User Reviews

Alain-Fournier's masterpiece has been one of my all-time favourite novels ever since I first fell under its spell at age fifteen. I was therefore very much looking forward to a new screen adaptation, which I hoped would convert a new generation of viewers to this haunting tale of wistful enchantment, bitter disillusionment and tragic loss. With such strong material, I never doubted for a moment that the world was in for a treat. It turns out I was wrong.

Augustin Meaulnes, it is true, is a ruthless and selfish character to the point of bringing misery to virtually everybody who gets close to him. It needs to be stressed, though, that he can only do this because he is "Grand", great and irresistible. What makes him so is his zest for Life, his spirit of Adventure, and his youthful carelessness, and NOT the fact that, as François Seurel explains in a voice-over, he rescues a class-mate from drowning. Sadly, Seurel's observation IS needed, (26-year-old!) Nicolas Duvauchelle's uninspired portrayal of Meaulnes leaving the viewer scratching his or her head as to why the boys pay him any attention at all. Hostile, floppy-fringed and somehow world-weary, this is not Fournier's big country boy who occasionally likes to please his mother by collecting wild ducks' eggs and trapping pheasants.

Then there is the pivotal wedding party at a mysterious château presided over by children in fancy-dress that Meaulnes gate-crashes and where he meets the embodiment of romantic love, Yvonne de Galais. What should be a dream-like encounter between two children on the cusp of adolescence, as Meaulnes first watches the girl playing the piano for a group of children while day-dreaming about being married to her, and then exchanges a few clumsy words with her on a boat trip the next day, becomes, in the film, a hurried exchange of names in the empty music room before the wedding is called off.

There is no ominous howling Pierrot carrying the body of the jilted groom - in fact, said jilted groom briefly fingers a gun prior to allowing himself to be talked out of any suicidal thoughts by Meaulnes - there are no gypsies and, most importantly, there is no "lost domain", the name of the estate and its owners being revealed to Meaulnes almost right from the outset.

Instead, the film rather clumsily conflates the character of Meaulnes, The Wanderer (English book title), with that of his author by having him killed in an early (read "VERY early") German ambush. Death may indeed have struck a desperate Alain-Fournier as the only viable escape from the stiflingness of everyday adult reality, but then Augustin Meaulnes is not bound by the rules of reality. In the brilliant escapist fantasy which is the novel, the protagonist, if no one except him, gets away, quite literally, along with his child, who permits him to reconnect with and perhaps even recover the carefree mirth and exuberance of childhood.

If you are looking for an unforgettable narrative experience, do not despair. You can buy the book or rent the 1963 film version or do both. You won't be disappointed. Just don't waste any time or money on this.

The second version of Alain-Fournier's celebrated novel and I must confess that ,if the first part was quite interesting,the second one made me yawn my head off.

The main problem of this conventional adaptation is the two leading actors:both Augustin and Yvonne lack charisma -which is a pity ,cause Augustin is supposed to be admired by François his school mate!- and it's the supporting cast who walks away with the honors:the always reliable Philippe Torreton ,De La Comédie Française ,ideally cast as the schoolteacher (you may remember he was the schoolteacher in Tavernier's memorable "Ca Commence Aujourd'hui") ,and Jean-Pierre Marielle who proves in the part of Yvonne's father that he can age gracefully.As for the young Maunier,if he is credible as a pupil,he's obviously much too young for a part of a teacher ,even if he is wearing a mustache.

The first part is very interesting for its depiction of the old grade schools where children used to stay till they were sixteen or more to get the "Brevet Superieur" a diploma which does not exist anymore:the blackboard ,the "purple ink" and the lecturing which were the trademarks of those schools of (not so) long ago.The landscapes are wonderfully filmed and la "Fete Etrange " (strange celebration)is also a good moment.

Things begin to deteriorate when Meaulnes leaves the village:the screenplay becomes desultory and features an ending which betrays the novel:as it was released in 1913,Meaulnes could not be killed at the beginning of WW1.

But Alain-Fournier was.He refused all the protections wealthy people wanted to give him,and he was killed ,one of the first blood ...

Like this?try these.....

"Le Grand Meaulnes" ,Jean-Gabriel Albicoco ,1967

"Marianne de Ma Jeunesse" ,Julien Duvivier,1955

If the Albicocco version (1967) of this celebrated French novel overdid the dream like quality of the central scenes of the story, with smeary psychedelic photography and so on, it at least cast the characters perfectly, and each of the principles convinced in their adolescent intensity. Oh the woeful dullness of this plodding adaptation. I would have welcomed a few minutes of smeared lens if I could have the intensity back and a truthful adaptation, here all is lost from the start. ( Spoiler) In the 1967 version each of the mysteries was unravelled in exactly the right sequence.For instance when Meaulnes returns from the 'fête etrange' he is hiding under his blouson schoolboy smock a fancy waistcoat from the 18thc, it is revealed only when he gets ready for bed in the attic room he shares with Seurel, the moment of its discovery leads to the unravelling of the whole story of what happened to Meaulnes in his absence. All of this was done exactly right in the 1967 version. In the 2006 film Meaulnes slouches through the school gate with the waistcoat already showing. When he is in bed the waistcoat is thrown over a chair back Seurel picks it up and Meaulnes snatches it away from him petulantly,crossly and it is so WRONG!!! There are many more instances obviously the 1967 film may have the huge drawback of having the fête shot through a distorted and greased lens but otherwise it does not tamper with the structure. Where is Ganache the Pierrot and the visit of the travelling circus, crucial to any adaptation of this book, thrown away, deemed 'too much' perhaps and so the soul of the story has been thrown out along with everything else that made it special.If only Jean Renoir had been allowed to film the book in 1936 or so, oh the dreams of what might have been.

Let me be clear that I read the book twice before seeing the movie, and I think that a lot of ideas in the book didn't translate into the movie. Other people have been saying the same thing. And yet I loved the movie. The book emphasized Meaulnes' efforts to reach the Lost Domain and Yvonne, with the final coming-together being a bit of an anticlimax--which was the point, since Meaulnes and Seural were happiest when chasing dreams. In the movie, the later reunion of Meaulnes and Yvonne is actually the emotional climax--helped by a great setting, great lighting and great piano score. This obviously distorts the meaning of the book. And so does the fact that Meaulnes is shot at the end--a reference to the WW1 death of author Alain-Fournier--so that the death of Meaulnes tragically mirrors the death of his creator. Meaulnes seems to represent, in this movie, romantic youthful ambitions and fantasies. He stays true to them, with help from his friend Seural, and challenges us as viewers to keep alive that part of our youthful selves which is in many ways more admirable than the jaded creatures we later become.