User Reviews

I'm not quite sure what the appeal is to this movie, but it's definitely there. I've watched this several times in the past 15 years and always got involved with it....and it's companion piece, "Manon of the Spring." If given a choice, I prefer the latter movie, only perhaps because this is a frustrating story, seeing a good man get ruined simply for greed. Both stories are well-done.

This tragic tale of two greedy people driving a nice man and his family off their land is not just frustrating but sad, especially since their is no happy ending, with the man dying while trying to salvage his property. The second film is years later when the daughter, now grown up, gets revenge.

Gerald Depardieu is the nice guy here, the one we all root for while Yves Montand and Daniel Auteuil are the greedy jerks. These three are famous French actors who always give their audiences good performances.

A big plus in this film is the very nice cinematography, which is why I bought this when it first came out on DVD. If the story depresses you at all, go right into the sequel immediately for a more satisfying ending to the whole tale. Both movies were made in 1987.

In a nutshell, this is good storytelling.

"So this hunchback marries a supermodel..." Beyond how the valorized title family ever came together this movie has beaucoup des problems.

My sister and I were discussing this movie and it's sequel a few years back. Thinking I was making a non-controversial remark, I said the second movie was obviously better. She yelped "NO WAY! The first one was way better." I thought she must be recalling it wrong, or maybe I was. It's taken me a while, but I finally rewatched this last night.

And... I was right. It's exactly the way I remember it, and I've never viewed it a 2nd time in the twenty years that passed, since it was released in '86. It is precisely as deliberate, plodding, overlong, tiresome, repetitive, obvious... as I recall.

Since a laugh might disrupt the sermon, there isn't an ounce of humor in it. And for a movie that has no developments in its 2nd act, Jean D.F. is easily half an hour too long. It just sits there, and viewers are asked to do nothing beyond identifying the virtuous and villainous within a minute of their appearance. Then the pattern begins; each new scene again affirms that Jean, and the 2 genetically-blessed females in his household, are virtuous, and that the ugly or old Soubeyrans are treacherous dogs. This movie has NO dramatic arc and no payoff. It's a completely non-rich, non-nourishing viewing experience. Oh? The villagers don't reach out to the new family? Well neither do we see Jean & co. make any effort to connect to the community in the 3 years (!) they're there, unless the community comes to their farm offering gifts. Without Ugolin they'd be monks. Mrs. Jean and Manon have no emotional life whatsoever in this. The part of Mrs. Jean is barely written. Manon is a taciturn, blank-faced little robot. They're both infinitely less interesting or likable than Ugolin, even with his faults.

The height of absurdity is reached when Jean & co arrive at the farm; he plays the theme music on his harmonica and Mrs. Jean chimes in (a la Snow White) with some tra-la-las. Jean embraces and caresses Mrs. Jean, framed perfectly by a rustic window. Guh!, it's like porn for women. The only way to squeeze more pastiche into the frame is if a bird landed on her finger, and began to tweet along. It's a powerfully unsubtle image that will probably never be matched for sheer corniness.

The sequel Manon of the Spring is amazing, supplying all the development and emotion that this never gets around to; sorrow, pity, pathos, humor, rueful ironies, and of course that devastating ending. The fates visited upon Ugolin and Soubeyran are truly terrible. Plus, it actually has pacing! This is a tedious obstacle to endure on the way to the superior sequel.

"Jean de Florette" owes its success to Pagnol's particularly intelligent story, which, taken verbatim from his novel, Claude Berry and Gerard Brach translated into images.

A good story must have a plot, a compelling conflict, and characters that we care about who change as a result of their experiences. This particular story qualifies unquestionably as a good one, on all these points. The viewer is kept in suspense, continuously questioning the outcome of the story, which moves forward from crisis point to crisis point. We can see that a large part of the scriptwriter's role is to ask questions, and then provide the right answers at the right time. These answers can be partial, ambiguous, even contradictory, in order to reinforce the viewer's suspense and questioning.

The first question posed in "Jean de Florette" concerns the success of Ugolin and César in their "carnation project." Will they succeed in getting the critical water necessary for the cultivation of these flowers? This question interests us because these two characters have been introduced as somewhat likable, worthy of our support, although, following Pique-Bouffigue's demise, we may have second thoughts about their integrity.

A second question rises with the arrival of Jean Cadoret. Will his project of raising rabbits, a project directly in conflict with Ugolin's, succeed? Although we may have considered at first Jean as an intruder who comes and upsets Ugolin's plan, we also realize that the dice are loaded in Ugolin's favor, and our sympathy slowly shifts toward Jean. But we still keep a somewhat favorable image of Ugolin and "le Papet," still hoping for positive answers to these first two questions.

Pagnol now determines that the progress of the drama toward its conclusion, that is to say the answers to these two questions, will depend on subjective, internal factors, such as the personalities or the stubbornness of the characters, and not on external or providential circumstances.

Thus, the new questions now being posed are about the nature of the characters. Can Ugolin carry out his duplicitous game to its conclusion? Will he make a mistake and be discovered, or will he be overcome by a sense of guilt and help Jean by revealing the presence of the spring at "les Romarins?" The viewer hopes that in the end Ugolin will give in to his positive instincts. As for César, the spectator knows that "le Papet," in spite of all the difficulties arising along the way, will never abandon Ugolin's project. Yet the viewer has detected something peculiar concerning César 's reaction when Florette's departure from the village is mentioned. We therefore suspect that somehow Florette's past relationship with César could bring about a positive change in his behavior. Independently, Jean's character will also dominate the outcome of the story. We wonder if his enthusiasm, boundless optimism, and his erudition will somehow contribute to his failure. Jean's scientific approach to his project is itself a sort of revenge against Nature that made him "un bossu," - a hunchback, and therefore he will never abandon it.

As the film progresses, our attention narrowly focuses on the principal characters and their evolution. We are not distracted by outside events. At the same time, we are torn between the two conflicting wishes for the success of two conflicting projects. This is the originality of "Jean de Florette" and what distinguishes this story from the usual, vulgar Manichaean novels or films.

The themes are the city versus the country, modern versus traditional, and good versus bad.

Jean, returning to the country to cultivate the "othentic," is an idealist, more or less in the Jean-Jacques Rousseau's tradition. His knowledge has all been acquired in books. He speaks in the idiom of the bureaucrat that he was. He constantly quotes statistics to guide his project and to convince himself and his listeners how Nature should and will behave. He tackles his project with a definitively modern, scientific approach. Nothing is left to chance: everything is anticipated and calculated.

To the villagers, because of his language, education, and culture, Jean is a kind of pedantic usurper colliding with the peaceful, traditional aspects of their village life. They make fun of Jean because his knowledge was acquired in books, not by experience. These villagers speak with the melodious Provençal accent, their conversations peppered with old, colorful sayings and local proverbs. The people of "les Bastides" are isolated from Jean's world by their hills. They are attached to the land they have worked for centuries, and to their way of life.

However, Pagnol, by presenting us with Jean's failure, seems to distance himself from the intellectual tradition, while, at the same time, not considering the country life as a perfect universe, without conflicts. He illustrates the violence that can result from the peasants' deep attachment to their lands. Pagnol exposes us to the tribal mentality of the villagers against "foreigners," such as the inhabitants of the nearby village of Crespin. The only outsiders accepted by the villagers are the "pillars" of a village society: the priest, the doctor, and the school teacher, which the village needs in order to exist. Finally, Pagnol shows us the deep motivation of Ugolin and César that is also easily understood by a city-dweller: making money.

Pagnol's message is thus humanistic in so far as, without ridicule or Manichaeism, he presents the motivations and different points of view of each of his characters. On the same humanistic level, the story demonstrates that not withstanding apparent differences, such as social, regional or physical, all people are alike and deserve to be treated humanely. As such, according to Pagnol, the village life is idyllic, but for the eventual presence of harmful individuals such as Ugolin and César.

In spite of Pagnol's naïve idealism, the films still succeed, because we are ultimately able to tie up all the loose ends, and to reconcile the warring factions through family and blood ties that transcend any geography.