Lesser film than JEAN DE FLORETTE - Manon des sources (1987) Discussion

And yet you watched it until the end frame.

funny that ...

This message will soon be deleted by an administrator

reply

[–] cengelm 18 years ago

Well, it's not the worst movie ever made.
Still better than e.g. BLADE or BATES MOTEL.

reply

I saw them both last night and I have to agree, although for different reasons maybe.

In the first one I cared for both Jean and the Sobeyrans. I didn't want anything bad to happen to Depardieu, yet the villains were written an acted complex enough that I didn't want to see them loose. There was more of a conflict there, whereas in the second one, Manon is very underwritten, and you don't really get to care for her or to empathise with her. You sort of understand that she is pissed off, but the Sobeyrans weren't directly responsible for Jean's death, and Ugolin was even sad for him.

So yes, my favourite is the first one by far, although the second one is great too, and they're really two parts of the same story.

reply

[–] ullrichisinnocent 17 years ago

Em, the good guys didn't win. This film isn't about good guys. It's a tragedy about a dreadful mistake that a character made. If you don't feel sympathtic towards him at the end then you have a very weak heart.

reply

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

It wasn't a mistake. He destroyed Jean deliberately. He was a wicked old man.

reply

[–] lunarose 18 years ago

Are you sure you watched "Manon of the Spring"? This sequel is far from a "heart-warming tale"!

reply

[–] cengelm 18 years ago

Sure. Would you call it realistic? There isn't any police and the bad guys are basicly killing themselves. The relatively educated Manon works as a goatherd in a rather hostile environment. Wouldn't she join her mother and go back to the city?

Maybe you live in a world of fairy tales?

reply

[–] michaeldecker 17 years ago

I think it's a fairly standard redemption tale, told well. I certainly didn't see 'the twist' coming, and I have to say the way that the blind woman conveyed the tale to Sobeyran was just riveting - the horror unfolded bit by bit.

Yes, thinking about it there's no reason why Manon stayed while her Mother left, but then maybe families do strange things after a death...

Both great, great films; obviously the second one suffers from the lack of Jean (both as protagonist and of course the actor's huge presence onscreen), but then that's the whole point!

Michael Decker
************************
Live Clean, Think Clean,
Shoot Clean Pinball

reply

[–] blue-3 14 years ago

cengelm on Mon Apr 17 2006 23:33:03 wrote:

Sure. Would you call it realistic? There isn't any police and the bad guys are basicly killing themselves.

Isn't that a wonderful change? No police needed to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.

The relatively educated Manon works as a goatherd in a rather hostile environment. Wouldn't she join her mother and go back to the city?

That statement shows that you evidently did not grow up developing a sense of belonging to rural land. That's a very picturesque place and she knows her father was cheated out of it. City folk by and large have no appreciation for such values. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar, but land that you belong to is not just any land, and certainly cannot be replaced by the fanciest city living.

One thing that wasn't realistic is playing the harmonica in the rain. Even a small amount of saliva will stop a harmonica from working, let alone rain. But that hardly spoils such a wonderful piece of film making.

reply

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

She knows about the spring because she sees them gloating over it at the end of Jean de Florette. I think she stays because she is biding her time for getting her revenge. I presume that the mother let her stay because she was going back to work and wouldn't have enough time to devote to her daughter. I mean, I suppose she'd have got someone to look after the girl while she was working, but maybe the daughter convinced her she'd be happier in the country.

reply

[–] asphycsia 17 years ago

I'm confused by your interpretation. Ugolin and Cesar, more or less, condemned themselves. Ugolin committed suicide out of self-loathing, unrequited love and flat-out guilt.

Cesar, on the other hand, more or less, outsmarted himself. What he fought against so hard (the end of the Soubeyran family) happened because of his own actions.
_______________________________________
Salva nos stella maris et regina celorum

reply

[–] Kinematico 17 years ago

Agree, Jean de Florette is a superior film than Manon des Sources on almost any level.

reply

[–] huckones 17 years ago

Uh, anyone notice the Theme for both movies was "Les Force Du Destin" ("The Power of Destiny")? It sets the tone for both films as well as hints at what we will come to know in the end. And that scene on the bench in front of the church is one of the most powerful in cinema (my opinion yes, but true as well). "Manon of the Spring" and "Jean de Florette" were both about that scene. I have seen both films over and over again (just finished a two night viewing) and will continue to enjoy the beauty of both.

reply

[–] cengelm 17 years ago

In Germany both works have the combined title "Water of the Hills". It's a tale of crime and revenge.

Destiny is just everywhere
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Force_du_destin
Guiseppe Verdi

reply

[–] lescamer 17 years ago

WAIT... HARMWARMING?! YOU HAVE NO HEART, THEN! That's what's great about the whole thing. In the beginning Jean de Florette, we side with Papet and Ugolin, more or less, then, we side with Jean, then, in Manon des Sources we side with Manon, then, towards the end, we side more with the Papet and Ugolin. So, by the time the "bad guys" lose, we have sympathized with the bad guys.

reply

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 16 years ago

I agree. Jean De Florette 9.5/10. Manon Des Sources 7/10.

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

reply

[–] bedward 16 years ago

Umm... they're two halves of the same story! It';s not like they made the 1st film on its own and decided "we should make a sequel!". The original books were written as basically one big story broken in two and that's how they made the movies. The 1st one is a set-up of the second one and to say the second is full of cliches and is inferior is completely missing the point that it's ONE story told in two halves.

Sad.

reply

[–] RuleWithYourHeart 16 years ago

i agree with bedward. The two titles should be evaluated as one whole movie/story.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"Umm... they're two halves of the same story!"

I think a lot of you are missing this point that bedward and one or two others are trying to make.

They are the one film, simply divided into two roughly two hour parts, covering an approximate eight to ten year period. Both chapters (if you like) were filmed over a six month period simultaneously. To say that Manon is cliched and inferior to JdF is akin to saying the pre - intermission session of Lawrence of Arabia is superior to the post intermission session or vice - versa.

Having hopefully made that salient point, I will add that I preferred Manon myself purely and simply because Emmanuelle Beart was in it (not being in JdF)and she just made the film for me. She just lit up the screen in every scene she was in.Truly breath-taking!

"A pen makes less blisters than a pickaxe."

reply

[–] cthulhulurks 11 years ago

The second part downgrades the beginning. I knew that and didn't even want to watch it, it turns an interesting and original story into a cheap soap opera. What, no one ever gone down that cavern looking for water in a water thirsty region inhabited for millenia? Gee, she shoulda broke her back there or something becoming a hunchback and popular local slut. That could be an interesting story. Berri or whoever wrote it is a fake. Still love the first part.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"Gee, she shoulda broke her back there or something becoming a hunchback and popular local slut."

Gee, you are a real charmer and have a special way with words!

"Berri or whoever wrote it is a fake. Still love the first part."

Berri adapted the novel by Marcel Pagnol to the screen and stayed very faithful to the source material.

So I guess you're saying you liked the first half of the film and inferentially the first half of the book.

"A pen makes less blisters than a pickaxe."

reply

[–] cthulhulurks 11 years ago

Gee, you are a real charmer and have a special way with words!

Oh shame on me. Can you imagine what it's like when I feel romantic?

Berri adapted the novel by Marcel Pagnol to the screen and stayed very faithful to the source material.

So I'll definitely bar this one from my reading list. Can I still keep Ian McEwan on it?

So I guess you're saying you liked the first half of the film and inferentially the first half of the book.

Yes, Yves Montand was superb, Auteuil as well. Two actors and characters that drive the story. Depardieu... I dunno. The setting is great too but Berri shoulda stopped right after the mother and daughter had left the property.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"Oh shame on me. Can you imagine what it's like when I feel romantic?"

Not in my wildest dreams!

"So I'll definitely bar this one from my reading list. Can I still keep Ian McEwan on it?"

Please don't bar him on my account.But can you imagine only liking the first half of Atonement? I can't.

I'm obviously glad Berri adapted Pagnol's complete book to the screen. I can't imagine viewing JdF without its companion piece.

"A pen makes less blisters than a pickaxe."

reply

[–] cthulhulurks 11 years ago

Don't you cringe at the soap opera silliness of some characters and general dynamics of the second half? I read Proust and must say not all latin language prose is like that. The second half is beyound apology, gotta admit that.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"Don't you cringe at the soap opera silliness of some characters and general dynamics of the second half?"

No more so than the first half (which was very little...that obviously fake hunchback??).

"The second half is beyound apology, gotta admit that."

No, as I said earlier I really liked it. Each to his own I suppose.

"A pen makes less blisters than a pickaxe."

reply

[–] hgs1969 11 years ago

I'm with you Spooky. I loved both halves of the story and I don't really see them as two seperate films. As soon as I'd finished the first, I couldn't wait to watch the second and it didn't disappoint.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

Yes hgs... terrific films!

reply

[–] agracier-574-436194 9 years ago

What, no one ever gone down that cavern looking for water in a water thirsty region inhabited for millenia?
______________________

Caves can be dirty and dangerous places and often inaccessible and hard to find with entrances half blocked up or full of rocks and thorny shrubs.

Witness how it is not that uncommon for paleolithic cave paintings/etchings to be found in caves in France that are known to exist, but which virtually no one has any interest in visiting.

In the story, it's only because of the lost goat that Manon finds the cave with the source, implying that it's otherwise difficult to find if you do not know exactly where to look.

reply

[–] richard-III 16 years ago

I agree than 'Jean de Florette' is better, but the two films belong together really.
Before Marcel Pagnol wrote his novel 'L'eau des collines' in 1964, he made the film 'Manon des sources' (1953), in which the two stories come together. The story of Jean de Florette was part of Manon's history in that film (which took 200 minutes).

"The Beamer Xperience: 9 feet wide home cinema bliss."

reply

[–] onepotato2 15 years ago

JdF is a tedious slog that lands no blows. It's over the top (A hunchback who marries a supermodel...? singing in the window? Oh come on). It's a one-note movie from start to finish; with one tiresome dramatic gambit for viewers: "Can you find the virtuous characters in this scene?"
MdS is far superior. Unfortunately you have to sit through JdF to undertand it all.

reply

[–] jreymondez 16 years ago

It's funny, no one complains when Oedipus Rex predictably kills his father and marries his mother. Then of course the daughter Antigone is in the sequel and no one comaplines there.

You're looking at the what and not the how. It's a tragedy, excellently weaved. To me this movie is inseperable from Jean de Florette. They complement eachother perfectly. The movies are tragedies, yes the character's flaws bring about their deaths in the end.

If you think it is as simple as the first one being good because "the bad guys one" and the second is bad because they receive reprisals for their actions, you need to think a bit more.

reply