Bel Ami, 2012
Based on the poster and the lukewarm IMDb score, I was expecting this to not be that great. Instead I was pleasantly surprised by the performances, the plot arc, and the themes/conflicts it explored.
There is a whole subgenre of films about people who come from a poor background trying to manipulate their way through socially climbing society. I thought that this story was a different and interesting take on that dynamic.
Georges Duroy (Robert Pattinson) returns from work as a soldier with no money. Managing to connect with another veteran who is much better off, Georges begins to attempt to ascend the social ladder through a series of manipulations and seductions. But as he gets further into his schemes, he realizes that there are more dynamics at play than he originally imagined.
Films where the male lead seduces a series of women often comes off as a way to show the prowess of the guy. But the take on this dynamic in
Bel Ami is very different. Georges is very young (Pattinson was 26 at the time he played the character), and all of his "conquests" are significantly older and more experienced than he is. The viewer is lulled, along with Georges, into believing that he is using them, when in fact it is sometimes the other way around.
The main pillar of the film is the relationship between Georges and a woman named Madeleine (a fabulous Uma Thurman). Madeleine is incredibly intelligent, and all of Georges' work (he is a writer for a newspaper) is literally dictation that he takes from her. She is content to allow Georges to claim her insight and ability as his own, hoping to raise him up. The film gets very interesting when Georges realizes that Madeleine has her own lover, and the ensuing feelings of jealousy he has.
It's too complex to unpack every twist and turn, but all of the actresses playing the women Georges pursues are excellent. Christina Ricci as his first lover, who doesn't care that he has no money. Thurman as the woman he ends up marrying. And Kirsten Scott Davis as a bored wife who Georges seduces merely to embarrass her husband. Each of them bring an element (empathy, intelligence, passion) in which Georges is outmatched.
And this is where I felt that the film was most interesting in its themes. The women in his life are all, in one way or another, better than Georges. Especially Madeleine, whose intelligence and stoicism practically burst at the seams. There are little ways in which they have power over Georges (including one very well-acted scene in which, fed up with Georges pestering her for sex while she is working, Madeleine throws him down on a chair, lifts her skirts, and aggressively has sex with him as he pleads with her to slow down--an interaction that shocks and humiliates Georges and is the first moment in which he realizes who needs who).
But due to social mores at the time, the mere fact that Georges is a man gives him power over the women. Once Georges embraces all of the power he is afforded merely due to his gender, he is able to gain the upper hand. It is both fascinating and frustrating to see the way in which Georges is able to manipulate, and the different reactions of the women to his manipulations.
I think that what makes the film really work is the way that the writing and Pattinson's performance allow you to always retain some sympathy for Georges. He might be manipulative, greedy, and a hypocrite (having two affairs at the same time and yet being angry when his wife takes a lover), but his point of view is very clear. He watched his father die destitute and he is determined not to repeat that fate. We also see the way that others in society delight in humiliating Georges. The wealthy people are a ruthless bunch, and so it's not merely a case of an "evil poor person" deceiving innocent, kind wealthy people. Georges is damaged, and his own pride and the actions of those around him keep him from ever finding a satisfying, loving relationship. While I wasn't exactly rooting for Georges, I felt enough for him that I wasn't just disgusted watching his every move.
I'd definitely be interested in reading the book on which it was based, because so many of the characters were interesting.
I won't speculate as to why the film's IMDb score is so low, but I thought that this was a pleasant surprise and an engaging period piece. The performances alone are what bumps it from a 3.5 to a 4 for me.