Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.
Max Ophüls was a great French director whose life was cut short when he was at the peak of his creative powers. In this, his penultimate work, he provides us with a somewhat contrived love story that shimmers and dazzles, combining romance, farce, and social commentary into a stylish extravaganza.
The Story: The setting is the Vienna of around 1900, with aristocratic society still in full flower. The intriguing opening tracking shot catches the beautiful Countess Louisa (Danielle Darrieux) rummaging through her many expensive possessions deciding which she will sell to cover her embarrassing debts. She examines, then tosses aside an expensive fur, muttering, “No, I can’t part with that.” Finally, she settles on the expensive earrings that her husband, General Andre (Charles Boyer), gave her on their wedding day. “What will you tell your husband?”, inquires her maid. She replies that she will simply say that she lost them. Countess Louisa takes the earrings to the jeweler, Remy. He is reluctant to buy them, considering he had sold them to her husband, but a fainting spell (likely contrived) by the Countess wins his acquiescence.
At the opera that night, the Countess tells the General that she has lost her earrings. He searches high and low, in their box, in the carriage, and in the neighboring box that his wife had visited during intermission. Obviously without luck. The next day, an article appears in the local newspaper about the theft of a pair of valuable earrings at the theater the night before. The jeweler reads the article and, fearing it will be bad for business, visits the General, and reports his wife’s indiscretion. The General repurchases the earrings, telling the jeweler to “remember that my wife’s thoughtlessness is strictly between us." Later, the General teases his wife by going through the list of their servants and asking her in each case if she thought he or she might have stolen the earrings, but Louisa begs him not to “make others pay for my stupidity.” He, however, now gives the earrings to his mistress, Lola (Lia di Leo), as a parting present. She is on her way to Turkey. Lola loses all her cash in the casinos at Constantinople and sells the earrings to the cashier. The earrings are purchased in Constantinople by Baron Fabrizio Donati (Vittorio De Sica). The Baron, a diplomat, comes to Vienna and encounters the Countess – first at the station and later when their respective carriages collide. Later, they meet again at a fancy ball.
I should explain that the code of social behavior for the aristocratic society of Vienna was apparently quite different than typically operates for marriages today in America. It was understood and accepted that husbands and wives might flirt or have adulterous relationships so long as discretion was exercised, honor was maintained, and no real love was involved. The General says whimsically to Louisa, “Your suitors get on my nerves.” One of these suitors, dancing with Louisa, indicates his hope of seeing Louisa while the General is on maneuvers. Louisa replies coyly, “I can’t stop you from hoping.” The General anticipates that the Baron will provide more interesting company for Louisa than most of the others (“I know you’ll keep her amused”), but warns him that his wife is fickle and is a master of torturing her suitors through hope. Louisa and the Baron are soon dancing. The Baron naïvely counts himself safe from Louisa’s charms so long as he refrains from hoping.
In a magnificent exhibition of cinematic magic, Ophüls reveals Louisa and the Baron falling in love through an extended montage sequence in which the two dance continuously, in whirling movements, from one ball to another, as they become intoxicated with love. The settings are opulent and Louisa is decked out in magnificent gowns and the Baron in handsome uniforms. At first, they dance among numerous other couples, but gradually the dancers thin out until they alone continue to dance. The dialog between them includes comments about how many days its been since they last danced (15, then 3, then 2, then 1). He asks her how her husband is doing initially but near the end, she inquires, “Aren’t you going to ask about my husband?” to which he responds abruptly, “No!” The lighting is initially bright but grows progressively darker, perhaps foreshadowing the doom that their love is likely to call down upon them. In the final segment, the musicians are packing up one by one and the candles on the chandelier are being snuffed, yet they dance on. The dialogue and the changing clothing of Louisa and the Baron indicate that the sequence has transpired over several weeks, but the music and the dancing are continuous. Louisa says, at one point, “Don’t tell me you’re beginning to hope.”
Louisa and the Baron both realize (too late) that they have begun to exceed the bounds of the code of behavior of their circle. During a hunting party, Louisa faints when she sees the Baron at some distance fall from his horse (shades of Anna Karenina!). Louisa tries to recover her composure by precipitously planning a trip abroad so that she can forget about Baron Donati. The Baron, for his part, pays a visit to the General to apologize “for having caused your wife to faint.” When the Baron discovers Louisa’s plan to go away for a while, he sends her flowers and a parting gift – the earrings he purchased in Constantinople. In Italy, Louisa tries to outrun love, causing her servants to complain that they’ve been in seven villages in five weeks. The absence merely swells infatuation into love and she is forced to race home into the arms of the Baron.
Louisa is determined to wear the earrings given to her by the Baron, which will require deceiving both men. She pretends to find them, in front of the General, in her opera gloves. He, of course, knows that they cannot have been merely found since he had himself shipped them off to Constantinople with his ex-mistress. Louisa must also lie to the Baron about what lie she provided for her husband, since he would be offended if he knew that the same earrings had been previously given to her by her husband as a wedding gift. The General, however, has had enough of the double-dealing, and takes the earrings from her, confronting the Baron, “It is incompatible with your dignity and mine for my wife to accept a gift of such value from you.” When the Baron learns that the earrings had already been a gift to Louisa from her husband, he realizes that his romance with Louisa has gone beyond what honor can tolerate and breaks it off. He also realizes that Louisa is as prepared to deceive him as she was her husband. The General tells the Baron to sell the earrings back to the Jeweler, who then sells them for a third time to the General.
The General decides to punish his wife by giving the earrings as a gift to his wife’s niece, which Louisa is forced to observe. The financial circumstances of the niece’s family are distressed, however, and the earrings are once again sold back to the jeweler. This time, the General refuses “the usual transaction” and demands that the jeweler “Stay away from me with those infernal earrings!”, which now represent his wife’s love for the Baron and his own social humiliation. The Countess sells some of her furs and diamonds and buys the earrings from the jeweler herself. This show of persistence on Louisa’s part to hold onto the symbol of her love for the Baron is the last straw. The General says, “This is too ridiculous,” and storms off to challenge the Baron to a duel. Louisa places the earrings on the altar of the church, hoping that the offering will forestall tragedy. You’ll have to discover for yourself whether her stratagem succeeded.
Themes: Max Ophüls was one of the French directors most often cited to support the “auteur theory” that emerged before and during the New Wave, which argues that the art (the style and technique) that goes into the making of a film is more important than the meaning or the narrative. This viewpoint encourages audiences to pay more attention to the artist than the art work – the “how” more than the “what.” I have stated in previously reviews my emphatic disagreement with that point of view. For me, technical mastery of cinematic technique cannot by itself bail out a film that lacks emotional punch or thematic depth. Nevertheless, Ophüls stature for me does not suffer from my rejection of auteur theory. Ophüls’ best films were never truly good supporting evidence for auteur theory. While it is true that his films have dazzling technical values, the best of them also provide strong thematic content as well. Ophüls’ films provide more than romanticized nostalgia for the opulent life of the European royal courts of 1900.
In the case of The Earrings of Madame de . . ., the deeper theme is the stifling to individual fulfillment and freedom by oppressive social conventions, especially among the wealthy upper class. We see this, first, in the interior settings, where the ornate staircases, chandeliers, tables, and gowns provide evidence of great wealth (which ought to confer a kind of freedom) but all this opulence also closes in on and confines the people in this society. The Countess is locked into a marriage which has merely the appearance of happiness, but which lacks romance or love. The beds of the Countess and her husband are in separate rooms. His only concern and that of their social circle is the appearance of stability and the protection of honor, not with what deviations occur in private. Having tasted genuine love, the Countess wants to hold onto it at all cost – and failing that, to retain the earrings as the symbol and remembrance of love. The General and the Baron, on the other hand, both capitulate to the demands of honor and the scripted, destructive rituals that honor demands. In satirizing the peculiar peccadilloes of the European aristocracy, Ophüls is urging viewers not to follow or witlessly impose on others canned codes of behavior or social proscriptions, but to be guided instead by compassion, reason, desires, and common sense. Of course, that only works to the extent that each individual takes the trouble to develop a sound basis for self-directed behavior.
The Earrings of Madame . . . also speaks to viewers on an emotional level. The Countess gains our sympathy and compassion. The feeling we are left with in the end is a kind of sadness because love has been crushed by the rigidity of aristocratic society.
Production Values: Ophüls is a master of extended, sweeping, curling tracking shots, but he also makes effective use of montage sequences. And always, there are the highly ornate settings and glamorous costumes. The net result is a gracefulness of style that few directors can emulate.
The three main performers in this film comprised a magnificent ensemble. Danielle Darrieux is gorgeous to look at. Seventeen years before this film, Darrieux made a big splash as a mere teen actress as the lead in a classic romance Mayerling (1936). She also appeared in another great Ophüls’ film La Ronde (1950). Charles Boyer appeared in Mayerling (1936), Algiers (1938), Around the World in 80 Days (1956), Barefoot in the Park (1967), Casino Royale (1967), and Stavisky (1974). Although Vittorio De Sica is probably more famous today for his work as a director (The Bicycle Thief (1948), Two Women (1960), The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (1971)), he was in great demand in his prime as an actor as well. These three great performers most certainly did not disappoint here.
Bottom-Line: At the time of his early death, Ophüls was one of the top directors in the world. His final four films, including this one, are all rated as masterworks. Ophüls provides a stylish film with The Earrings of Madame . . . , but this is more than mere artifice. The clever circular plot adds a touch of farce and the conflict between love and social conventions adds an element of tragedy. This is a highly entertaining film, emotionally engaging and beautiful to watch. In comparison with other Ophüls films, it was, for me, on equal footing with La Ronde and better than Lola Montès (which was good but not as involving overall). This film is in French with English subtitles and has a running time of 100 minutes.
************************************************************************************************* You might want to check out these other excellent films from France:
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.