After a long hiatus since the pandemic, I made a return to the cinema notably to catch up with #lefrenchfilmfestival. Most of the films I would say struggled to justify your time in the cinema indulging in such frivolity but this one particularly stood out. I am not familiar with and have never read Balzac but I reckon this film gives you a glimpse of his genius and why he remains a giant in French literary circle, not merely for prose or poetry but for his devastatingly incisive social commentary still relevant today. And one couldn't help but feel despite our technological advancements and having totally plundered the planet, from a moral standpoint the world hasn't progressed not even an inch today and remains mercilessly mercenary under a veneer of righteousness as Balzac had so accurately depicted some two centuries ago. Dazzlingly executed with a superb ensemble of cast, illuminating performances, a production nothing short of breathtaking and lashings of Baroque including the less often heard Jean-Philippe Rameau, the film remains and stays with you long after you have left the cinema.

"Like any story of a rural youngster trying to make good in a major city, where Lucien aspires to pursue his vocation and earns his footing, the ups-and-downs of navigating a path through a classist, venal society (here a 19th-century Paris) are full of revelations, compromises and traps. Lucien's rapport with Mme. De Bargeton sours when his low-born status gets him shunned by the snooty silk-stocking crowd (among which, Balibar's imperious Marquise d'Espard is the class act, frictionlessly conveying veiled contempt and darting dismissive glances with such indelible finesse), his integrity disintegrates in the course of earning his name through yellow journalism, his genuine love with a plebeian stage actress Coralie (a voluptuous, plump-faced Dewaels) is doomed by malady and profligacy." -

A young provincial aspiring poet. A marquise patron married to a much older man. A grocer's editor who can't read or write. An unscrupulous journalist at a time when freedom of the press was confused with lack of ethics. The homonymous film adaptation of one of the most celebrated novels by Honoré de Balzac (Illusions Perdues, 1837), an integral part of the writer's comédie humaine, invites us to witness the decline of Lucien de Rubempré, played by the young actor, Benjamin Voisin, who I already knew from SUMMER 85 (François Ozon, 2020), so it didn't surprise me that he managed to take such a long and intense story upon his shoulders. In LOST ILLUSIONS (Xavier Giannoli, 2021), Lucien de Rubempré (Voisin) dreams of becoming a recognized poet, arriving in Paris eager to make his literary talents known. However, the illusion is quickly replaced by the temptation to indulge in the easy life of a sensationalist journalist. Throughout the film, the dialogue with the present is evident and we can easily see that the director intends to bring to the 21st century a veiled critique of the journalism that is practiced today, superficial and not very rigorous, as well as a society dominated by greed and absence of moral values. As the book says, "both the political law and the moral law were disowned by everyone; opinions belied by conduct and conduct by opinions". As for Julien, even involved in the nastiness of Parisian society, still has a certain naivety, which leads him to be entangled in a web of Machiavellian plans that manipulate his destiny as if he were a puppet.

Xavier Giannoli's adaptation of Balzac offers a masterful period piece set in Paris in 1820s following the steps of young Lucien who dreams of being a famous writer. As he struggles through artistic merits, class discrimination, sexual awakening and corruption, also he faces the manipulation of art, media and finance. The lost of innocence goes along with story of Lucien (brilliant act by Benjamin Voisin) which puts one's mind so many references to current media world. Winner is the highest bidder whether it happens to be art and entertainment or simple news. Art directing is wonderful so are the main cast. The voiceover narrative in this movie becomes a perfect choice. Fake news, fake applause! "Illusion perdues" unfolds many storylines related to past and present, and deserves to be seen again and again.

I won't repeat the storyline here as that's already been covered by many others. Lost Illusions is a visually sumptuous film throughout. I did notice that all of the camera work is quite tight, with very few if any longshots. As such it can feel slightly claustrophobic, if by design or chance I'm not sure. I'm not suggesting it a positive or negative, just an observation. I generally liked the male performances, especially Voisin does a nice job. Salome Dewaels does a very fine job as well but I feel the two other female performances were both a bit constrained. Several viewers took issue with the volume of narration - to that I feel there might have been a couple of instances of this, ever so slightly, but for the most part I have no major issues with this element. Lost Illusions is a beautiful and interesting film worth checking out.

It's a 600 page novel that had to be boiled down to fit the running time of 2 1/2 hours, some minor characters had to be thrown out. The third part of the book is dispensed with--no great loss. We are left with a wonderful satire of the popular press in France circa 1830. Graft and bribery are part of the game, and our hero Lucien is never quite sure where the next knife is going to come from that will enter his back. My favourite character is Sarfati, the claque leader, whose mob can be bought for whomever pays top dollar. The acting is superb, as you might imagine: Depardieu, de France, de Lenquesaing all acquit themselves well, and Vincent Lacoste as Lucien's changeable buddy Lousteau is marvellous. Only Benjamin Voisin doesn't quite meet the demands of the role, and he's in almost every scene. Sets and costumes are very good, and Giannoli's direction is assured.

I was a little scared before watching this film; I was scared to get bored, because romance in costume is not my stuff. Speaking of costume movies, this is not BARRY LYNDON but a captivating French film, which could have been made seventy years ago by an Albert Lewin, starring George Sanders, except maybe that the lead character here is not as nasty, selfish, cynical as Sanders was in his films, and mabe not only in his films... This is the itinerary of an idealistic young man, not naive but ambitious, who tries to survive in the Paris jungle: journalism, theater, publishing, politics, a cruel, superficial, cynical, rotten, insecere, opportunist world where sharks spread everywhere. I guess Claude Chabrol could have made it too, and I think Xavier Gianolli is an authentic heir ofChabrol. It is brilliant, sensitive, bittersweet and full of details of the atmosphere of this period. Adapted from Honoré de Balzac, this would be great if this kind of films could be made about more novels from Balzac or even Zola, why not? This is millions of times better than stupid French comedies for red necks where you need someone near you to tell you when to laugh. It is after all a rise and fall scheme, which makes it more interesting.

I started to read "Lost Illusions" once and didn't get very far. Not that I thought it was bad, but rather that I just wasn't in the mood for Balzac's style of writing just then. I'll probably revisit it some day. So I can't speak to how good an adaptation this movie is, but man is it a good movie in its own right. I love stories about women in big dresses and men in cravats exchanging significant glances in drawing rooms, which is pretty much all this movie is. The young actor Benjamin Voisin carries this movie admirably on his slim shoulders, and the whole thing is a scathing indictment of the relationship between journalism, wealth, and power. It's eye opening, not necessarily because it's surprising, but because it makes Paris of the 1800s relevant to the world of 2023. And I don't think I've ever seen a more effective and artistic closeup of male genitalia in a film before. The juxtaposition of a fistful of money against a male * says in a single image what Balzac spent pages and pages communicating to his readers. Grade: A.

The quality of the movie is high and it is always full of emotions until the last minute. The meaning is wisdom, because life is often like this, in a world full of many evil people and so many low quality people ... wolves that tear apart other wolves. Art is often bought, even today. Excellent film with some problems in some scenes and some actors.

France, 1820s. A young poet, Lucien de Rubempre, moves to Paris with the aim of being published. After a few menial jobs he finds work as a journalist, an art critic. Here he sees the corruption and influence of the press and how to play their game. Interesting, thought-provoking...and a little disappointing. I watched this because it is based on a de Balzac novel but set my expectations rather low before watching this. It appeared to be a period piece potentially revolving around the social mores of the time. These sorts of movies always bore and frustrate me as they usually involve some sort of Machiavellian scheme or humiliation that rests on something really arbitrary by today's customs but usually ends up in someone killing themselves or dying in a duel in the movie. The first few scenes hinted that this was the path it was going to take but then thankfully de Rubempre whisks himself off to Paris and the story starts in earnest. Things get really interesting once he becomes a journalist and we see the corruption of the press, how they create news rather than report on it, how controversy, even when based on lies, sells. Sound familiar? Yes, you could easily shift the setting to the 21st century and it would be incredibly accurate. So what we have is a study on the media and how its as bad in reality in the 21st century as it was in a fictional novel set in the 1820s. Unfortunately, this great examination and condemnation of the media doesn't go anywhere. Rather than continue to stick the knife into the media, the second half of the movie follows a more subdued, less pointed, course. It ends up more a Machiavellian period piece than an evisceration of the media. It's also drawn out unnecessarily. The ending is reasonably profound and uplifting though. So a bit disappointing in that it got my hopes up by the halfway mark and then disappointed me but still quite interesting regardless.