Fanny

---

Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »

---

Leslie Caron gets top billing and the lion share of screen time in "Fanny" but Maurice Chevalier steals the show from the first frame. Making its DVD debut, this 1961 film is based on the Tony-Award musical of the same name. Despite getting its start way back in 1954, the story is surprisingly risqué and contemporary, dealing with issues such as illegitimate children, premarital sex, cleavage and adultery. Because of Chevalier and the cast, those issues are presented in a jovial, comedic way until the third act, when the humor and levity the production is built on is jettisoned in favor of mediocre melodrama.

Set in the port city of Marseilles, Fanny (Caron) is the object of two men´s affections: barkeeper Cesar´s son Marius (Hort Buchholz) and the elder Panisse. While Marius is torn between his love for the young girl and his longing for the sea, Panisse only wants an heir to his sail making shop. When Marius leaves Marseilles after a romantic night with Fanny, she marries her older suitor, complete with the information her unborn baby is Marius´. Cesar, Panisse, Fanny…even Fanny´s blusterous mother Honorine (Georgette Anys) keeps the secret.

I will admit right off the bat: I was mesmerized by "Fanny." Not only because of the taboo subjects it dared to talk about, but also because of the script and the actors assembled to pull it off. While Caron falls into the trap of being just a beautiful face-she is given relatively little to do through the movie outside of reciting nearly emotionless lines-this movie belongs to two actors: Chevalier and Charles Boyer. Their interplay, the way they bounce off of one another from start to finish is more than standard movie trickery. We buy them as long time friends, men who have sat together, laughed and cried together for years on end. It´s like watching a ping pong ball go back and forth between two comparable players. We can´t take our eyes off of either man for fear we´ll miss some aspect to their performance. This level of comfort with one another is hard to fake; these two make it look effortless.

Which isn´t to discount the rest of the cast. While Caron, as already mentioned, tends to be one note and Buchholz seems to be channeling either James Dean or Marlon Brando (maybe both). A brooding, quick tempered teen, Marius is the ostensible villain of the film. He´s the one who runs out on Fanny and the baby. He´s the one the rest of the cast despises right until the very end. In effect, he is the reason each event we see in the 134 minute running time happens. Just because he channels Dean or Brando doesn´t mean the script really gives Buchholz much to do, either. Yes, he can shout and sneer and even draw us in with his dark eyes. We simply don´t engage with his viewpoint or choices.

To be fair, it´s not totally the fault of the character. Marius is thrown into a difficult position after finally bedding the girl he has supposedly loved for years. With both Cesar and Honorine planning their future together, Marius is on a roller coaster he can´t stop unless he leaves Marseilles. But it shows his immaturity, his inability to put anyone but himself first in the world. I think that´s where much of the problem is for the character. There´s nothing new about him, nothing we haven´t seen before and nothing we won´t continue to see. (Even in 1961 terms, his boyish selfishness can´t have been anything new.) Buchholz does the best he can with a limited role; fundamentally, the character himself is flawed.

I mentioned "Fanny" runs a whopping 134 minutes. This seems a bit long for a romance/drama/comedy hybrid. The film gets bogged down in a bit too much humor early on, ostensibly designed to flesh out all the characters. While I´ve already raved about the actors in these scenes, their interaction is a side story, a sub plot to the romance drama on the screen. Trim a scene or two, another judicious edit and we´d be left with a trim, unbloated two hour film. How many scenes of Honorine being a boorish brute do we really need? Sure, it adds a secondary female presence to the film and additional comic relief though, in the end, she doesn´t add anything to the main story.

The comedy, undoubtedly, is the reason the story is able to touch upon all the controversial subjects I mentioned earlier. Without it, audiences would have seen the drama as nothing more than a way to preach a particular viewpoint, even as a way to circumvent the screen values of the time. It should be noted the word "sex" is never uttered; characters come out and mention Fanny´s pregnancy and Marius running from his new family is an open secret. These topics are never shied away from. Instead, they simply appear as if there is nothing out of the ordinary about them. In reality, there isn´t.

It´s the ending I have the most trouble with for one simple reason: the narrative doesn´t stay true to itself. In the climax, with Panisse on his deathbed, we´re left in a state of cold shock. Aside from his age and one little motion a little earlier in the picture, there is no indication the man is ever in poor health. (Remember the trims and edits I mentioned a minute ago? Had a couple of the comic scenes been cut and some more "bridge" material showing Fanny, Panisse and Cesario (the son) building a life together been inserted instead, the finale would seem more natural, smoother. As it is, we jump ahead nearly 10 years with no on screen character development to show for it.) There´s a substantial tonal shift from easy merriment to melodrama with nothing to connect the two parts. Even a montage would have worked to a certain extent, showing the passage of time or allowing a gradual change. Whether the fault of the script or the original production-or even the absence of the musical numbers from the play-it feels like director Joshua Logan is trying to cram ill fitting pieces together.

---

---