Madame Bovary (1991)

Director:

Claude Chabrol

Writers:

Claude Chabrol (writer)
Gustave Flaubert (novel)

Release Date:

25 December 1991 (USA)

Genre:

Drama

Plot:

In nineteenth-century France, the romantic daughter of a country squire (Emma Rouault) marries a dull country doctor (Charles Bovary)...

Plot Keywords:

Doctor | Boredom | Clubfoot | Seduction | Normandy

Awards:

Nominated for Oscar. Another 1 win & 2 nominations

Cast

Isabelle Huppert	...	Emma Bovary
Jean-François Balmer	...	Le docteur Charles Bovary
Christophe Malavoy	...	Rodolphe Boulanger
Jean Yanne	...	M. Homais - le pharmacien
Lucas Belvaux	...	Leon Dupuis
Christiane Minazzoli	...	La veuve Lefançois
Jean-Louis Maury	...	Merchant Lheureux
Florent Gibassier	...	Hippolyte
Jean-Claude Bouillaud	...	Le père Rouault - un paysan - le père d'Emma
Sabeline Campo	...	Felicité
Yves Verhoeven	...	Justin
Marie Mergey	...	La mère Bovary - la mère de Charles
François Maistre	...	Lieuvain - le conseiller de la préfecture
Thomas Chabrol	...	Le vicomte
Phillippe Abitol

Runtime:

143 min

Country:

France

Language:

French

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.66 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

Australia:PG | Finland:K-13 | Argentina:13 | Chile:14 | Spain:13 | Sweden:11 | UK:PG | USA:PG-13 | Germany:12

Filming Locations:

Lyons-la-Forêt, Eure, France

Company:

CED Productions

Trivia:

In its original French version, one of the masculine voices overheard by Emma during the great Bail sequence is director Claude Chabrol's voice saying: "Mais qu'il en soit fait selon votre desir, ma chere... Lucien!".

Movie Connections:

Referenced in Pourquoi (pas) le Brésil (2004)

Soundtrack:

Les voix du printemps opus 410

Probably the worst collaboration between Chabrol and Huppert...

This movie was really deceptive to me. First, I wanted to watch it as I know that Isabelle Huppert and Claude Chabrol have amazing talents. After watching it, I thought that they both failed. I explain myself : Huppert is too pragmatic and cold to play this role. It seems like she plays every single scene as if she knew what kind of effect she will have on the people around. It's quite borrying. Emma Bovary is not Nana (from Zola's novel), she is someone who is not so interested in success, she is far more interested by passions. She is a woman living in dreams and thinking than life can be passionate as novels. I read the novel just a week before and I think that Flaubert describes well the fact that Emma Bovary is only interested in herself, in her feelings and in a "romanesque" conception of love. Huppert is far too pragmatic and not really romantic. Some scenes look "grotesque" as the one when after dancing with the Baron, she almost faints. It looks like Huppert uses a trick, which makes the scene look false. Moreover, she was probably too old to play the part of Emma Bovary (in the novel, Emma Bovary is twenty or thirty, surely not forty years old). Huppert got the part when she was almost forty and she looks too self-assured to play it well. For example, when she says to Rodolphe that she could have given her life for him, she bugles like mad woman though Emma is a passionate and really weak person. By never showing her weakness, Huppert don't find the good way to play this character.An actress like Anne Brochet or, Irène Jacob would have suited for the part perfectly (these two actresses look young enough). Isabelle Adjani would have probably been too passionate and not enough dreamy to play that part. Jeanne Balibar would have been great too. The other problem is in the way the movie is directed. The beginning of the story is all summed-up by Chabrol who doesn't show the fact that Emma Bovary and her husband Charles are far far different. The voice-over is not a great idea to explain that situation... and the fact that these scenes are so short make probably the actors play their part in a kind of caricature of themselves (which is the main problem of Huppert's interpretation). I think that Huppert and Chabrol were probably too confident to make that movie and that's probably why it can be so deceptive. The cinematography is not so intense and it looks like a movie made for TV. It could have been a quite good adaptation for a movie made for TV and released on a week evening but it's really not enough for a Cinema movie, made by two masters of Cinema.