Georges Duroy (Robert Pattinson) is a peasant. Finding himself in Paris, he’s taken under the wing of old friend Charles Forestier (Philip Glenister), who lands him employment as a political writer and introduces him to three high society ladies: his wife Madeleine Forestier (Uma Thurman), Virginie Walters (Kristen Scott Thomas) and Clotilde De Marelle (Christina Ricci). Through means of seduction, betrayal and deception, Georges slowly rises from poverty to wealth, but it all comes at a price.
The concept of one man’s elevation to wealth and power through any means necessary is a fascinating one, and, perhaps with a screenwriter more attuned with Guy De Maupassant’s original novel, Bel Ami could’ve been a success. Unfortunately, Rachel Bennette’s screenplay is too light-footed and short on emotional resonance to enthral. No sooner are the characters introduced than they are thrown into fickle plot lines and forced to pronounce terrible lines in embarrassing ways.
Sadly, the way in which the narrative moves from scenario to scenario with little to no interest in the passage of time, leaves the audience uninterested in the characters’ various acts of debauchery, making what plays out seem more like a soap opera than credible feature film. There are some minor forays into more worthwhile avenues, including a subplot about politics, but barely any time is spent seeing how these could play out before they’re reduced to mere ways in which more acts of trickery can be performed.
Not only is the passive screenplay distracting, but so is the direction. Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod allow the events to unfold through long, wide-angled shots, which not only alienates the characters, but also makes the events of the film unfold with an air of inexactness, further adding to the breach between audience and what’s happening screen. While there are some nice touches in the production design, and from Odile Dicks-Mireaux’ sumptuous costumes, there’s an obvious lack of organisation and uncertainty on how to capture the novel’s essence that makes the film feel clunky, rather than seamless and flavoursome like it should be.
Pattinson, making a clear attempt to test his acting abilities, flounders as Georges. While his allure may be enough to entice those Twi-Hards into paying big money to watch him in the Twilight films, he simply doesn’t have the presence, experience or capability to lead a film of Bel Ami’s nature. Thurman and Scott Thomas – two highly regarded actresses – are shafted by the material, neither allowed to prove their worth or escape the one-dimensional characters which they inhabit. Scott Thomas, in particular, is reduced to a lap dog who bounds around the screen bewitched by Georges supposed sexual dominance, while Thurman is at least able to retain a strained poise as the devious Madeleine.
Thankfully, to the benefit of both herself and the film, Ricci copes with the cringe-inducing dialogue and ridiculous happenstances, delivering a potent performance as Clotilde. Ricci embodies her character with a welcomed effortless innocence and vulnerability. It’s almost as if she’s expressing her appreciation to the directors and screenwriter for entrusting her with such a small, dignity-saving role – one where she didn’t have to embarrass herself too much. Colm Meaney, Holliday Grainger and Glenister add some weight to proceedings, but their roles are too limited to allow for them to drum up much interest.
Unfortunately, while Bel Ami may be based on a well respected novel, any semblance of reflected honour is eradicated before the opening sequence is over. On the surface, this may pretend to be a lavish tale of passion and treachery, but Bel Ami is really nothing more than insufficiently directed codswallop in delectable costumes, with a starry cast who – perhaps with the exception of Pattinson – are worthy of much, much better.
This review was originally posted on HeyUGuys.
6 thoughts on “Review: Bel Ami (2012)”
[…] Empty Screens Skip to content HomeAbout UsContact UsPortfolio Links ← Review: Bel Ami (2012) February 26, 2012 · 23:49 ↓ Jump to […]
[…] Empty Screens Reviews ‘Bel Ami’ Posted on March 1, 2012 by Jen Film review website Centrefolds and Empty Screens reviewed Bel Ami. Here’s a taste: Thankfully, to the benefit of both herself and the film, […]
This review has everything to do with Robert Pattinson and nothing to do with Robert Pattinson. I don’t believe the critics will give him a fair review for some time. It’s his penance for being successful in movies they didn’t condone. He could give an Academy Award winning performance – actually not say a word – but he wouldn’t receive recognition for it. Everything about this review was based on Robert Pattinson’s presence in the movie and, sight unseen, it was going to be a bad review. Nothing in this review had to do with Pattinson. You never planned to be objective and you weren’t.
I was very conscious when reviewing the film that I didn’t purely judge it on Robert Pattinson’s performance and I think this shines through, particularly due to the fact I only spent a paragraph talking about his performance. In my opinion, the film is bad. In no ways is it terrible, but it wasn’t for me. I spent the whole time cringing. Perhaps you’ll feel differently, but this is very much my opinion of Bel Ami as a whole, and not just of Robert Pattinson as a person or, in fact, as an actor. I actually like him and think, somewhere down the line, he could develop into an interesting actor.
Just to touch on the Robert Pattinson debate, I’m not particularly a fan of his work, but I also don’t think he has yet to work with a really great filmmaker. Working with David Cronenberg on “Cosmopolis”, I think will be a very telling performance. Great review, while you didn’t like the film, I’m more curious now to see it.
You’re right. He’s always worked with relative newbies, so he’s not really had any proper chances to prove himself. Hopefully with Cosmopolis, working under Cronenberg and alongside Samantha Morton, he’ll get that chance.