place. If a film is to be made about a poet, use the poets feelings and even words at the most opportune times, this film does that, and then some. This film is well crafted, from every aspect of its making. The performances by Binoche & Magimel are both riveting and heart wrenching.

If this love were a battle, the filmmaker would most definitely taken the side of Sand. As the truth of this affair left Musset's heart dispirited until his death. Even his friends, like Eugene Delacroix, have said that his pen was a poison that infected his reader like a virus. But all histoire aside, as a film, this is an exquisite piece of work, that is both heart-breaking and entertaining. In the words of the central characters, "Shame on you, who are the first to show me treason. The horror and anger, which made me lose my reason."-Alfred de Musset "The angels are no more pure than the heart of a young man who loves truthfully."-George Sand

Above all watch this film and judge for yourself.

Shoot the insipid little rodent

[thatmakesmemad · 3/10 · 20 June 2001]

At the beginning of the film Alfred when commenting on a play by George observes that the lead character must die, with in a relatively short time i was having similar thoughts about Alfred. This may or may not be an historically accurate film but the story wasn't suitable for a film as despite being about the love affair between two people it managed to be remarkably lacking in passion (Remains of the Day being far more passionate despite being about two characters repressing it for the whole film). Neither character could be deemed to be sympathetic as Alfred was a selfish child and George was just annoying with her insistance on returning to the man who loved to strangle her at regular intervals.

A taste of romanticism, in a good way...

[Zzaz82 · 8/10 · 16 September 2001]

Being French, I saw this film at its release. I had no idea about what I might find except that Juliette Binoche was in it. I went there alone. I came out in a crowd.

Romanticism isn't what we think it is. This story IS romantic, not because it's a love story, but because it's a Romantics's story. George Sand and Alfred de Musset were two of our greatest writers. Their works were full of hope, of despair, of melancholy and bitterness. They were revolutionaries. This film is all about the atmosphere of that time, all about the fights and ambitions of these young writers who wanted to change the world and find an unclear future.

This film is one of the few that changed my life, not because of the way it was filmed, or the performance of the actors (though they were absolutely fabulous and I'm looking forward to their next films), it changed my perception of life, made me read some Romantic works (by Sand, Musset, Hugo, Lamartine,... and that's only for the French ones) where I found a "translation" of what I feel when I look to the world in front of me.

That's what this film is all about. It's not a film about a past true story, it's about all of us, everyday.

Account of George Sand's 2 year relationship with de Musset

[David-352 · 1/10 · 2 July 2006]

This movie seems to be filmed in real time -- 2 years! I had to look at the notes to discover its length is only 139 minutes. Very interesting that most girls under 18 gave this a "1" rating, as did I, a 63 year old man. All other ages / sexes seemed to rate this film between 5 and 10, on average. I think many adults must be bullied by the "literary" subject matter, and give the film an undeserved pass. Or are girls just more honest? I don't know about that, but Diane Kurys has inflicted this endlessly obsessive film on us as much as de Musset inflicts his repetitive cruelties on Sand. I simply got tired of watching the horrible dance and pushed the eject button well before the movie's end. In my opinion, Kurys is much better represented by Entre Nous, a quite enjoyable film with content I found coherent and meaningful.

The superstars of their time!

[christian_fournier · 8/10 · 29 November 2021]

"Enfants du siècle" does'nt really mean "Children of the Century", as for the contemporaries it was obvious that it meant "Heirs of the Napoleonic Saga".

This generation, Hugo, Dumas,, Musset, Nerval, Lamartine and Vigny was obsessed by the sad perception that they could not lead the heroïc, larger than life existence experienced by their fathers during the Revolution and Empire - a period (or shortly thereafter) during which they were born. They - and Aurore Dupin de Francueil (aka George Sand) with them - sought vicariously to find fame and glory in literature, particularly in theatre which was the « 7th art » of those days, and in forms of "original living" which would not surprise those reading now on the antics of 'world famous' people. In those days, that was called « Romantism ».

All of them succeeded in literature; but - even though in those days novels, essays, tales, and poems were keenly read - theatre was the big thing: a kind of Hollywood on Seine! And the successful theatre writers and performers had a fame akin to that of our Hollywood stars of today.

So this film should be seen as the biopic of two larger than life "Hollywood stars".

No surprise that passions, drugs, unfaithfulnesses and manifestations of an enormous ego are sprinkled liberally in this film. One may think of the Burton and Taylor duet, but with a wittier and more intellectual bent.

Musset, fabulously talented, has left immortal poems and several theatre pieces which have been rediscovered in the XXth century and which will last; but he has sadly wasted his talent in alcohol (absinthe mainly), drugs and philandering, prostitutes included; he died at 47.

Sand has been the more resilient of the two. She died at 71, a busy grandmother fond of country life, a true precursor of the cause of women's freedom in terms of choosing her (sometimes Saphic) lovers, espousing political causes, and communing with nature.

Sand's "original" life is her real masterpiece; it has a very modern tone. Her writings are numerous and charming, but for me, the literary genius of the two is Musset: most of his writings are masterpieces, even though his life has been a shambles.

It is no surprise then that Diane Kurys takes Sand as her lead character, against a despondent and weak Musset. And I quite understand why - to some reviewers - they both appear boorish, selfish and inspiring few sympathy. But - keeping in mind that Musset and Sand ooze talent and are their generation's Hollywood superstars - you may enjoy this well crafted biopic.

___ .

Love at its peak

[zfiany · 30 March 2009]

I loved this movie and I don't know to what extent this movie is near to the original story. I have read the life of George Sand and was amazed by her character. A character so tough when it has to do with freedom of doing what one wants. George Sand was one of my best female characters next to Mary Wolstoncroft, Jane Austin, Emmeline Pankhurst and the famous five. Juliette Binoche has played the role magnificently close and made it feel like I was watching the original Sand.

The love story is so beautiful specially the scene when Benoit Magimel sleeps on the street ground under the rain when Sand comes to visit him in her carriage. Waw!... I mean this is a charming scene, it says a lot about the feelings of love.

Romantic Period Drama

[ToshNMac · 8/10 · 2 January 2002]

Contrary to its title, this is not a movie about children in an unnamed century. Instead this movie is about the love/hate relationship between French writers Alfred Musset and George Sand. They are two souls who have a mutual and affectionate understanding of one another until a voyage to Italy reveals their true nature. Passion, envy, trust, betrayal and forgiveness are all brilliantly encompassed in the relationship between Musset and Sand.

I enoyed this movie, though some may find it dull and slow. You may need to be a die-hard romantic or like well-costumed period dramas to watch this movie. My harshest criticism for this film would be that of it's length and even though I enjoyed the turbulent relationship shown in this film, there were times when I thought that their affair had ended for good only for them to reconcile a few scenes later.

This movie is handsomely photographed with wonderful costumes by Christian LaCroix and most magnificent of all, the actors don't seem like they're acting at all. Juliette Binoche is spectacular, both beauitful and natural in her potrayal of Sand. Benoit Magimel is splendid as Alfred Musset. Don't expect historical accuracy, and if you're a romantic at heart, you will not be disappointed.

Beautifully crafted film about two totally self absorbed artists.

[yossarian100 · 21 February 2004]

I was really hoping to find some special quality in the two main characters that I could like. However, self absorbed people are usually too melodramatic about every single aspect of their lives and so I had no sympathy for their predicament at all. So, I settled back and enjoyed Julliet Binochet at work. The film was meticulously crafted and the settings and costumes were wonderful, so I got the time machine effect, too. If you like historical melodrama, you might enjoy this.

I don't speak French but enjoyed the film

[badger-37 · 8/10 · 31 August 2000]

I saw this film in French with Spanish subtitles so I had to read very fast! The photography is beautiful. I had not seen either of the principal actors before but I will look for them again. Miss Binoche made George Sand a real person not just an odd woman! The actor who played Alfred de Musset, showed him as charming but weak, very well done.

Beautiful passionate film

[arato · 8/10 · 22 July 2001]

I enjoyed very much this film. The story is really interesting it deals also with the difficult situation of women in the first half of XIX century. Juliette Binoche is wonderful in this role, she is an ideal person for George Sand. The pictures are wonderful. The film is a bit too slow but the viewer has time to live through the emotional turmoil of Alfred and George. This film is worth seeing.

Such a big passion

[ysmnozden · 25 March 2002]

Wonderful mise-en-scene of a true passion that turned out to a, damaging love to hate you syndrome especially for Musset. Georges and Musset, they can't do with nor without each other. Their love was the spring of their inspiration that triggered their talent but the problem was that this love could feed only one's inspiration at a time.

Wonderful pictures, acting and especially costume design capture us in the late 1880's France which was a very nice experience.

Read Sand's works instead

[ljp-2 · 29 September 2002]

I'm a great admirer of George Sand's works, so I was curious about this film, and have been ever since I heard that it came out in France in 1999. I finally got a chance to see it two weeks ago in New York. Diane Kurys' film is well-acted and beautifully shot. Unfortunately, viewers won't be much enlightened about Sand or Musset as writers by watching it. Nor is it a convincing love story. Both of these faults are mostly due to a mediocre script.

The basic outline of the facts of Sand's relationship with Musset are there, but any sense of *why* they had such a fatal obsession with each other is lacking. Lots of inane dialogue about love isn't enough! The two are barely together before they're fighting, and Musset is such an unpleasant, selfish, manipulative and immature fellow (a characterization that's apparently pretty true to the facts) that Sand's devotion to him is hard to fathom. Surprisingly, from a filmmaker with a feminist slant, you learn very little about Sand's beliefs as a woman or an artist. She seems like a sane person, though, and a hard-working writer (and that is historically accurate), but there's no depth, in spite of all that the lovely, talented Juliet Binoche can do. The character as written simply isn't interesting, and that's sad, because the real life George Sand was a fascinating woman.

The film's portrait of the Romantic era and its writers isn't much better. Yes, I suppose with all the bad behavior and opium-gulping, Musset and some others were like the childish, spoiled rock stars of today (which may have been the filmmaker's point), but there's no sense of what their work was like. When Sand and Musset talk about their writing and its meaning, they sound like rank amateurs. The one thing you learn about Sand's novel *Lelia* from the film is that it was about female frigidity and how few men are capable of arousing a woman. (Naturally, Musset soon cures Sand of her "frigidity." Hoo-boy). In reality, *Lelia* is a complex attempt to address many philosophical issues of the age and a struggle to find the meaning of existence, with or without God, but that doesn't make good cinema, I guess. It's easier to suppose that women are always going to write about sex, rather than to admit that they have any ideas of their own.

If you want real insight, you'd be far better off reading Sand's works (something like her most magnificent short story, "The Marquise," for starters). Or how about calling a moratorium on films about Sand's love life and actually bringing one of her works to the screen? That would be a real tribute.

Twenty-Six Minutes!

[frankgaipa · 20 December 2002]

I actually found this less engaging than "Star Trek: Nemesis" that I'd seen earlier the same day. At least I knew why Picard and Data wanted to love their respective dangerous doppelgangers. Kept thinking in the French film, this is paced just like too many American costume dramas. What on earth's happened since "Peppermint Soda," etc.? Now I see, though, in Imdb's listings, at least part of the problem. Kurys' "Les Enfants du siècle" was 135 minutes. Her American distributor's "Children of the Century" is 109, minus the time to run its logo.

Wait for the dvd. Maybe it'll reverse the damage. "Cet amour-là" is a much, much finer great writer/younger man film.