It is an understatement to say that if La vie en rose is accurate in its portrayal of the famed French chanteuse Edith Piaf then she was a complex, fascinating human being. She was strong willed, determined, quick to anger, tortured, often lonely, and self-destructive through alcohol and drug abuse. She was also sensitive, passionate, tender, generous, spiritual, and loyal to friends. She is noted for singing two of the most haunting songs ever written: the title song which she wrote and Non, je ne regrettes rien. Her life was her music and her intense, strongly driven, raw passionate powered voice resonates as much today as it did fifty and more years ago.

Born Edith Gassion in 1915, her mother was a street singer with grandiose and never to be fulfilled dreams and her father was a circus and street acrobat. Abandoned by her parents at an early age, she was left with her paternal grandmother who ran a Normandy bordello. Raised for several years by prostitutes, she became blind, and by some accounts deaf, as the result of illness. She allegedly was made well again after a trip to the Shrine of St. Therese. As thanks, she wore a crucifix around her neck for the rest of her life. In her early and late teens she performed as a street singer, first with her re-united father and then on her own.

It was during this latter time that she became associated with the underworld before being discovered by cabaret owner Louis Leplee. It was he who named her La mome piaf (the Waif Sparrow) and introduced her to Parisian society. When Leplee was murdered, Edith was wrongly considered to be a prime suspect. After Leplee's death, Raymond Asso became her mentor and taught her how to use hand and arm motions to add emotion to her singing. She then soon became, as Marlene Dietrich called her, “the soul of Paris”.

After World War II, Edith slowly achieved international fame and met the true love of her life, Marcelle Cerdan, who would die in a plane crash. The knowledge that she had encouraged him to travel by air to see her filled her with guilt. By the end of the 1950s her always frail body, but not her haunting voice, began to succumb to the ravages of chemical abuse, arthritis, and liver cancer. The realization that she would never be able to sing again may have hastened her death in 1963.

My wife and I went to see La vie en rose, not to see the life of Edith Piaf, but because (1) it was the first movie to be shown at a newly opened, nearby art theater and (2) we like French movies. We came away enjoying the movie when under normal circumstances I would have come away disappointed. Why? Because I usually don’t like biopics, like events in a movie to have a certain chronological order to them (although an occasional flashback is okay) and prefer that a few light moments be interspersed in even the darkest drama. This movie basically violates all my guidelines. It is a biography of a French legend; it bounces around like a runaway rubber ball; and, seems incessantly grim and depressing. So, why did I like it so much despite these violations? I enjoyed it because of the directorial innovations, the acting, and the story it told – key ingredients to any successful movie.

Most movie biographies follow one of two similar patterns. They begin at some point in the individual’s early life (A) and then proceed chronologically to some point in his or her later life (B) or they begin briefly at B, return to A, and then proceed in an orderly manner back to B. Under Olivier Dahan’s directorship La vie en rose starts at B (1959), returns to A (World War I era) and then spends the remaining 140 minutes hop scotching back and forth between the two points and points in between and finally ends up at C (Edith’s death in 1963). This non-linear technique has been criticized, perhaps rightfully so, by some as being frustrating and confusing. However, to me it was a reflection of Edith’s own disjointed and often chaotic life. Also, I saw it as a dying person thinking back on her life in bits and pieces. In fact, the movie is not a biography so much as a series of episodes and vignettes.

Dahan uses other techniques effectively. His photography is beautiful in a technical sense. The scenes set in Piaf’s early life are dark, grimy and depressing, creating the right atmosphere. Many of the other scenes also have a dark aspect -- two exceptions being when Piaf and Cerdan are together, the high point of her emotional life, and during a sunny trip to California when she was at the height of her international fame. The director also adds a touch of surrealism in two scenes. The first is when ten year old Edith sees an image of her beloved St. Therese in the sparks from a flame eater’s torch and the second in the unique and compelling scene when she learns of Cerdan’s death.

The overall acting in the movie is good although many of the characters have only brief screen time. Emmanuelle Seigner as Titine, the prostitute who has a positive influence on the young Edith; Sylvie Testud as her factory friend, Momone; Gerard Depardieu in what is little more than a cameo role as her first mentor, Louis Leplee; Jean-Pierre Martins as Piaf’s one true love, the boxer Marcelle Cerdan, are all very good. Also, both Manon Chevallier and Pauline Burlet do nice jobs portraying Edith as a child. But the real Edith comes alive through the superb acting of Marion Cotillard. The thirty-two year old actress brings intensity to a complex role that few others could achieve. She is thoroughly convincing whether playing Edith at the age of 20 or as the frail and wizened woman of 47. Because of her portrayal, Ms. Cotillard presents a woman that we can’t help but root for. Her wrenching, exhausting performance is worthy of at least an Oscar nomination as she totally puts her 5 foot 6 inch body into that of the four foot 8 inch Piaf. An aside: some professional reviewers feel that her acting was over the top and actually created a caricature of the singer. I couldn’t disagree more. Piaf herself was often over the top and, based upon old clips of her performances and interviews that I have seen, often seems today to be a caricature. What Ms Cotillard has done is create a real person.

La vie en rose, like any other movie, has its flaws and, like many biopics, is actually a combination of truth, legend, and dramatic license. The scenes set during World War I show an Edith who seems older than she would have been at that time. Many of the characters, such as the prostitute Titine, are probably composites of several people. Her friend Momone was in real life probably her half sister, Simone Berteaut. Some critics complain that even considering the ravages of cancer the character of Edith at the time of her death looks too old (although after seeing her recently in an interview conducted a year before her demise, I didn’t find the portrayal all that implausible). Some characters that appear important are introduced and then quickly disappear. Some of her relationships with people such as Charles Aznavour, Jean Cocteau, and Marlene Dietrich are barely mentioned. Other individuals such as her proteges Yves Montand and Paul Meurisse never appear nor strangely enough does her second husband, Theo Sarapo, who despite being many years younger was extremely devoted to Edith up until her death. The birth and death of a child when Edith was in her late teens is added almost as an afterthought toward the end. The World War II years are quickly passed over which is unfortunate because of her work with the French Resistance. And, of course, there is the disjointed narrative which can be confusing. Regarding that, I would recommend that anyone not familiar with the details of Piaf’s life do some research before seeing the movie as my wife and I did. It definitely helps.

The movie is soon to be released on DVD. We have already ordered it and eagerly await its arrival.


Recommended: Yes

Movie Mood: Serious Movie
Viewing Method: Other
Film Completeness: A few glitches, but mostly complete.
Worst Part of this Film: Nothing