Thérèse Desqueyroux (France 2012)

Therese and Bernard in the forest.

Therese and Bernard in the forest.

Claude Miller died soon after completing this his 15th feature film. It was a distinguished career which included a period when he was production manager for first Jean-Luc Godard and then, for some time, François Truffaut. (See this obituary for more background.) Two films from him as writer-director that I remember enjoying are Un secret (2007) and Betty Fisher and Other Stories (2001). The first of these drew on Miller’s own background, born into a non-religious Jewish family, and the second was an adaptation of a Ruth Rendell novel with Sandrine Kiberlaine as the central female character under pressure. Both the anti-semitism of French society in the twentieth century and the pressure on a young woman feature in Thérèse Desqueyroux, an adaptation of a 1927 novel by François Mauriac, previously adapted for a film by Georges Franju in 1962. Mauriac is a canonical figure in French literature and won the Nobel prize in 1952. His granddaughter Anne Wiazemsky was an actor in the 1960s and 1970s and later a novelist. She married Jean-Luc Godard and appeared in several of his films.

I haven’t read the novel or seen the earlier adaptation (in which Emanuelle Riva takes the central role) so I’m not able to make comparisons, but I would certainly be interested in seeing the Franju film. The lead in Miller’s film is taken by Audrey Tautou and that was one of the attractions for me. It was interesting to see Ms Tautou in a role that challenges audience assumptions about her star persona (cf her role in Delicacy (2011). The story is set in a very distinctive location – the Landes pine forests of Aquitaine, south-west of Bordeaux – in the 1920s. Thérèse is introduced as a teenager playing idyllic games with her friend Anne. Both girls come from local families which own large acreages of the forest, making a good income from wood and resin collection. But whereas Thérèse is the daughter of a radical and thinks for herself, Anne is more conventional – though her obvious enjoyment of hunting might be read in different ways. The surprise is that six or seven years later Thérèse agrees to marry Anne’s brother Bernard – like his sister highly conventional in his attitudes towards love, marriage, family and status. The mystery is why Thérèse allows herself to fall into this trap and her first test is how she will respond when her sister-in-law has a romantic affair with the handsome son of another local family. Bernard decrees that the affair is unsuitable and that the family’s good name is being besmirched. The young man clearly has Jewish blood – Thérèse refers to his family as ‘Portuguese’.

Thérèse shells almonds in the dark house – her calm in contrast with the rising sense of disturbance in the household.

Thérèse shells almonds in the dark house – her calm in contrast with the rising sense of disturbance in the household.

The National Media Museum programme guide described the film as a costume melodrama which led to certain expectations and I want to explore what ‘melodrama’ might mean in these circumstances. Thérèse as the central character is certainly a potential melodrama figure – in particular as the woman ‘in peril’ in the suffocating embrace of Bernard’s family. I think that there is a case for relating this to the ‘woman’s film’ scenario. On the other hand, there is no female best friend to confide in (the relationship with Anne changes) or much of a possibility of a ‘positive’ romance to pursue. There are certainly plenty of opportunities for scenes of ‘suffering’ as an intelligent and curious woman is expected to ‘behave responsibly’. Melodramas are usually concerned with emotions that are repressed or suppressed – and which then ‘return’ or are ‘released’ through an excess of music, colour, cinematography, mise en scène etc. In this case, there is a certain austerity about the mise en scène and the music, although often there, seemed unobtrusive (mostly classical piano pieces) to me. However, the dark house in the forest is clearly Gothic and when Thérèse meets Anne’s lover it is, of course, by the sea. The internal/external world is also represented through a series of sequences which might represent Thérèse’s thoughts, dreams or nightmares.

I won’t spoil the narrative but I will reveal that the resolution is not perhaps what we might expect after Therese is driven to fairly desperate measures and if you have seen the marvellous earlier film with Audrey Tautou, À la folie . . . pas du tout (2002), you might see a resemblance in the final shots of the two films. The hint of Hitchcock is also shared by the two films. I suppose I’m suggesting here that there is an element of film noir in this melodrama. I was intrigued to discover that Claude Miller decided not to follow the flashback structure of the book but instead to tell the story in a linear narrative – which actually makes the story more mysterious (and alters the portrayal of the husband).

When I came out of the film I wasn’t sure if I had ‘enjoyed’ it, but I’ve been thinking about it since and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a form of melodrama and that Claude Miller demonstrated great skill in his last film. All the performances are good and Ms Tautou has successfully extended her range. As Bernard, Gilles Lelouche also acts against his established character type (he usually plays comedic roles) and he also succeeds. I’m not sure that the film got the promotional push it needed on its UK release so you might struggle to find it but during a summer of tedious blockbusters this is an intelligent gem and I hope that I’ve intrigued you enough to want to see it.

The film’s Press Book is here (in French and in English).

Here is the Australian trailer (it reveals something about the plot that I have largely concealed):


  1. keith1942

    I also enjoyed the film and it looks and sounds good.
    However I think altering the structure from the novel does not completely work – I think this contributes to the lack of clarity for the motivation of Therese – and that leads on to a certain ambiguity around the way her marital relationship develops.
    I was especailly aware of this as Claude Miller uses a non-linear structure so effectively in betty Fisher & Other Stories.
    I wondered how much this is down to the producers as opposed to the director?


    • Roy Stafford

      I’m guessing that you meant that altering the novel structure does NOT completely work? If so, you should check out the Press Pack (link in the post). Miller says in response to the question about why he changed the structure: “Today flashback structure has really become a structure for Saturday night made‐for‐TV movies. And this story was absolutely tellable in linear form. It even made it more powerful. It allowed us to feel closer to Thérèse”.


  2. keith1942

    I was interested enough by the film to read the François Mauriac’s novel, Thérèse (1927, translation by Gerard Hopkins). The novel is divided into four sections or stories, all relating to Thérèse Desqueyroux. The opening story, Thérèse Desqueyroux, commences at the end of a trial [also part of the film’s plot]. On her way home Thérèse remembers “Such lovely summer days! … Seated in the little train which now at last had started to move, she admitted to herself that she must go back in thought to them, if she was ever to see clearly what happened.”
    In the film’s linear narrative the childhood scenes open the film, and rather than illuminating the subsequent events they seemed to make them more ambiguous. The blurb on the back of this paperback quotes Mauriac, “She took form in my mind as an example of that power -…. – of saying “No” to the law which beats down on them …” The author’s project in the novel seems fairly clear. My sense of the film was that this was never clarified. Thérèse’s motivations remain clouded and ambiguous.
    I noted the quote by Claude Miller that Roy pointed too. However, linear narratives can be just as conventional as flashbacks. I have not seen Franju’s 1962 film version. However, according to James Stevens “Whilst the film time-shifts Mauriac’s novel (originally set in the 1920s) to the present day and adopts only one point of view (that of Thérèse), it is in all other respects faithful to its source. In writing his novel, Mauriac claimed he was strongly influenced by cinema and employed many cinematic devices (such as the narrative flashback and sudden opening) to give his book a modern touch.” I wondered if Miller was influenced by the idea of taking a different tack from the earlier version?
    To give the film its credit, there is a British literary period adaptation also on release, Summer in February. The setting is Cornwall in 1913 and it supposedly presents an artistic colony without the taboos under which Thérèse suffers. In fact the film also contains a misjudged marriage, a less than pre-possessing husband figure and a more sympathetic lover figure. There the similarities end. The French film is much better than its British equivalent.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.