French thriller (Original title: “Vie privée”) starring Jodie Foster and several of France’s most famous actors. (Jodie speaks fluent French.)
IMDb: 6.3
Metacritic: 67/100
Tomato Meter: 81%
Popcorn Meter: 65%
The acting is so good in this film that the cast is able to make you overlook the fact that the characterizations are not credible, the tone is annoyingly inconsistent, and the solution to the mystery is underwhelming and a bit unclear.
The renowned psychiatrist Lilian Steiner mounts a private investigation into the death of one of her patients, whom she is convinced has been murdered.
It’s a character study not a mystery
Well, I agree in the sense that it doesn’t also work as a mystery. But it could have, with just a tiny bit of tinkering.
I’d say the relationship between the exes is so strong that the film works as a character story. And even that probably doesn’t work on paper. It probably works only because Jodie Foster and Daniel Auteuil are two of the greatest actors in the world, just so talented that they get the viewer invested. And that element is so strong that it makes a mediocre script eminently watchable. (And the supporting cast is also perfect.)
But the driving force of the script is the identity of the killer, if there is one. Did the patient actually commit suicide? Did the daughter kill her? Did the husband kill her? Did the psychiatrist kill her with a sloppy over-prescription. What does the cryptic message mean? How does the aunt’s death fit into the puzzle? It is clearly played out as a mystery. Yes, some of the psychiatrist’s thoughts and conclusions stem from her nervous breakdown, but the break-in to her office wasn’t imaginary. It really happened, so we are led to believe there really was a killer, especially because of the missing cassette.
SPOILER
That is the portion of the film that doesn’t work, mostly because the explanation requires us to suspend our logic and believe the unbelievable, just as the psychiatrist has to suspend her own logic to cure her crying, and her family (Including the ex-) members have to suspend their own logic to believe that her ranting about past lives doesn’t really mean she has gone mad.
I was willing to believe that the hypnosis could have cured her, because psychosomatic diseases have psychosomatic cures. And I was willing to believe that her ex-husband played along with her mad ranting, even though I would have run from her as fast as I could, losing her phone number in the process. He loved her, and he thought his support could lead him to figure out what was really wrong with her.
The actual explanation of the patient’s death was also reasonable
SPOILERS FOLLOW
But why did the patient’s husband refuse to explain how he came to be in possession of the key cassette, given that he was not the one responsible for the break-in? He just said something to the effect of, “Oh, it could have been this, or it could have been this, or that. What does it matter?”
I like the film very much. It’s one of the most interesting I’ve watched in the past year. It held my attention through every minute. But an important element of how it held my attention was the mystery, and the explanation of the widowed husband, or should I say the lack thereof, was a poor piece of writing, and an annoyance to anyone following the mystery. If you’re invested in a story, the one thing you don’t want is for the person delivering the exposition to say “You don’t know? Well, I’m not going to tell you because the person who wrote these lines couldn’t figure out that detail.”
The reviews that I have seen of this film have pretty consistently assessed it as an interesting but failed effort that is ultimately undermined – and undermined substantially – by its mediocre, unbelievable script. Great acting and other good cinematic qualities in the service of a poorly conceived story.
That is a nice scene on the balcony though. Beaux gros nichons.
I agree with that assessment, except for the word “failed.” I’d call it a qualified success, worth watching despite a cop-out explanation and some plot points that range from sloppy to surrealistic.
The relationships between the shrink, her ex, her son, and her dead patient’s husband are all interesting, are often emotionally resonant, and are performed by first-tier actors, leaving me satisfied with the time I invested to watch the film.
Thanks for sharing your further views. I have been curious about seeing it despite the reviews indicating its weaknesses on some points, as discussed above. I’ll keep a look out for it – it will probably soon be appearing in a local rep cinema. My wife and I see a lot of movies and they don’t all have to be Academy Award candidates to be enjoyable.
On that subject, my wife saw the old stinker ‘Xanadu’ playing yesterday on a TV movie channel to which we have access. It is a movie that received absolutely terrible reviews and box office when it came out (as was detailed in a podcast about Olivia Newton-John that we by coincidence listened to just last week). I never saw it when it came out, nor had I seen it since until last night. I only caught the last 30 minutes, but based on that the terrible reviews are very well justified. It was awful in just about every way – aside from Ms. Newton-John looking beautiful (as always) and a pretty decent soundtrack (the soundtrack actually did very well back in the day, even while the movie bombed). But based on those 30 minutes that I saw, I am thinking it might just be in the ‘Bad Movies We Love’ category. I was just laughing and laughing as I watched. I may have to find a way to get access to it and watch it at the cottage on a rainy afternoon this summer.