The opening scene at the outdoor Parisian café showed promise for a good satire. But "The Madwoman of Chaillot" soon segued into a little melodrama and a lot of soap opera. It turns out to be a stage play with a jumble of subplots that contest with one another. Since I enjoy satire tremendously, I was disappointed because some of the promotion for this film called it satire. What probably got it that recognition is the opening with over half a dozen big name actors of the 20th century.
Yul Brynner, Paul Henreid, Oskar Homolka, Donald Pleasance, Charles Boyer and John Gavin play characters who represent various aspects of society that the film looks about to rake across the coals. Capitalism, church, communism and government seem in for a good bashing. But the little bit of script that spells that out quickly drivels into little more that bombast and boastfulness in way overdone grandiosity by Brynner's The Chairman. Before this is done, other big name characters enter the picture. Danny Kaye is The Ragpicker, Richard Chamberlain is Roderick, Margaret Leighton is Constance and Nanette Newman is Irma.
Instead of a really good satire, this film uses an absurd notion of all the evil forces of the world wanting to turn Paris into an oilfield. And then, using that as a premise to hold together two or three (or maybe more) subplots that center around Katherine Hepburn's Countess Aurelia. And all of that is mostly an overly long, drawn-out, and very wordy stage play that very much resembles soap opera.
This film was based on a play, but even with the opening scene at the street café and a couple of outdoor shots otherwise, it still has the staginess feel. Perhaps the very crowded and gaudy sets of the Countess Aurelia's home and basement contribute to that. One can't help but think the actors who agreed to this film thought they were getting in on an art film. But, if any of those gentlemen in the opening read the full screenplay they surely wouldn't have seen much satire. Instead, it's just some clearly complaining criticisms of various segments and people.
If it was satire the producers were after, they should have studied the prime examples of huge successes. Those films used realistic situations and history to present great satire. This film had to create fantasy and even uses symbolic names for characters. It's more comic book fantasy than the setting for real satire. And such great examples were at hand to study - "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" of 1964, with Peter Sellers at the head of a great cast; "One, Two, Three" of 1961, with James Cagney at the head of another top cast; or the earlier great classic of 1940 by and starring Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator."
Some reviewers rave about Katherine Hepburn's performance. She's as good as any of the great actresses with long monologs that dominate scenes. But here, it's way too long to the point of boring. This movie was made in Europe and filmed in Paris and Nice, France, with its first opening in the U. S. It bombed at the box office and was one of the worst failures of 1969. Even if that cast with so many prominent actors all worked for peanuts, the makers probably had to scratch and borrow to pay them. It's total U. S. tickets sales were less than $2 million. It was probably such an embarrassment that its budget is nowhere to be found online. Warner Brothers distributed the film in the U. S. and quickly changed its promo to paint Katherine Hepburn as a groovy character. But that didn't work either. The word was out from those who saw this film, and the critics. Whatever it tried to do, it missed. Perhaps the original French play did well, but the Broadway musical based on it also bombed.
The film, for the screenplay, sets, directing, camera work and all other production aspects doesn't really rate four stars. But I give it four stars just for its assemblage of that fine group of actors in the first half hour of the film. They so entertained the movie public for three to four generations before this film. They have some nice parts to start with here, so they can be excused for taking part in such drudgery in the twilight of their careers.
Yul Brynner, Paul Henreid, Oskar Homolka, Donald Pleasance, Charles Boyer and John Gavin play characters who represent various aspects of society that the film looks about to rake across the coals. Capitalism, church, communism and government seem in for a good bashing. But the little bit of script that spells that out quickly drivels into little more that bombast and boastfulness in way overdone grandiosity by Brynner's The Chairman. Before this is done, other big name characters enter the picture. Danny Kaye is The Ragpicker, Richard Chamberlain is Roderick, Margaret Leighton is Constance and Nanette Newman is Irma.
Instead of a really good satire, this film uses an absurd notion of all the evil forces of the world wanting to turn Paris into an oilfield. And then, using that as a premise to hold together two or three (or maybe more) subplots that center around Katherine Hepburn's Countess Aurelia. And all of that is mostly an overly long, drawn-out, and very wordy stage play that very much resembles soap opera.
This film was based on a play, but even with the opening scene at the street café and a couple of outdoor shots otherwise, it still has the staginess feel. Perhaps the very crowded and gaudy sets of the Countess Aurelia's home and basement contribute to that. One can't help but think the actors who agreed to this film thought they were getting in on an art film. But, if any of those gentlemen in the opening read the full screenplay they surely wouldn't have seen much satire. Instead, it's just some clearly complaining criticisms of various segments and people.
If it was satire the producers were after, they should have studied the prime examples of huge successes. Those films used realistic situations and history to present great satire. This film had to create fantasy and even uses symbolic names for characters. It's more comic book fantasy than the setting for real satire. And such great examples were at hand to study - "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" of 1964, with Peter Sellers at the head of a great cast; "One, Two, Three" of 1961, with James Cagney at the head of another top cast; or the earlier great classic of 1940 by and starring Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator."
Some reviewers rave about Katherine Hepburn's performance. She's as good as any of the great actresses with long monologs that dominate scenes. But here, it's way too long to the point of boring. This movie was made in Europe and filmed in Paris and Nice, France, with its first opening in the U. S. It bombed at the box office and was one of the worst failures of 1969. Even if that cast with so many prominent actors all worked for peanuts, the makers probably had to scratch and borrow to pay them. It's total U. S. tickets sales were less than $2 million. It was probably such an embarrassment that its budget is nowhere to be found online. Warner Brothers distributed the film in the U. S. and quickly changed its promo to paint Katherine Hepburn as a groovy character. But that didn't work either. The word was out from those who saw this film, and the critics. Whatever it tried to do, it missed. Perhaps the original French play did well, but the Broadway musical based on it also bombed.
The film, for the screenplay, sets, directing, camera work and all other production aspects doesn't really rate four stars. But I give it four stars just for its assemblage of that fine group of actors in the first half hour of the film. They so entertained the movie public for three to four generations before this film. They have some nice parts to start with here, so they can be excused for taking part in such drudgery in the twilight of their careers.