MovieChat Forums > Impromptu Discussion > Am I the only one here?

Am I the only one here?


Am I the only one here who did not like this film? I feel like I always have to start a negative post here this way, by apologizing for insulting anyone's favorite movie or upsetting anyone for any reason. People always seem to take it personally when you don't like a movie they loved. I'd like to start a discussion with this one. Am I missing something with this film? Did I take it too seriously? Please hear me out.

I have been a lover of all things 19th Century France since I was about 16 years old. It must have been the most exciting, beautiful, fantastic time to live; and George Sand, Frederic Chopin, and their circle of friends were THE exciting, beautiful people of the time. If I had a time machine, I'd be there with them right now. I have read all the Sand, Chopin, and Liszt biographies I've been able to find, and that's why this movie was so dull and disappointing to me. Somehow this movie managed to make them some of the most uninteresting characters I've ever watched on screen. It turned their lives into a circus-like joke, but it wasn't even funny, at least not to me.

The story of Sand and Chopin's love is a complicated one; and I don't really know why this film took two hours to get to an interesting starting point of their long affair, and then stop. I was looking forward to a film about their relationship and the maternal love she had for him that ended up swallowing up their romance very quickly. I wanted to see a better portrayal of the VERY complex Chopin, one of the most amazing composers and personalities in history. None of this was touched on in the film. Instead we got two of hours of giggling and Marie D'Agoult playing footsie with Chopin. When did this ever happen? Yes, I know that she was jealous of Chopin and Sand's relationship and that's what this was supposed to portray, but...when did 3/4 of this movie ever happen? The majority of it was fabricated to show the carefree, uppity, artsy, stormy existence many of them had, but it wasn't all shallowness in reality. George Sand was far more than just a cross-dressing love-a-holic, for instance. She did much for women and social issues of her time. On a more superficial subject, I have to wonder why anyone thought Judy Davis was a good choice to play Sand. They could have at least tried to make her resemble the very dark-haired, dark-eyed Sand, but even with that, I don't think she could have made a good Sand replica. From what I have read about her, she was not the drama queen shown in this film, but a fairly low-key personality, despite her rebellious dress and writings.

And what about Liszt? He was hardly even in the movie; and when he was, he seemed bordering on "special" or just spacey, when in fact he was a fiery, intense man with incredible talents. They could have explained why it was that Marie was so jealous and paranoid. Liszt wasn't just anybody. He was the equivalent of Elvis in his time. Women were throwing themselves on him constantly. The movie barely touched on this, and it was hard to imagine anyone throwing themselves on the bump on a log we saw here. Chopin, too, could have had any woman he wanted. There were reasons why he chose Sand and not the dozens of other ladies and princesses who worshipped him.

I don't want to keep ranting, but I just wish there were a better movie about these people and this period in history. I've rented CHOPIN: DESIRE FOR LOVE and am waiting for it to arrive, though I hear it isn't very good either. IMPROMPTU wasn't terrible, but it wasn't true to the people who inspired it. It was kind of an insult to them. These people weren't a bunch of soap opera clowns. They changed the world with their innovative art and ideas. I want to see a movie about that.

reply

You're not the only one here.

I agree with you completely. The script was embarrassing, the direction inept. Even Judy Davis was not her usual outstanding self.

Hugh Grant was surprisingly good, maybe the best thing in the movie.

But was this Chopin? Georges Sand? Frans Liszt? Eugene Delacroix? If you want a history of these characters, you have to get a book or two; this movie surely doesn't provide that.

reply

Of course you're not the only one that doesn't like this movie. I think your post makes some valid points and is very well thought out. I personally enjoyed it although the ending was a bit abrupt.

reply

I enjoyed the film, but agree that it didn't really delve into the lives of either Chopin or Sand. However, I DID love the part played by Emma Thompson. I thought that her character was delightful, and I felt a bit sorry for her in the end.

reply

This movie really is about light hearted fun and I enjoyed it tremendously.

The cast choices are so unexpected but most are great with the exception of Bernadette Peters! I particularly like Emma Thompson and Mandy Patinkin in this.

reply

No, you're not the only one. I like period movies, and I thought I would like this one, considering the characters and the cast, but it was just a silly, ridiculous mess. I could not make it all the way through.

reply

You are not the only one. It used very good actors, but the screenplay was not good enough. They did not do justice to the story of Chopin and it was simplistic. People like George Sands and Liszt were more complex than what was shown in the movie. It was unfortunate in the way it was portrayed.

reply

[deleted]

In the spirit of your polite tone in the starting post, I'll say that I respectfully disagree. Actually, I do agree with a lot of your points - the film didn't delve too far into the lives of these people, but I never thought that was the point. Having studied art history for many years, I know that Delacroix was much more than a smirking womanizer, but I thought the movie was FAIR to everyone it portrayed.
I didn't get that George Sand was shallow - this movie actually intrigued me to find out more about her life. We see her as a passionate and kind woman who is in love. I think we see her love for Chopin turn from what appears to be a somewhat predatory attraction to begin with into a real appreciation for the person he was. She is very loving toward her disgraced, aging mother, and seems to be courageous enough to stand up for herself and what she believes in. She is of noble birth, but does not use this to get ahead in a time when class was everything. Also, there must have been something truly remarkable about a woman whose lovers pined for her long after the relationship was over.
Liszt was portrayed fairly realistically, given what I've read about the man. He is brilliant and clever, but (in the grand tradition of tortured artists) feels totally stifled by his baby mama and crying babies. We feel sorry for Marie until we see how cruel and malicious she really is, and at that point, I did not judge Liszt too harshly for wanting to tour and be away from her as much as possible.
I do totally agree with you about the portrayal of Chopin - he is a stuffy, simpering weakling in a perpetual bad mood. I would like to believe that the real Chopin was at least set free from his maladies by playing music, but perhaps that's the idealist in me who has never actually seen anyone suffering from tuberculosis.

reply

AND77, I think Chopin as portrayed in the movie was more than a "simpering weakling." He did, after all, try to fight a duel for George. But it's a matter of record that he was extremely frail, and that after George split up with him he went downhill and died pretty fast. He does seem to be concerned with propriety and manners and respect, so maybe you think that's prissy - but it's in the biographies that he was initially appalled by George Sand's masculine demeanor and cussing. But when they talk toward the end he reveals what he is underneath, and says he leaves his ailing body when he plays music, that's where he's happiest. He admits he needs her. When she says, "Take my strength, I have too much of it," in the end he does just that and loves her for it.

reply

Yes, I agree about the essential lightheartedness in the portrayal of a very deep, very convoluted person (Chopin) in this film.

However, I doubt TPTB set out to portray Chopin's biography. It was more of what it came to be -- a superficial examination of his relationships with Liszt, Delacroix and Sand. Even the music took the backseat, really. I just watch it for the prettiness factor, nothing deeper. You really can't expect anything deeper with Grant in the title role, really. I'm a fan of his and, as such, I know his limitations. He's good with romantic comedy, nothing deeper.

That said, the portrayals by Emma Thompson and Grant were good; but this is no Amadeus.

---
"Fear not for the future; weep not for the past." -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
---

reply

No, you're not the only one (as you already know).
All I want to add is that, though I have only very superficial knowledge of the lives of the people portrayed, I do, however, have extensive knowledge of what makes a good screenplay. This was not one of them, at least up to the moment I stopped watching.
I bought the DVD mostly out of a sense of completing my collection of Emma-Thompson-films.

But, since period drama and remakes of period drama are still the fashion, perhaps someone else will have a go at the subject in the near future.

reply

After taking the disk out of the player less than half-way in, I came to IMDb to check the review I should have read before renting it. I enjoy the work of many of the actors in this film, but it is like a made-for-TV movie with big-name actors. The substance of it was rather strange.

The off-putting part of it for me was the amount of time spent on silly details that didn't seem to lead the story forward. Once a premise has been established (here, a 19th century European time frame, by way of horses, carriages, old-fashioned utensils, nursing babies, etc.) you don't need to keep doing it. At any rate, as this story progressed I found myself losing interest in where the characters might be going.

reply

Jesus, I can't believe you people. The movie is not a biography! It's a dang farce! It's a romantic screwball comedy with real life people. Can't you just enjoy it on that level? Man, this is movie, not a book! Mama mia. It's about the fun of falling in love, etc. I happen to love Chopin & Liszt, but nowhere near was I offended by their portrayals. In fact I had a smile though all of it. Emma Thompson was a riot, and sexy! Judy is perfect, and Mandy is always a fun.

reply

Ironically, your remarks give me the best response - "Mama Mia." I was as unimpressed with Mama Mia as I was with Impromptu - both screenplays were so superficial that there was no suspending disbelief to get into the story. Your mileage obviously does vary.

I like Hugh Grant, but he only ever plays Hugh Grant. "Impromptu" had the cast to make this potentially a great film, but a poor script and iffy direction didn't allow it to reach that potential.

Whatever lens you chose to view this film through, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

reply

[deleted]