In Contention header image 1


REVIEW: “Chéri” (***)

Posted by Guy Lodge · 11:12 am · May 9th, 2009

CheriMy first thought on leaving the theatre after watching Stephen Frears’ crisp, elegantly turned new effort is that it is, in many ways, a consummate Frears film. My second thought, however, ran counter to the first: it has, over the years, become increasingly difficult to define what “a Stephen Frears film” might be.

We are talking about a filmmaker, after all, who deals in polarities, following up the broad music-hall frivolity of the ghastly “Mrs Henderson Presents” with the austere docu-realism of “The Queen,” or a glib studio bauble like “Accidental Hero” with the jagged domestic comedy of “The Snapper.”

The uncharitable could call Frears something of a dilettante, subsuming his own long-term artistic preoccupations beneath a veneer of versatile professionalism. That, however, would be to miss the keen emotional detail and bone-dry irony that lace themselves through all of Frears’ best work.

Whether he finds them in a Chicago record store or an 18th century French chateau, Frears dissects his characters with an amused, academic precision that inevitably reveals the Oxbridge intellectual he is – and it’s a sensibility that meshes beautifully with the prose of Colette, who in 1920, wrote “Chéri” in much the same tartly tragic register that Frears and screenwriter Christopher Hampton tell it. (I discussed the novel in greater depth here.)

Contrary to the shrill period rom-com that the trailer appears to be pitching it as, “Chéri” remains a cutting, economic study of love thwarted by the twinned obstacles of aging and social expectation. Painstakingly mapping the end of the affair between the eponymous 25 year-old playboy (Rupert Friend) and Léa (Michelle Pfeiffer), the world-weary courtesan twice his age, it becomes something of a dual coming-of-age story, as the lovers are forced to accept the indignities of adulthood and middle age, respectively.

It’s a cruel tale, realized in unabashed miniature form by the filmmaker and his typically hand-picked cast and crew. If it runs the risk of occasionally seeming too small, too bijou a narrative too sustain the lush cinematic treatment Frears has afforded it, that’s because, true to its source material, the film is not conceived as a great romance so much as a clear-eyed character study.

If occasionally disguising the film in the outward trappings of a frothy corset-porn romp is what it takes to bring such an unhappy, unflattering evaluation of human nature to the screen, then so be it. The truth outs eventually, thanks to Hampton’s unsentimental interpolation of the novel’s wonderfully acerbic dialogue, and a pair of astute, well-attuned lead performances – most notably a stunning return to premier form for the long-languishing Michelle Pfeiffer.

Rupert Friend and Michelle Pfeiffer in CheriPfeiffer commendably doesn’t shy away from the character’s theatricality, fully embracing Léa’s diva properties with hyper-studied body language and the vampish glee with which she tosses off such lines as “I can’t criticise his character because he doesn’t have one.” But the actress offers a strikingly unguarded flipside to the character’s rigid, overly put-together façade, evident in lovely details like a disappointed mid-orgasm face-fall, or the hasty, too-motherly tone with which she reproaches Chéri for flipping cigarette ash in her jewelry tray.

It’s in the moments that bridge these two modes of behavior, however, that the performance is most compelling. Her exquisite final scene, culminating in Léa recomposing herself in the mirror as her lover’s fate is articulated in voiceover (a far more graceful allusion to the events of the novel’s sequel than had I expected from Hampton’s adaptation) could form the bedrock of what would be a well-deserved awards campaign later in the year.

It’s a daunting star turn to contend with, but Friend, fresh from his film-stealing turn in “The Young Victoria,” holds his own. Some have complained of the detached nature of the performance – missing the point in the process – but it succeeds because Friend pays equal attention to capturing Chéri’s louche, disaffected air while demonstrating just how much work goes into it.

Only Kathy Bates, as Chéri’s wily battle-axe of a mother, misses her marks slightly, blustering through Hampton’s zesty banter to sometimes entertaining effect, but often playing the comedy in too high a key compared to that of her co-stars. She delights in the character’s blatant vulgarity, but in doing so neglects her more calculating qualities, rendering the novel’s delicious battle of wills between her and Léa somewhat lopsided on film.

Michelle Pfeiffer in CheriBates is not entirely to blame, however; Frears himself takes some time to acquire complete tonal control over the material. He does so eventually, and the film blossoms as a result, resulting in an elegiac and surprisingly moving final act.

But the film gets off to a rough start, its opening 20 minutes stifled by choppy scene transitions and Frears’ own plummy, too-whimsical-by-half narration (the tone of which suggests that the director only took on the task because Stephen Fry was unavailable). It is, thankfully, a short-lived misjudgment: as the tensions between the characters come into relief, the narration falls away (only to return in a more sober, suitable register at the end) and the whole enterprise begins to breathe, and ultimately, to sing.

If that sounds like a compromised proposition, rest assured there is plenty to delight in even during the film’s wobblier stretches, not least its pristine technical properties. Consolata Boyle’s impeccable costumes rise above mere spectacle, affording each player a distinct, character-serving palette and silhouette, lovingly caught in Darius Khondji’s dusky lensing. Alexandre Desplat’s wistful, Belle Epoque-infused score, meanwhile, is a triumph; no composer today treads the line between restraint and romanticism with such finesse.

These contributions add up to a film of small, refined pleasures – “a Stephen Frears film,” unmistakably, and his most stylish and rewarding since “High Fidelity,” at that. Not everyone will respond to its cool reserve, but “Chéri” matches the scale of its delicate literary source, and serves its epicurean characters rather well.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon


Related Posts

→ 17 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Reviews

17 responses so far

  • 1 5-09-2009 at 1:09 pm

    red_wine said...

    You seem to have liked it quite a bit. By ‘his most rewarding since High Fidelity’ do you mean you liked it better than The Queen?

    And how does it compare to Atonement, another decidedly minor British period piece that somehow went on to score a best picture nomination?

  • 2 5-09-2009 at 2:28 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    I think it’s a better film than “The Queen,” yes. But then I always thought “The Queen” was a flat, overgrown TV special that got lucky. So make of that what you will.

    I don’t think “Atonement” is really a relevant comparison at all — the films couldn’t be more different tonally, thematically or structurally.

  • 3 5-09-2009 at 5:10 pm

    /3rtfu11 said...

    More bashing of Kathy Bates. If she were a man her style of acting would never be questioned or look at as over the top.

  • 4 5-09-2009 at 7:05 pm

    Jim said...

    Guy, you’re a very good writer! I want to see this film but not very much. And I thought Mrs Henderson was better than the Queen.

  • 5 5-09-2009 at 7:32 pm

    Patryk said...

    Hope this can match the brilliance of “Prick Up Your Ears,” “The Grifters,” or “Dangerous Liaisons.” At the very least this should cop another Best Original Score nomination for Desplat. And Frears gets some iconic performances from his leading actresses.

  • 6 5-09-2009 at 7:50 pm

    Winston said...

    let the oscar campaign begin for the strong candidates of Actress in a Leading Role, Costume Design, Cinematography, and Best Original Score. possible screenplay.

  • 7 5-09-2009 at 9:31 pm

    BurmaShave said...

    For me, the only Frears film of this era that touches his early work is DIRTY PRETTY THINGS. Besides that he’s kind of a journeyman for hire, though no doubt one of the best.

  • 8 5-09-2009 at 9:35 pm

    andrew said...

    This might sound pretty selfish and immature, but if she gets a nomination but there are better performances than her I would still want her to win. And this is months ahead of surely many great performances by actresses to come. She is my all time favorite actress, and I would be incredibly pleased if she finally won an Oscar. Now. I don’t cared for what. Where was her statue for for TFBB? What about her not getting a nomination for her icy, piercing work in White Oleander while Kathy Bates got a nomination that year for a cameo in About Schmidt? (I do like that film a lot, and Kathy was funny, but seriously an Oscar nod)

    I normally do not get this aggressive about wanting a favorite to win, but she is my personal goddess. Although I would probably feel the same for Julianne Moore.

  • 9 5-10-2009 at 12:42 am

    Lian said...

    You sound pretty selfish and immature, andrew but, I like that^^
    Pfeiffer is brilliant!

  • 10 5-10-2009 at 1:12 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    /3rtfu11: “More bashing of Kathy Bates”

    What are you talking about? I love Kathy Bates, always have. One of the finest character actors we have these days. I just felt she misjudged this particular role.

  • 11 5-10-2009 at 6:05 am

    BobMcBob said...

    nudity?

  • 12 5-10-2009 at 6:07 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Very little.

  • 13 5-10-2009 at 10:34 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Bates has gotten many a pass on some doozies throughout her career, I have to say. The comment about “if she were a man” is stupid and not worth much of a response, but I’ve always thought there were times she “misjudged” a part. I include much of her most respected work in there, too.

  • 14 5-10-2009 at 10:42 pm

    red_wine said...

    In Revolutionary Road, I though any moment now she’s about to burst into laughter. But I thought the same thing for Meryl Streep in Doubt too.

  • 15 5-10-2009 at 11:09 pm

    Lian said...

    Streep overacted in Doubt imo.

    Maybe Overacting=Academy style of acting, so no problem!

  • 16 5-11-2009 at 7:18 am

    Dark Lord said...

    Hey Guy, I read so many different reviews on Cheri in the UK sites/blogs. I don’t know what to make of it anymore. How can a film get 5 stars and praises on one hand and then you turn the page ( click the mouse) and it switches to a 1 star ? Even the performaces, some praise them , some say Michelle Pfeiffer was miscast. So what is it?

  • 17 5-11-2009 at 8:05 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    “So what is it?”

    What my review says it is. Haha.

    Seriously, though, the critical reaction doesn’t surprise me. It is a flawed work, creaky at the outset, and some will inevitably be left cold by the brittleness of the characters. It is, however, a successful adaptation in that it retains the novel’s ironic distance, which is a tricky thing to do.