The Earrings of Madame De... (1954): Ophüls Gold?

Max Ophüls is considered one of the great film directors of the 20th century. "The Earrings of Madame De…" is considered perhaps his greatest work or certainly one of them. His other movies of the same period include La Ronde (1950), Le Plaisir (1952) and Lola Montes (1955). While I had heard of all of these films, I had not actually seen any of Ophüls work before last week, when I watched Madame De with some friends. It is a tragic love story. It is beautifully shot in black and white. It has a great cast and is well acted. It also is overlong and suffers from a plodding, trite plot; or at least so it seemed to me and my fellow cinephiles.

Afterwards, we re-watched portions of the film with commentary (on the excellent Criterion Collection DVD) and I read up a little about Ophüls oeuvre, in order to better understand what we had seen and why this director was so highly regarded. From a technique perspective, Ophüls was admired for his emphasis on long, single camera tracking shots. In other words, he would shoot entire scenes with one camera, on a track, sliding along with the actor or with the action, pivoting where necessary, but without any intercutting from other perspectives or cameras. Madame De included several instances of this, including the opening shot, which tracks the female protagonist, Louise (Danielle Darrieux) - the youngish wife of wealthy, noble General Andre de … (Charles Boyer) - in her boudoir as she carefully selects a piece of jewelry to hock. Watching that opening scene a second time, paying particular attention to how it was shot, I had to admit that it was beautifully and creatively done. Thinking back, the same was true of several other moments in the film. Although Ophüls wasn't the first to use tracking shots, he was a master at it. Undoubtedly, well worth examining in film school.

Still, no matter how excellent or groundbreaking the technique, a film needs to engage us on other levels. Few people would watch Citizen Kane nowadays, notwithstanding Orson Welles' numerous creative innovations, if the story and the characters didn't engage us; but that film still works and is much more entertaining than Madame De.

Some reviewers cite the romanticism of Madame De as a wondrous attraction; but I found the love affair and the romantic anguish of the story superficial and unconvincing. Some have lauded the lavish environment in which the film is set, and while this was interesting, I've certainly seen better, such as the lush trappings of Visconti’s 1954 epic, Senso, as one example.The tragic romance was also far more convincing in that picture.

Here, we are asked to take it on faith that Louise, who likes to flirt with other men, actually falls in love with the Italian diplomat Baron Donati (Vittorio de Sica). In the late 19^th century world depicted in this movie, a married noblewoman is permitted her flirtations, but not an extramarital affair. (This rule does not apply to the men, of course.) For a woman to engage in such an affair is tres dangereux, potentially resulting in humiliation and even death. Okay, but the story doesn’t work if no particular motivation or reason is provided  for the protagonists to fall in love. While it is apparent that Louise is not in love with her husband, we are not shown why. The General is considerably older than Louise, but the Baron is every bit as old. Indeed, the husband and the paramour are very much alike: both are wealthy men of the world, suave and sophisticated. In Senso, by contrast, we understand very clearly why the Contessa is unhappy in her marriage and why she is attracted to her dashing young lover.

The acting of Darrieux, De Sica and particularly Boyer is quite good, but absent a solid story, it is not good enough to keep the movie interesting for its entire 105 minutes. Despite Darrieux’ efforts, her character comes across as an unlikely protagonist for a love story: Louise is bored much of the time, superficial, and ultimately uninteresting. By the time her situation turns tragic, we really don’t care.

What I did find interesting in Madame De was the depiction of the world of wealth and privilege in which the "action" is set. For example, early on, there is a nearly slapstick scene in which the General rushes in and out of several doors at the opera house repeatedly. At every door there is a uniformed, gold braided doorman, and each is bored out of his skull waiting around for the swells to need a door opened for them; yet the doormen quickly become exasperated when the same patron goes out, then in, then out, then in again, requiring them to get up, open the door, then sit down, then get up again, etc.  Another example is the depiction of the jeweler, Monsieur Remy (Jean Debucourt) a fawning tradesman to the nobility. It is to M. Remy that Louise goes to sell her earrings in the first place. However, it was M. Remy who sold those earrings to the General originally (as a wedding present for Louise), and no sooner does Louise depart than Remy, out of loyalty to the General, goes to him with the earrings to tell him what happened, whereupon the General buys them again from the jeweler. The difference in class and social status between this high-end jeweler and the General is palpable, and interesting to see. Still, these attractions cannot sustain a feature-length film.

I am aware that The Earrings of Madame De … and its director have their fans and supporters. I would love to hear from those folks, who perhaps can explain to me what I have failed to appreciate. I’d also like to know why the surname of the General and Louise are omitted from the title …

This film may be of interest to anyone interested in the history of cinema or directorial technique. If it is a gripping story, a heart-rending tragedy, or simple entertainment you seek, you may want to seek elsewhere.

Available on DVD (Criterion Collection), from Netflix.