“The Princess of Montpensier”
Directed by Bertrand Tavernier
Paradis Films and StudioCanal
“The Princess of Montpensier” is a French romance set in 16th century France and is the story of the young Marie de Mézières (Mélanie Thierry), heiress to one of France’s greatest fortunes. The film is an adaption of the 17th-century novel of the same name, generally recognized as the first historical novel in French literature.
As the title suggest, the story is as princess-centric as they come, and Thierry takes on the part of the fair-skinned princess whose extreme charms hypnotizes not one, not two, not three, but a total of four members of the French nobility including a prince, a count and two dukes.
It’s a soap opera, 16th-century style.
The princess is in love with the dashing Duc de Guise (Gaspard Ulliel), but alas, she has been promised to the Prince of Montpensier (Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet), who turns out to be a ferociously jealous husband. When the prince is summoned to go to war against the Protestants, he sends his new wife to his most secluded castle under the supervision of his old mentor Comte de Chabannes (Lambert Wilson), who naturally also falls in love with her. After the war is won, both Duc de Guise and the prince return to the princess’ lodging, and they are all joined by the future king Henri III, Duc d’Anjou (Raphaël Personnaz), who, need I say it, is also won over by the charms of the young damsel.
Who will she choose? To get to the bottom of that mystery, you’re going to have to sit through 139 minutes of exactly what you’d expect after reading the plot outline. The princess is distressed and confused. The men are frustrated and aggressive. Director Bertrand Tavernier’s attempts at presenting the princess as a strong, head-held-high, vivacious woman fails miserably as she sobs, whines and mopes her way through the film.
Despite the film’s many conflicts and sexually infused intrigues, nothing whatsoever is even remotely new or exciting about this story. On the surface, Thierry looks perfect for the part as the Princess, but as soon as she opens her mouth, she becomes really annoying, really fast. She lacks both the charisma and authority to make it seem believable that some of the nation’s most sought-after bachelors are coming unhinged at the mere thought of her.
In addition, Leprince-Ringuet as the prince delivers a performance so weak, I got the feeling he must have walked on set directly from Sunday school, which made his attempts at aggressive outbursts of violent jealousy extremely pitiful to watch. The only halfway decent performance is given by Wilson as the distinguished mentor figure, who seems to have at least a smidgen of weight and substance under his composed exterior.
Aesthetically speaking, however, the film hits the nail on the head. It’s one frame after the other of luscious nature landscapes, savage battle scenes, lavish castles and the beautiful people who roam their halls. The princess herself is clad in dresses that would make Hubert de Givenchy’s couture seem like school projects.
And, of course, being a princess and all, the princess is also extraordinarily beautiful; a fact that is played up so much it almost deserves its own credit. The only moments in the film in which her heaving bosom does not appear to be on the verge of breaking free from its lacey confinement seems to be when she is, in fact, already naked. Perhaps to compensate for her lack of acting skills.
If you are a fan of 16th-century decor and dying sit through more than two hours of “I love you ““ but I can’t have you,” then, by all means, you should go. But I, for one, was neither moved, nor frightened, nor sad, nor engaged.
I went, I watched, I wished I could have spent my night differently.