Imagine if someone made a Dickens biopic and staged it like a European art film. "Les Soeurs" is just that confused. I couldn't tell what they were going for, unless, as my mother postulated, the French are getting back at Charlotte for her unfavorable views on Francophone culture.
Maybe there wasn't a lot of information available on the Brontë family in 1979, but all the exciting parts that I'd want to see dramatized are either rushed through or absent. First of all, take the scene with Anne and the children in the yard when they discuss capturing and torturing small animals. This aggravated Anne to no end, yet the blocking and line delivery in that scene couldn't be more dispassionate about something so sick! The Brontës' novels are full of violent behavior, imagery and emotions, yet none of that is depicted here! By the time the novels are brought up, I have gotten no sense of the turmoil that inspired them. We are not privy to the girls' thoughts, and isn't that what biopics should be about? The film jumps around with regard to the events, making it feel rushed despite a two-hour runtime. Before you know it, Emily, Anne and Branwell are dead and we know nothing of the crippling depression Charlotte is documented to have suffered as a result! It's like the idea behind this film had nothing to do with showing us who the Brontës were, but just uses their names for some reason! Charlotte's depression lets us know how much she loved her siblings, but the direction doesn't allow for such warmth between them. The Brontës are compelling figures to me because if you read their letters etc., you realize that the Victorians had the same senses of humor, sarcasm and flaws as us modern folk. They were nowhere near this dour, particularly in their youth.
As if that didn't rip my heart out and stomp on it, there's the treatment of Charlotte's relationship with her Belgian schoolmaster, Constantin Héger. Who did they get to play this alluring, passionate man who shook up her whole life and inspired her most compelling characters? Some guy with ugly 70s hair that makes me think of a walrus. Jesus, she LOST HER MIND for this man, sending him letters that reached "You Oughta Know" levels of desperation, and all of it is run through like they're trying to get it over with!!! It culminates with a brief, brief scene where Héger's wife (yes) hands Constantin one of the letters, and he immediately rips in in half unread. That's not fair; we don't know what he did with the letters, just that they were torn up at some point. Did these people sympathize with Charlotte at all? Then why was this film made?
Let me give credit where credit is due. Marie-France as Charlotte is perfect casting, and she deserved a better Brontë movie. You feel that she IS Charlotte, and she IS Lucy Snowe. May she rest in peace. Another strength is that the film looks gorgeous. But there are problems with the visuals, too. I think they blew their budget on the costumes and couldn't afford to film in Haworth, London or Brussels. Brussels is a big city, and all we see of it is a schoolroom that looks like it could be in the woods! Similarly, Haworth does not look like Haworth. I've seen pictures of the real thing. You can't fool me, movie. I know they didn't have the budget for fantasy sequences about the fantasy stories they wrote as children, but these were very important for their creative development and paint a picture of different people than the ones in this film. And could they not afford to dye Branwell's hair red, or did they just not care? Say it with me: THEY JUST DIDN'T CARE!
I keep hearing there's going to be a miniseries bio of these exceptional people. A series would give the story enough room for everything, so I hope it comes out, like, yesterday. If you want to know about Charlotte's life, read her novels.
Maybe there wasn't a lot of information available on the Brontë family in 1979, but all the exciting parts that I'd want to see dramatized are either rushed through or absent. First of all, take the scene with Anne and the children in the yard when they discuss capturing and torturing small animals. This aggravated Anne to no end, yet the blocking and line delivery in that scene couldn't be more dispassionate about something so sick! The Brontës' novels are full of violent behavior, imagery and emotions, yet none of that is depicted here! By the time the novels are brought up, I have gotten no sense of the turmoil that inspired them. We are not privy to the girls' thoughts, and isn't that what biopics should be about? The film jumps around with regard to the events, making it feel rushed despite a two-hour runtime. Before you know it, Emily, Anne and Branwell are dead and we know nothing of the crippling depression Charlotte is documented to have suffered as a result! It's like the idea behind this film had nothing to do with showing us who the Brontës were, but just uses their names for some reason! Charlotte's depression lets us know how much she loved her siblings, but the direction doesn't allow for such warmth between them. The Brontës are compelling figures to me because if you read their letters etc., you realize that the Victorians had the same senses of humor, sarcasm and flaws as us modern folk. They were nowhere near this dour, particularly in their youth.
As if that didn't rip my heart out and stomp on it, there's the treatment of Charlotte's relationship with her Belgian schoolmaster, Constantin Héger. Who did they get to play this alluring, passionate man who shook up her whole life and inspired her most compelling characters? Some guy with ugly 70s hair that makes me think of a walrus. Jesus, she LOST HER MIND for this man, sending him letters that reached "You Oughta Know" levels of desperation, and all of it is run through like they're trying to get it over with!!! It culminates with a brief, brief scene where Héger's wife (yes) hands Constantin one of the letters, and he immediately rips in in half unread. That's not fair; we don't know what he did with the letters, just that they were torn up at some point. Did these people sympathize with Charlotte at all? Then why was this film made?
Let me give credit where credit is due. Marie-France as Charlotte is perfect casting, and she deserved a better Brontë movie. You feel that she IS Charlotte, and she IS Lucy Snowe. May she rest in peace. Another strength is that the film looks gorgeous. But there are problems with the visuals, too. I think they blew their budget on the costumes and couldn't afford to film in Haworth, London or Brussels. Brussels is a big city, and all we see of it is a schoolroom that looks like it could be in the woods! Similarly, Haworth does not look like Haworth. I've seen pictures of the real thing. You can't fool me, movie. I know they didn't have the budget for fantasy sequences about the fantasy stories they wrote as children, but these were very important for their creative development and paint a picture of different people than the ones in this film. And could they not afford to dye Branwell's hair red, or did they just not care? Say it with me: THEY JUST DIDN'T CARE!
I keep hearing there's going to be a miniseries bio of these exceptional people. A series would give the story enough room for everything, so I hope it comes out, like, yesterday. If you want to know about Charlotte's life, read her novels.