Bonjour Tristesse Is Lovely and Unconvincing

by

In making a film adaptation of “Bonjour Tristesse“, the primary requirement is that it should be visually stunning, and Durga Chew-Bose’s version undeniably meets this criterion. By subtly modernizing Françoise Sagan’s classic 1954 novel, Chew-Bose paints her scenes with sunlit figures and faces, fashionable attire, refined settings, and the leisurely relaxation characteristic of the affluent on their seaside vacations. A common query when authors venture into film directing is whether they possess a keen visual sense, and in this case, it’s evident that Chew-Bose does, and her talent will no doubt benefit her future projects.

Interestingly, the novel Bonjour Tristesse falters in its narrative structure and character development, aspects typically mastered by authors. This difficulty may be due to the unique nature of the book itself. At just 18 years old when it was published, Sagan skillfully depicted the destructive and self-centered apathy of a teenager who saw people as disposable playthings. The character Cecile, portrayed by Lily McInerny in this adaptation, embodies the existential malaise of her era.

Cecile neglects to prepare for her philosophy exams, yet she encapsulates the disillusionment of her time. Her father, Raymond (Claes Bang), has been moving from one lover to another since his wife’s passing, and he finds himself in an uncomfortable situation with two women at their summer retreat. He is involved in a casual but passionate relationship with Elsa (Nailia Harzoune), when Anne (Chloë Sevigny) enters their lives. Anne was not only Raymond’s late wife’s closest friend, but also a renowned fashion designer.

Readers acquainted with the tale of “Bonjour Tristesse” will recognize it ventures into dramatically intense scenarios. The narrative’s coherence hinges upon grasping its central conflict. Raymond develops an unforeseen, profound connection with Anne, which Cecile perceives as a danger to her enigmatic bond with her father and their carefree existence. The mature, responsible Anne urges Cecile to focus on her education and even endeavors to instill some structure in the girl’s lifestyle. If the characters and their behaviors fail to resonate, the plot will crumble — because it verges on the absurd. However, the narrative holds together on paper due to Sagan’s ability to portray Cecile’s vacant, malicious apathy as well as her hidden fixation on Raymond. (It was speculated that the story contained autobiographical elements, which only served to amplify the author’s fame.)

Unfortunately, Chew-Bose’s performance feels overly reserved. This could be due to the period setting of the story, which includes kept women, idle wives, flirtatious businessmen, and a casual, boozy frankness about such topics, that seems removed from our more conscious and sensitive contemporary era. The themes have become so subtle in the film that they almost vanish. Both McInerny and Bang are capable actors, with Bang having delivered numerous impressive performances, but their portrayal of a parent-child relationship stricken by dangerous codependency lacks conviction. In certain scenes, they appear as if they don’t know each other at all. McInerny effectively portrays Cecile’s anxiety but fails to capture her strategic or her hidden cruelty; she seems far too ordinary, too understandable, too … ordinary. Perhaps this is intentional, but it leads the film’s climax to feel empty and artificial.

It’s especially disappointing in this scenario as Sevigny breathes incredible depth into the character of Anne, portraying a seemingly self-assured and accomplished woman with hidden vulnerabilities that make her feel relatable and intimate to viewers – even while she eats ice cream. In essence, Anne seems so real and alive on screen that it only enhances our dismay when we consider where the movie ultimately leads us.

To put it plainly, I must confess a certain bias in my assessment. In 1958, Otto Preminger directed a film adaptation of Bonjour Tristesse that ranks among my favorites from his oeuvre. Preminger, known for his grandiose style, chose to contrast Sagan’s ethereal narrative. His portrayal of Cecile was Jean Seberg, who embodied a charming yet disaffected chatiness; Raymond was brought to life by David Niven, with his reedy charm and caddish demeanor. Their seemingly innocent kisses gradually unfolded a twisted narrative. The performances exposed the characters’ tragic folly; their attitudes hinted at a father who failed to mature and a daughter heading down the wrong path. Preminger’s wide-angle camera encircled these wealthy, reckless, dangerous individuals as if they were bound by fate. Deborah Kerr portrayed Anne with such radiant goodness that she seemed destined for trouble from the very beginning (compared to Sevigny’s Anne, who feels much more like a real person).

While not everyone appreciated Preminger’s operatic style (a style typical of its era), it was famously adopted by the French New Wave, particularly by filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard. Godard once hinted that his 1960 groundbreaking film, “Breathless,” featuring Seberg, was a sort of continuation of Preminger’s earlier work, “Bonjour Tristesse.” However, it’s worth noting that Godard was known for making many such statements. Going one step further, François Truffaut suggested that “Bonjour Tristesse” could be seen as a sequel to Preminger’s earlier film, “Saint Joan,” also starring Seberg. Preminger, being a veteran of noir films, may have grasped the essence of Sagan’s story – it does not thrive on subtleties or realism. Chew-Bose’s endeavor is commendable as she aims to create an immersive, convincing, and captivating world. She manages to make progress towards this goal, but I’m unsure if she ever truly reached her intended destination.

Read More

2025-05-05 17:54