Film Review: Bel Ami

Directed by Declan Donnellen and Nick Ormerod. Written by: Rachel Bennette. Adapted from the novel by Guy De Maupassant. Stars: Robert Pattinson, Uma Thurmon, Kristen Scott Thomas, and Christina Ricci. Released: 2012

Bel Ami was originally published in France in 1885, and quickly became controversial for its critical look at the upper class, media (newspapers) and politics of the day (The novel has a general setting of the same time, the film’s setting is Paris, 1890). Today it is still considered one of the great classics of French literature.

Wait a minute! A scathing look at high society, rich people, politicians and journalists acting self serving and less than honourable...say it ain’t so! Bel Ami’s themes and characters still resonate 127 years later.

I must also admit that I read the book about three years ago, so my memory of it may not be all that fresh.  My biggest criticism of the recent adaptation when compared with the the novel is that it is fairly watered down, in particular the character of Georges Duroy (Pattinson).

But this is not a critique about the book, but a streamlined film adaptation.

The cinematography is very lovely and lush, it reflects the era and represents the opulent way the upper class lived at the time. Along with beautiful, well tailored period costumes and rich sets that help to recreate Paris before the turn of the century.

Co –directors Declan Donellen and Nick Ormerod are known and respected in the UK for their theatre work and Donnellen has written books on theatre acting as well. This is their first feature film, and there is promise if they wish to continue. At times during Bel Ami due to the blocking of the actors, it made it feel that I was watching a play. This is isn’t necessarily a bad thing and I think it was more of a natural fallback for the directors.

The core of Bel Ami’s ruthless world is the French occupation of Morocco, so there is a political and historical aspect as well. The media, (in this day newspapers) are able to bring down governments and ruin reputations and lives with a print of an article. Back door wheelings and dealings are rampant. Everyone is ambitious; everyone lies and cheats to get what they want and sex is a tool used by men and women. The title of Bel Ami or beautiful friend is ironic, since there are very little friendly and beautiful people. We see early on the three powerful females Georges seduces and uses and manipulates for their influence and connections to powerful men to get ahead. They are the movers and shakers. As Georges is told early on, “The most important people in Paris are not the men, but their wives.” He ends up hating what the women become to represent, especially Madeleine Forestier who his is closest equal. What exactly is it about George, besides that he’s good looking, young and charming that makes these women fall for him? Or is it simply that?  That is something not shown in the film.

The acting by Pattinson who gives a good performance (although his greenness at times does come across by falling back on looking angry) and shows his promise, brings Georges’ loathing for poverty and his hatred and disgust for those around him and their mocking of him the strongest. Greatly symbolized in a scene of Georges killing a cockroach with excessive blows and force. He is cunning, greedy and manipulative. He just somehow ends up playing the game better than everyone. Georges is not a likeable man (even less likeable in the book) and not a character that many young actors might be keen to play. He manages to move up in society with these talents, along with his fake charm and good looks.  To sum up Georges as said by Madeleine “I didn’t realize how empty you are and only filled with rage. I should have chained you. Like an animal! That is what you are.”

As mentioned Georges is less likable in the book, and part of the watering down I mentioned is with his characterization. There is a scene near the end where he feels pity for himself and calls himself a fool, while talking to Clotilde (Ricci) after once again making a spectacle and showing his impulsiveness. Again I’ll admit my memory is a little fuzzy remembering the book, but from what I remember, George never wanted pity from others, he hated pity and at this point in the book, he only feels rage, feeling he has been wronged too many times. I feel this is an attempt, maybe by some studio head or a poor direction/writing/editing choice. As if today’s audience couldn’t handle a completely un-redeeming character.  It would have been better to stay how it was in the novel and Maupassant’s spirit and characterization. Keep George un-redeeming and filled with rage and only wanting revenge, money and power. It also makes it worse that this scene has a romantic undertone between George and Clotilde to add to his sympathy.  He tells he is sorry for hurting her and then asks “Why do you come back to me?”, “I don’t know. Because you never expect me to.” Responds Clotilde.

In the end though, Georges gets his revenge, money and power.

 It is not a perfect film, but not as bad as some critics made it out to be. If you are like me a fan of period films and ruthless characters, give Bel Ami a try.