fatal attraction
by Douglas Messerli
Claude Chabrol and Pierre Leccia
(screenplay, based on the novel by Ruth Rendell), Claude Chabrol (director) La Demoiselle d'honneur (The Bridesmaid) / 2004, USA 2006
There is no doubt, clearly, that a late work such as his 2004 The Bridesmaid, is perhaps a bit less
ghoulish than his 1970 masterwork Le
Boucher, and he is obviously more forgiving of the inexperienced mother’s
boy, Philippe Tardieu (Benoît Magimel) than he might have been of some of his
former unintentional villains; but Tardieu is no less a dark victim than the
central figure, for example, of Adrian Lyne’s 1987 film, Fatal Attraction. Except Philippe is not cheating on another woman—other
than, perhaps, for his over-attentive mother, Christine (Aurore Clément), who
herself has just been jilted by a suave liar, andwho might be perceived as
another kind of “fatal attraction”—but is indirectly responsible for the death Gérard
Courtois (Bernard Le Coq).
As some film historians have stressed, it is a seemingly well-adjusted family,
behind whose smiles they keep dark secrets that we gradually perceive, through
Chabrol’s usual investigation into family relationships, as a series of deep
problems that never truly come to the surface except at film’s end.
We suspect, for example, that although Sophie may find temporary
happiness with her seemingly simple-minded groom, she will not be able to
transform it into the happy marriage she seeks; Patricia, as I have already
mentioned, is a troubled adolescent, and near the end of the film is arrested
for a robbery to help her maintain her drug habit.
Philippe’s psychological downfall is far more complex. What begins as a
quick obsession of Sophie’s husband’s cousin, Stéphanie “Senta” Bellange (Laura
Smet) becomes, after the two meet, fall in
Senta, the name this clearly crazed woman has given to herself, seems to
perceive Philippe as the man of her dreams, the one for who she has been
waiting for all of her life. And to prove his love she begins to demand
outrageously absurd actions, which, at first, he simply shakes off as a
joke—particularly since so many of her stories about her career as an actor
(not “actress” designation for her!), which seems to constantly be shifting, as
she disappears for long periods to Paris, evidently auditioning for further
parts.
Senta, believing his act is real, plots her own “murder,” reporting back
that she has found Courtois, the man who has disappeared from her lover’s
mother’s life, and stabbed him to death while he was out jogging.
If, at first he again doubts her veracity, he is still determined to
check the facts, visiting Courtois’ new estate, to find the man well and alive,
a dog barking outside his home (despite the fact that his mother has long ago
suggested Courtois does not like dogs).
It is a clue, of course, that most of the audiences easily misses. As we
discover from the police when Philippe is questioned about why he has visited Courtois the very day they
have found a guest’s body nearby, stabbed to death; Senta has indeed
accomplished her murder, only delivering up death to the wrong man.
Despite all he now knows, Philippe still returns to Senta’s basement
hovel, reassuring her that he will never leave her even as the police knock on
her basement windows, obviously having now traced the murder to her through
Philippe.
What we also realize in Philippe’s gentle strokes of her forehead is
that she has become a kind of stone figure, the same kind of figure that his
mother (who is said to look like the stature) has given Courtois early in the
film, and which Philippe has later stolen back and hidden away in his closet.
Throughout Chabrol’s somewhat macabre film, the handsome boy takes it out,
stroking it, and even sleeping beside it. Now that Senta has become that stone
sculpture he is strangely at peace, offering her a protection that he obviously
cannot ever provide, an Orpheus to an Eurydice who has just turned to look
back.
Los Angeles, May 29, 2017
Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment