I agree that this is a powerful film; somehow, even when we are only seeing the interactions of Charles and Hélène in their home, the suspense is taut. Leave it to the French to make the real drama the everyday moments between the husband and wife, rather than the murder of the wife's lover!
As to the ending, whether or not anyone is convicted of the crime isn't really the point. The final scene focuses not on the crime, but rather on the love between the Desvallées, which, strangely, has become stronger as a result of the affair and the murder. Hélène, rather than being frightened or outraged because of her husband's involvement in her lover's death, burns the only evidence (the photo of Pegala) that might incriminate him. And the final scene is like a ceremony: Charles and Hélène voice their love almost as if they were renewing their vows. "I love you," Charles avows, and Hélène replies in kind. And as if that weren't enough, Charles repeats, "I love you like a fool." This is sort of a confession, but it is also a hint as to what happens at the close of the film.
If you add this "I love you like a fool" to the look Charles gives his wife and son in the final moments, it becomes clear that Charles not willing to let Hélène suffer. After all, Hélène is the one in danger, not Charles. As far as we know, the police have no reason to connect Charles to the murdered Victor Pegala; Charles was careful at the scene of the crime to wipe away fingerprints and to put things back where they belonged so that no one would know he had been there. The photograph that Hélène burned was the only evidence that would have incriminated him, and the police had not seen it before it was destroyed. But because Pegala had Hélène's name in his address book, she may very well be a suspect. What's more, the Police are making a THIRD visit, which means that they have a reason to come to the Desvallées (or think they do). That fact and the pregnant look Charles gives Hélène in the final moment add up to Charles' confession.
Well ... at least for me ;)
Ladycasely
reply
share
fergdeff
17 years ago
Ahh what a good post! Of course, you're completely right.
You know I got so hung up on the "Femme Infidèle" thing... The title lends such an intensity of suspense right from the word go, that I found myself immediately on the edge of my seat. Hélène exudes such power early on in the film. I craved the presence on the screen of this Femme Infidèle and Chabrol has her positively float around in some scenes. In particular, the scene where she returns after "lunch", the camera is actually craning around the door to get an early glimpse of her. I felt every ounce of Charles jealousy and misdirected desire. I think that is exactly what the director sought in these early scenes, but somewhere along the line (after the murder) I failed to return. I failed to embrace the little familys simple return to domesticity. I should have spotted it when the jigsaw was remade - oh well, I must rewatch at some stage...
reply
share
ladycasely
17 years ago
Good point about the jigsaw puzzle. I missed that! ;) You KNOW Chabrol did that on purpose.
Another significant object is the overgrown cigarette lighter. By giving the gift that Charles gave her to Victor, Hélène has transferred her romantic attraction (read: fire) to Victor Pegala. This is part of what inflames (pardon the pun) Charles: he is cool, calm, and collected until he sees the lighter next to the bed; then suddenly he's pale and sick. Also, he opens the lighter and lights it, then he extinguishes it, just as moments later he does with Victor's life, which is a way of extinguishing his wife's attraction for him. (Maybe I'm overanalyzing, but I think all these possibilities are significant.)
~Je sais, je sais ... Je sais qu'on ne sait jamais. (Jean Gabin)
reply
share
PoppyTransfusion
11 years ago
Another significant object is the overgrown cigarette lighter. By giving the gift that Charles gave her to Victor, Hélène has transferred her romantic attraction (read: fire) to Victor Pegala. This is part of what inflames (pardon the pun) Charles: he is cool, calm, and collected until he sees the lighter next to the bed; then suddenly he's pale and sick. Also, he opens the lighter and lights it, then he extinguishes it, just as moments later he does with Victor's life, which is a way of extinguishing his wife's attraction for him. (Maybe I'm overanalyzing, but I think all these possibilities are significant.)
Nice observations and spot on IMO.
Away with the manners of withered virgins
reply
share
mangos47
14 years ago
Charles says he loves his wife like a "fou" which can mean fool but it also means mad. Indeed the subtitle says "I am crazy about you" which I think is what he was trying to convey to Helene and a stronger meaning than fool. He killed her lover because he was crazy about her. Perhaps after the event he could see more clearly that he had to confess to the police, maybe to clear his wife, maybe to clear his conscience after a moment of madness.
"My will is strong but my won't is weak"
reply
share
spikyshooz
13 years ago
The police do have something on Charles: the crash on the way back from Neuilly proves he was in the area, and when they leave after their second visit Duval hints as much. The third visit therefore I think is to arrest him.
reply
share
mike-osullivan3
13 years ago
Don't overlook the private detective. Once he becomes aware of the murder, which would surely be publicized, he would doubtless contact the police to tell them of the husband's involvement.
reply
share
xchar
12 years ago
Thanks for your various insights!
On first viewing, I did think that it was the accident that gave the
cops a crucial clue. There'd be a record of where it took place.
But on second viewing, I see that the accident was a considerable
distance away from the crucial address. And Charles never actually
denied having been in Neuilly.
So, what evidence implicated him? Or were the police going after
Helene, and Charles voluntarily intercepted them?
reply
share
udippel
8 years ago
Could be true.
Though I am a bit astonished that almost everyone seems to think along these lines. To me, the end is much too ambiguous for the assumption that the two officers come with certainty to the house - any certainty of their own account. The accident was too far away, no evidence. The body probably not found, the Benz not searched, I can barely see on what accounts they think they can nail him. Or did I miss anything during the second, and still brief, interrogation?
If not, I imagined something else. She found the picture, saw the reverse side, had to know what had happened, used the phone, and therefore knew the outcome. The distance with which she observed her husband spoke words. And the looks even more. In my books that's exactly not the looks of a wife who loves her husband like mad. Static, emotionless face and looking somewhere else conveys a different meaning to me. In my opinion he knew that the game was up, said he loved her like mad - which he actually must have done for all he had done. And she was sort of content that the matter was over. To me she didn't burn evidence, but closed the lid on the relationship with Pegala.
Is this really too far fetched?
reply
share