"Souper" power : "canapés" and "hors-d'oeuvre".

Comparing the upset victory of Molinaro’s « L’emmerdeur » over Wilder’s « Buddy, buddy » to Canada beating Brazil at soccer is unfair : to Molinaro, not to Canada’s soccer team.

A French win over Brazil provides a more appropriate comparison : Brazil is the better team, but often loses to France.

Edouard Molinaro is the kind of filmmakers critics hate : unpredictable, never showing up where you expect. He is easier to dismiss than -some of- his films.

They are a weird bunch : « La mort de Belle » (1960)... « Hibernatus » (1969)... « L’emmerdeur » (1973)... « Dracula père et fils » (1976)... « La cage aux folles » (1978)... « La cage aux folles II » (1980)... « Pour cent briques, t’as plus rien ! » (1982)... « Le Souper » (1992)...

The director is a hard fit for the « auteur »’s mould. A recurring theme in his films ? The odd couple ? It would apply to all filmmakers, from Hal Roach to Hitchcock and Bergman.

In French « jargon », Molinaro is a « faiseur », literally a « maker » ; the word is usually pronounced with a deprecating pout : a director for hire, a man ready to compromise, no Manoel de Oliveira or Theo Angelopoulos.

A team player or a coach rather than a full-fledged demiurge, an open-minded craftsman ready to put his skills to the service of material initiated by others.

Analysing his list of movies, a film investment manager would advice careful « stockpicking » : « L’emmerdeur » for sure, « Le souper » too.

Paris. July 6, 1815. Three weeks earlier, Napoleon’s tentative come back from Elba island hit the wall in Waterloo. Allied English, Prussian, Russian armies are in Paris. In the city streets, the mob’s temper is as stormy as the weather.

Louis XVIII, who fled upon notice of the deposed emperor’s approach, is hiding in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. He is as eager to return to his capital city, throne and beloved people as fearful of the Parisians’ welcome.

In this vacancy of power, this is the night of living dangerously : France next regime and the political shape of Europe are at stake. Talleyrand invites Fouché for supper at his palatial home.
A little historical background.

Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord was born in 1854, an aristocrat among the aristocrats and a schemer among the schemers by world-wide History standards.

Bishop of Autun, a clergy representative during Etats Généraux, he rides the first French Revolution wave, until Robespierre’s Terreur forces him into exile.

His departure saves his neck and, when Robespierre’s head falls, he returns.

He serves Bonaparte, then Napoléon from 1797 through 1807 as Minister of foreign affairs ; his services are valued : he is made Prince de Bénévent and « Grand chambellan d’Empire ».

In 1807, he disapproves the Emperor’s decision to break with Austria ; in 1809, he falls into disgrace.

In 1814, he is back in charge of French foreign affairs : for Louis XVIII. When Napoleon escapes from Elba island, he does not desert the king’s ranks : he is shrewd, if not by loyal.

Joseph Fouché was born in 1759, near Nantes. A plebeian among plebeians, he was heir to no bishop’s palace, or scruples either. Revolution is his chance, he grabs it with both hands.

He is a natural for police work. During Terreur, he hones his skills in Lyons, repressing Christians and all supposed Revolution enemies.

When Robespierre’s head rolls, his remains cool : his talent is unique, no regime can do without him ; during the Directoire, Consulat and Empire periods, until 1810, he is Police Minister, his networkd control the country, Napoléon makes him duc d’Otrante.

When the former emperor returns, he sides with him ; during « les Cent-Jours », the one hundred day period between Napoléon’s landing in France and Waterloo, the Police Ministry is his again.

Wrong bet, but nobody but he can guarantee Louis XVIII’s safety in Paris.

Talleyrand and Fouché hate, and need, each other. They eat, talk and drink, with mesmerising on screen effect.

How much thanks to Molinaro ? Hard to say, but does it matter ?

Film adapts a successful stage play by Jean-Claude Brisville. Script is written by Brisville in collaboration with Molinaro and producer Yves Rousset-Rouard, of « Emmanuelle »’s fame. As Talleyrand and Fouché, Claude Rich and Claude Brasseur resume their stage roles.

Molinaro deserves at least credit for not wasting the original material and the talent trusted to his hands.

Never lazy, his direction uses the whole technical arsenal of cinema to take the audience where staged theatre cannot let them in, even in the first row, even with binoculars : the very heart of the matter.

Close ups, inserts, the constant tracking of expressions, glances, the close exploration of settings, costumes, dishes, cutlery, furniture, hangings, shadows and opulence of the room give the film an intimacy hard to match on stage.

The devil and Molinaro’s direction are in the details : nothing showy or expressionistic in them.
Confident that the director is not out to steal the show from them, the actors are, in turn, restrained ; their verbal duel only goes overboard when required by their characters.

Film effects are never underlined, Molinaro’s work is self effacing and a perfect fit for its subject matter : these mindgames of wit, double thoughts and second guesses, this subtle play of chess required an equally Cartesian, articulate direction.

As much as Fouché and Talleyrand, Molinaro gives a lesson of French moderation in revolutionary times and delivers the cool-headed work that was needed.

Film is classical, but never academic : ninety minutes long, it is as fat free as an emaciated cyclist at the end of tour de France : not an ounce of academic self-indulgence and -satisfaction in the direction, the script, the acting.

Despite the richness of the food on screen, film is as sharp as his characters’ brains, tongues and knives. In typical French fashion, gourmet cooking and wine do not dull but quicken the mind.