'Thérèse Desqueyroux' is a French drama set in the 1920s in which Audrey Tautou, as the titular Thérèse, is content to play the iconoclast in her stuffy husband's family. But when her best friend (also her sister-in-law) describes her passionate relationship with an attractive young Portuguese man, Thérèse's emotions take a more sinister turn. My one complaint about this is that as Thérèse's husband (played by Gilles Lellouche) is such a central part of the plot it's a shame he is portrayed as such a one-dimensional duffer, ignorant of his wife's feelings in the most stereotypical way, but apart from that this is quite an enjoyable production, both in terms of the plot and the idyllic coastal scenery in which much of the film is set.
Add a Review
-
euroGary8 August 2013
-
"Therese" is a lovely looking film. The characters are all attractive, the scenery is pristine and engaging, and the colors really pop out at you. The cinematography is near top-notch.
Ultimately, this is a very dark, and rather depressing story. Although arguably a victim of circumstance, the lead character comes across as rather self-absorbed and pathetic. I'm not sure if that was the intention or not, or even if there was an intention.
The story and dialogue are sufficiently sophisticated to keep the viewer's attention. Overall a solid piece of work with good performances from the cast.
If you liked this review, then please check out my other reviews. I try to review the movies which not many people see. -
rowmorg18 August 2013The air-headed Audrey Tautou acquires a brain in this adaptation of a Francois Mauriac novel. She is heiress of thousands of acres of Aquitaine, including a huge stand of timber and miles of sandy beaches, and marries the man next door, who owns almost as much. She has a dreamy girl-friend (hubby's sister) who falls in love and is locked up for it, to marry the man of her family's choice. In short, Audrey is living in an open prison and decides to off her husband, who regularly takes four drops of arsenic for his heart condition. She forges a prescription and radically ups his dose until he nearly dies. The family sticks together and backs up her phony story, then locks her away in a tatty loft bedroom, deprived for ever of her infant daughter. Only at the end of nearly two hours does her husband announce that she is to be set free. She announces that she will move to a hotel in Paris and live her own life. On that happy note, the film ends, but not before we have lived through her hellish existence for a little too long. Recommended for Tautou's performance.
-
I found this movie on Netflix streaming movies. It is in French with English subtitles. I speak a bit of French, but man generic French is so quick that I could barely understand what they were saying, so the subtitles are important.
I became a big Audrey Tautou fan when I saw "Amelie" the first time. Since then I have seen a total of six of her movies, she is always good, as she is here.
It is set in the 1920s France, Audrey Tautou is Thérèse Larroque, in a family that owns some property laden with pine forests. This becomes a significant fact during the movie, as she gets married to a man who also owns land with pine forests and together their pine forest wealth will be great. But it also becomes a threat when, during a period of drought, a forest fire threatens their holdings.
Almost as a ritual rather than a love affair Thérèse marries an older man, fine actor Gilles Lellouche as Bernard Desqueyroux. He is a nice man, reasonably handsome, loves his hunting, and sees Thérèse mostly as a way to have a family. And hopefully a son to carry on the family name. But there never was any passion in their relationship.
The movie, as titled, is about Thérèse, her unhappiness and feeling trapped in the marriage. Her husband has some symptoms which require medication, and he is prescribed some sort of arsenic drops, only three a day with water. But soon Thérèse sees this as an opportunity, maybe a few more drops each day will do the trick.
Of course he gets ill but recovers, her ruse is exposed and she even has to defend herself in court, with the cooperation of her husband. But their relationship, whatever there was of it, is badly damaged.
Thérèse has a daughter, the baby is virtually taken away from her by family members, and seems to be growing up without even realizing Thérèse is her mother. Thérèse seems only mildly upset by that development, if at all. Seems maybe she wasn't cut out to be a wife or a mother!
In the very last scene, in the city as Bernard tells her goodbye (pronouncing her name 'tezz') then we see her walking among all the people in the street, a wry smile on her face. Was she thinking, "All-in-all that worked out pretty well. Now I can start my life."
An excellent character study, Tautou is great. -
morrison-dylan-fan21 May 2017Catching up on what is happening in the UK General Election,I started to talk to friends on Twitter about their views on events. During the chats,a friend told me that the BBC were about to show a Audrey Tautou that he has been interested in seeing for ages. Charmed by Tautou in He Loves Me... He Loves Me Not,I got set to meet Thérèse Desqueyroux.
The plot:
Living life as a free spirit in late 1920's France, Thérèse Laroque begins moving away from her open nature,to instead keep with tradition and get together with Bernard Desqueyroux for a marriage of convenience. Originally hoping that the marriage would clear a path that would allow the life goals to be seen, Thérèse finds herself stuck in a loveless marriage,which burns Thérèse's life away.
View on the film:
Creating a final work whilst dying from cancer,co-writer (with Natalie Carter) director Claude Miller & cinematographer Gérard de Battista give the Costume Drama a funeral atmosphere,lit in dour yellow lights that beam on the stark face of Desqueyroux. Sketching the misery of Desqueyroux's life,Miller digs into the period with elegant charcoal browns and blacks covering any light coming into Desqueyroux. Removing her distinctive kooky smile, Audrey Tautou gives a marvellous performance as Desqueyroux,with Tautou pulling Miller's Desqueyroux down to a burning ember. -
JamesHitchcock13 March 2024Francois Mauriac's novel "Thérèse Desqueyroux" is set in the Landes, a sparsely populated rural area of south-western France consisting mostly of pine forests and heathland. (Argelouse, the village where much of the action takes place, is a real one). His heroine Thérèse is in a similar position to Emma Bovary, another French literary heroine who finds herself dissatisfied with marriage to a dull provincial bourgeois and with the conformist culture of "la France profonde". The difference between the two is that whereas Madame Bovary ends up poisoning herself, Thérèse tries (unsuccessfully) to poison her husband, Bernard.
By the standards of the 1920s, Mauriac's was something of an experimental novel, making use of non-linear narrative, jumps backwards and forwards in time and sudden switches between first-person and third-person narration. The director Claude Miller, in his last film before his death, keeps Mauriac's plot but, wisely, does not attempt to imitate his structure, telling the story in a much more linear fashion. It starts with Thérèse's girlhood and her friendship with Bernard's half-sister Anne; because Thérèse comes from another well-to-do family it is assumed that she will many Bernard, even though he is considerably older than her and they have little in common.
Their marriage is predictably unhappy, to the extent that she comes to see murder as the solution to all her difficulties. She is, however, never punished for her crime- fearful of any scandal attaching to their name, all the family, even Bernard himself, conspire to secure Thérèse's acquittal, on the understanding that they will afterwards separate. The do not, however, divorce, something which was officially legal in the France of the 1920s, but would not have been socially acceptable in a conservative, Catholic rural area.
A sub-plot deals with the romance between Anne and a young man named Jean Azevedo which scandalises her family because he is Jewish and regarded as an outsider. As in the book there is some suggestion of a lesbian attraction between Thérèse and Bernard's younger half-sister Anne, but this is not fully developed.
The novel has a powerful sense of place; Mauriac is able to conjure up a vivid picture of the Landes, something reflected here by the striking photography of the area. This is important, because Mauriac uses his descriptions of the physical landscape as a metaphor for the mental and moral landscape of its inhabitants, whose stifling conformity is as barren as its sandy soils.
The main difficulty I had with the film was the same as the one I had when reading the novel, namely that we never get a clear view of what sort of person Thérèse really is. In particular, Mauriac never provides a clear explanation for her crime. Bernard- dull, conventional, complacent and selfish, obsessed with hunting, his dogs and his estates- is far from being an ideal husband, but he is not a monster, and we never really understand why his wife should have conceived so violent a hatred for him or why she should have resorted to such desperate means of trying to rid herself of him. There is a good performance from Audrey Tautou, a better actress in her native language than she is in English, and another good performance from Gilles Lellouche as the stolid Bernard, but even these performances do not help me overcome this difficulty. 7/10. -
p-seed-889-1884692 August 2014Contains spoilers! Well this is a very odd little movie, and one that has a lot of similarities to another movie I saw (and reviewed) recently, the "Kate Winslet" version of "Mildred Pierce". Both movies are based on novels of no great distinction that should have otherwise been relegated to the pulping machines. Inexplicably this is the second film version to be made of both novels. Since both novels are now quite old the latest movie renditions are now period pieces, and that seems to be the only possible interest to a viewer and rationale for making a film which if not deep is at least "beautiful". Both movies feature woman protagonists of low/no charisma, yet both are played by actresses of considerable talent and acclaim. Both actresses are called upon to display absolutely none of the skills for which they are noted, producing what is probably the nadir in both actresses portfolios.
The movie opens with a breathless and hopelessly overacted sequence involving two young girls, and we gather there is a special bond between them, possibly to the extent of lesbianism. For reasons which are unclear one of them not only shoots a bird but considers it necessary to also wring its neck. This scene is apparently significant because it is reprised later in the movie. The dialog implies that it is intended that one girl's sister will in the not too distant future marry the other girl's brother. We then abruptly cut to this predicted courtship but, at least to my surprise, the "girl" now looks about 40 and the brother/fiancé looks about 50. In the intervening 20 years since the introductory sequence the girl seems to have morphed from a flighty, babbling youth to a middle age woman with all the warmth and passion of a sack of spuds. The girl/woman and the brother duly marry not out of love but out of duty to their families and their mutual business interests, and the marriage is consummated with the girl acting like the afore-mentioned sack of spuds. Meanwhile the husband's sister has found the real deal, or so she thinks, she has fallen head over heels in love with a guy who sails a nice boat but who unfortunately does not pass muster in the social stakes. The sister's family lock her away in the time honored tradition of discouraging unsuitable suitors, and her old friend (her brother's wife - are you following all this...?) is called upon to encourage her lover to desist from the relationship. As it happens the "lover" is just a big scumbag who doesn't care about the girl at all. He is a "free spirit", a liberal, an avantgarde who quotes poetry and philosophy, the world is his oyster, he was just having a bit of fun and no one is going to tie him down, he is off to Paris. All this talk of freedom ignites a little spark in the brother's unfulfilled wife and she goes off into a little fantasy world which seems to suggest that she might shack up with this neer do well. But all this comes to nothing, that little thread peters out and goes nowhere. The wife has a baby she doesn't like, she tries to poison her husband and she may or may not have had a hand in burning down a good part of their combined pine plantation. She moons about a lot not looking very happy and she doesn't seem to know what she wants. Eventually her long suffering husband agrees to let her go to Paris to start a new life. In the final scene she still doesn't know what she wants, she doesn't know why she tried to poison her husband, in fact she doesn't really know anything. She is really a complete waste of space.
Was there a message here? Was this novel/movie supposed to be some sort of comment on the role of women and their suppression by men and society? Was it supposed to be a celebration of liberation? A triumph of passion over societal expectations? Should we care about this woman, someone of zero passion, drive or warmth, or about her not very likable husband? What happened to the only interesting character in the story, the husband's sister? Or to her baby? Why were so many story threads started only to be abandoned? Why did they take a talented and attractive actress like Audry Tatou and made her look so ugly, boring and stupid? All these questions and more.
All in all, much ado about nothing. -
writers_reign28 June 2013Clearly Audrey Tautao has now acquired sufficient clout to cherry pick her roles and equally clearly she is weary of playing adorable air-heads and, looking around for something with which to display her acting chops, came up with Francois Mauriac's old war-horse of a novel from 1927, already filmed half a century ago by Georges Franju. Claude Miller was a sick man - he actually died shortly after the shoot - and arguably in no position to say nay so here we are. No one is going to accuse this of being a laff riot in fact Tautao cracks a smile only on one - or possibly two - occasions otherwise it's all very sombre, long takes, longer faces, an attempt to make boredom photogenic, for yes, Therese and Madame Bovary are sisters under the skin albeit Therese has a tad more sand, and has also a little in common with Madeleine Smith, late of Edinburgh. Gilles Lellouche turns in yet another fine performance and the movie tests high on atmosphere but I doubt it will find its audience.
-
paperbackboy2 January 2014This excellent film, like the novel, has a challengingly "modern", existential feel, with themes that bring it closer to the ideas of Camus and Sartre than many of Mauriac's other works.
Thérèse isn't really sure why she acts in the way she does, but her character, thanks largely to Tautou's performance, is so complex and nuanced that, far from leading to "confusion", as another reviewer has suggested, it simply seems real. Perhaps too "real" to be hugely dramatic, but real enough to be compelling and fascinating.
Gilles Lellouche plays husband Bernard to perfection, too, with just the right amount of odious materialism and hypocrisy, combined with a tinge of genuine sympathy. He genuinely can't comprehend his wife and her actions, and responds in the way that he thinks best.
The movie is beautifully and atmospherically shot - the best compliment I can pay is that it looks just how I imagined it when I read the book. Plus it made me want to read the novel again, because it reminded me just how powerful and "modern" a work it is.
Despite the film's length, there are no "longueurs" (boring bits), and the plot feels surprisingly tight given the lack of action.
So watch this film, enjoy the "look", and be surprised and challenged by the characters and their motivations, and by just how modern Mauriac's ideas were, way back in the 1920s. Definitely recommended. -
tao90222 July 2015Therese (Audrey Tautou) endures an unhappy marriage of convenience to an arrogant landowning neighbour. Her best friend, Anne, begins a passionate affair with a local man who is regarded by her family as unacceptable as he is not from such wealthy stock. When Therese learns that her husband's medicine contains arsenic she deliberately gives him overdoses that bring him close to death. Her life eventually deteriorates to the point where she commits suicide.
Not a particularly engaging film. It was difficult to sympathise with the main character and it would have made more sense for the film to focus on Therese's best friend whose affair had been undermined. -
This film is about a blue blooded woman marrying a tycoon, but quickly finds out that marriage is not a thing she likes.
The title "Thérèse Desqueyroux" doesn't give the plot away, but the Hong Kong Chinese title does. As a result, I kept guessing how the plot will turn out. Initially, we see Thérèse having a rather entangled relationship with Anne, which may or may not have played a part in her dissatisfaction in Thérèse's subsequent marriage. Then, the marriage itself is portrayed well, with the husband giving Thérèse much love that is clearly not reciprocated.
However, all these supposed seeds that led to the deed did not adequately explain Thérèse's criminal action. Without a plausible motive, I was left to wonder exactly why she did such a horrible deed. Such a lack of motive may drive suspense and keep viewers on edge, but in "Thérèse Desqueyroux" it only serves to confuse.
In addition, the subplot between Thérèse and Anne, and between Anne and Jean were left hanging, which was quite a pity. The amazing contrasts between the pre-deed, post-deed and liberated Thérèse could not help to lift "Thérèse Desqueyroux" to becoming a great film. I think it is a good film but it is unfortunately masked by hanging subplots and confusion. -
paul2001sw-121 February 2016There are strong echoes of Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina in Claude Miller's film 'Therese Desqueyroux', derived from a 1920s novel about a woman trapped by convention in a stultifying marriage to a mediocre man. But where Emma Bovary is stupid, Therese is deeply intelligent; whereas Emma has an affair, Therese merely learns of that of her sister in law; and whereas Emma kills herself, Therese tries to murder her husband. In modern parlance, Therese is medically depressed; but while depression may lead to irrational behaviour, it is not itself necessarily without cause. In all these stories, one can feel ambiguous sympathy for the entitled husbands, who may not be likable per se, but who don't fully deserve the hand that fate deals them. There's a nice scene at the end of this film which neatly summarises Monsiuer Desqueyroux's utter emotional constipation. I also liked the way that the time and place (the Landes forest in south west France) are portrayed, and Audtey Tatou is very good in a role which is the opposite of cute.
-
dromasca25 June 2021Who is Therese Desqueyroux? This question remains open after watching the film made in 2012 by Claude Miller, a film bearing the name of the heroine (or simply 'Therese' on the English market and in other countries where the heroine's last name is difficult to pronounce, not to mention write). This is a film that in my opinion did not enjoy the deserved reception, neither from the public nor from the critics. Some of the objections I read are related to the fact that there is no clear explanation of the reasons that push the heroine of the film to extreme deeds and especially there is no moral or moralizing judgment of them. However, actually the character played by Audrey Tautou is consistent with the mystery surrounding the female characters that dominate Claude Miller's films and fits perfectly with the ambiguity of the woman imagined by Francois Mauriac in the novel of the same title, one of the best left behind by this writer who was very popular in the first half of the 20th century, a writer who was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1952. There is also is another aspect that gives value and meaning to 'Therese Desqueyroux'. Much of the story in the film takes place under the sign of death. Claude Miller does not turn the plot, as he could have done, into a horror story, but death or its threat are almost always present. This was Miller's last film. The director was ill with leukemia during its making. I don't know if it should be called a testament film, but it is clear that death was a theme that had become personal and actual for the author.
The story takes place in the late 1920s and early 1930s in the properties of two wealthy families in the French countryside. Young Therese marries Bernard, the brother of her good friend Anne. It is a marriage of convenience, devoid of passion, but through which Therese hopes to ensure to herself the quiet and secure life for the realisation of some vague intellectual ambitions. In a short time, however, she finds herself suffocated by the lack of horizon of the life of a provincial woman, she does not find fulfilment in maternity either, and even Anne's unhappy love story with a Jewish young man, terminated by her family, seems to be a luckier alternative. Can an assassination attempt be the way to liberation? Who can judge her? Justice? The family? Spectators?
The cinematography is exquisite, with several scenes of beautiful and expressive framing that remind some the landscapes of the Impressionists, other the interior paintings of the Flemish masters. The plot is built with attention to detail and psychological delicacy. The lead roles are interpreted by three actors that I like a lot, even if their casting in this film is not ideal. Audrey Tautou is exceptional, in a much darker role than others who have marked her career. (I hope that the rumours about her intentions to give up her acting career will prove to be untrie). Anaïs Demoustier is another very talented actress, but I found her role here less convincing, especially when it comes to erasing the age difference between the two women. Gilles Lellouche has a difficult role as the rude husband, but he creates a character that makes viewers avoid harsh judgments. 'Therese Desqueyroux' is a feminist film in a discreet way, and the moral judgment, if any, is more of a social nature and related to the institution of the family whose stability and appearances becomes the purpose instead of a frame for life. As for understanding Therese's character, I suggest you wait until the closing scene of the film. -
aharmas2 September 2013Is there anything this actress can't do? I went into the film to see a woman deal with the social pressures of a period, maybe a film that reminded me of "The Age of Innocence", a time where women had to sit, listen, and maybe "obey" the social conventions. The preview was a bit elusive because it made you forget that you are dealing with France, Paris, and the unexpected, and that's exactly what you get.
By the end, the main character has grown tired and despondent, but she has left a mark that earns everyone attention if not respect, and the most interesting scene is at the end, in a conversation between her and a leading character that reveals life is not as simple as it appears. This was a period of change, and Therese found a way to at least get on her way to some peace, but nothing is perfect.
Therese is a child of privilege. Everything is in place for her set up marriage to improve all of those involved. Unfortunately, as she admits early in the film, she must deal with her own personal conflicts, and this might not be possible. She eventually finds a possible solution to her problems, but this might lead to even more problematic resolutions. What makes the film even more interesting is that her husband eventually becomes the more puzzling of the characters. He is not the standard chauvinistic and domineering standard. There is more to him, and that only leads to Therese becoming even more traumatized.
The film is beautifully scored and photographed, and the art direction/costume design work here is reason enough to sit through the film, but as I said before, it's the entire cast's work that expands on that idea behind "Midnight in Paris", a kernel of a premise that Allen delivered with grace and fun. This is a serious film, and it shows that there is plenty of substance in everyone. Yes, powerful minds can be more than an asset at the right time. Just imagine what the lead character in "Frances" could have been if she had better luck. Therese is lucky she lives in the country, and that there is loyalty in her world. In the end, the film stops at a crucial time of her existence. Things are not over, just a new beginning. -
ematerso25 September 2014This movie was very confusing at first. Audrey Tatou was simply too old to play the supposed age of the lead character whom I believe as 18 when she was engaged and not much older when she married. Her friend/sister-in-law Anne looked more age appropriate.
At first when I realized the theme the film was taking, I imagined that this was a story based on a real murder case. No, that wasn't the story at all. It is the story of an insipid, aimless woman, who likes to read and not much else. We see her doing nothing interesting (she won't even take a walk) she shows no real love for anyone except her aunt.
I actually found her very unpleasant to look at. the house and the woods were lovely. the other actors all very good. As a film it really just missed, but exactly how I don't know. -
sergelamarche26 February 2019Based on a french novel itself inspired by a true story. This is some sort of study of psychopathy. It can be in an apparently nice person.