Le divorce
Tags: violence, cruelty, murder, romantic

Plot synopsis:
Isabel Walker (Kate Hudson) travels to Paris to visit her sister, poet Roxy (Watts), who lives with her husband, Frenchman Claude-Henri, and her young daughter, Gennie. Roxy is pregnant, but her husband has just walked out on her without explanation. Isabel discovers that he has a married Russian lover, Magda Tellman, whom he intends to marry after securing a divorce from Roxy. Roxy refuses to divorce him.
Paris-based American author Olivia Pace (Glenn Close), a friend of Roxy's, offers Isabel a job. The sisters visit the Claide-Henri's family's country home for Sunday brunch, where Isabel meets Claude-Henri's mother (Leslie Caron), and her handsome middle-aged brother-in-law, Edgar.
Isabel also meets Yves, Olivia's protégé, and they begin an affair. At the same time, she is attracted to the older, wealthy and married Edgar. The two begin an affair, although Isabel continues to string Yves along.
Claude-Henri maintains a blasé attitude about his infidelity and insists on a divorce. He also hopes to benefit from the French community property laws in the divorce, especially with regard to a painting owned by his wife's family. His mistress, Magda Tellman, is married to a man who begins to stalk and harass Roxy, thinking her responsible for his wife's desertion. Claude-Henri's cruelty and insensitivity take their toll on Roxy, and she attempts suicide in late pregnancy. She survives and is supported by Isabel and her lawyer.
Roxy and Isabel's parents arrive from the US, which further complicates things when Edgar 's wife, Amelie, discovers the affair through Edgar's sister and Roxy's mother-in-law. She and Claude-Henri's mother confront, not Isabel, but her mother.
Magda childishly teases her husband with her new relationship, and Claude-Henri is later found dead, murdered by Magda's husband in a crime of passion. Tellman then follows the sisters on a family outing to the Eifell Tower, where he corners them and pulls a gun, demanding an opportunity to explain to an absent Roxy why he killed her husband. After some persuasion, the distraught Tellman releases the gun to Isabel, who drops it into a Kelly bag, an expensive gift from Edgar, before throwing it off the Eiffel Tower.
Edgar, persuaded by his socially conscious family's concern, and tiring of his young lover, casually ends his affair with Isabel with a Chanel scarf and a lunch.
After Roxy's baby is born, she marries her lawyer. Isabel begins a real relationship with Yves. The disputed family painting of Saint Ursula by Georges de la Tour, rejected by the Louvre as worthless, sells for 4.5 million Euros, and because its ownership is no longer disputed on Claude-Henri's death, the money goes to the Walker family.

Review: I do admit that I had some doubts when it seemed that Merchant-Ivory were doing what looked like a light comedy, but there is much more to the book and film than that, first of all, and secondly, why should accomplished filmmakers not move around the genres?
My point being, that each film must be judged on its own merits.I've read a couple of comments and message board posts that complain about how the movie makes French people look -- arrogant, garrulous, etc.
It shows that subjectivity is a common human trait, that we look at the world with our own particular set of blinders, filter our thought through our cultural stance, although I think that perhaps French thought is more synthesized and common than American thought which is, by nature of the population, more diverse.In the end I think that the book and the film are VERY objective, and let us look at our own judgmental selves and see how the judgmental and subjective nature of our thought and attitude can be damaging and inhibiting.
In fact, the sin they appear to have committed was to adapt the Diane Johnson's novel about the contrasts she has always written about between two cultures that should be more similar: the French and American, yet, as we read in the book, and now watched in the film, they are not as close as one would imagine.First, the French one sees portrayed in the film belong to the high classes that are imbued in their traditions, savoir faire, their sense of style and being B.C.B.G., something the Americans, being somehow a new society without those traditions cannot comprehend.
In her many books about life in that country, the study in the contrasts she sees, are at center stage and the mixing of Americans with the French bourgeoisie produces surprising results that make the reading of her novels more compelling for the joy they bring to her readers.Isabel, the young American, arriving to stay with her sister Roxanne, takes easily to the new surroundings.
Stephen Fry, Stockard Channing, Sam Waterston, and the rest of the French and American cast do a good job.This film has a feeling of being more French than some French movies.
When the book came out, as an American living in Paris for 30 years, I avoided reading another set of American observations on everything French that foreign residents here hate, and I can't say that the movie avoids the pitfalls of throwing around generalities.
I'd like to see him extend what he has done here, if any producer or director can be bothered.The film had such a short run in France that I missed seeing it in a movie theater, and it was dismissed by most French critics on its release like the way that some of the American characters are dismissed by their French counterparts in the film itself.
So also with this one: a nice mixture of irony, wry humour, and culture clash (American vs French) all topped off with some murder and financial skullduggery.There's a large cast of characters, but I'll confine most of my comments to the four main players: Kate Hudson as Isabel Walker, Naomi Watts as her sister, Roxeanne, married to Charles-Henri played by Melvil Poupaud and Isabel's aging lover, Edgar Cosset, played with exquisite panache by Theirry Lhermitte.The story begins as Charles-Henri is leaving Roxeanne (and his daughter) for another woman, Magda (Rona Hartner), just as Isabel is arriving, from USA, to assist Roxeanne.
In the meantime, Isabel settles in with Roxeanne and, through the family connections meets Edgar (who is Charles-Henri's uncle) and agrees to become his lover.The divorce battle gets worse as Roxeanne discovers the inequalities that exist in French law regarding marriage settlements.
Further drama ensues when Tellman (Mathew Modine) shows up, ranting to Roxeanne about Charles-Henri's seduction of Magda, Tellman's wife.And, in and out of that mess, Isabel becomes more involved with Edgar, much to the annoyance of Edgar's family  but, trust the French to be very civilized about Edgar's affairs  and the arrival of Roxeanne's parents and brother (Sam Waterston, Stockard Channing and Thomas Lennon, respectively) who have come to support Roxeanne during her difficult time  and, just quietly, to help torpedo Charles-Henri's grab for the La Tour art piece, now valued at multi-millions.The resolution of all these affairs is competently contrived with many scene changes as the plot interweaves between the two couples, one seeking divorce, the other eventually seeking a divorce of a different kind: as Edgar says to Isabel, finally: "I'm too old for you." And, through the latter half of the story, the American and French families intermingle, giving rise to some delicious moments of that humour and irony already mentioned.The denouement is predictable, but still enjoyable, and marred only by Mathew Modine's somewhat overacted deranged husband; still, his intervention is instrumental and provides the only real suspenseful moments in an otherwise conventional divorce story.
And, I was very pleasantly surprised to see Leslie Caron once again, as Edgar's mother.However, with a lot of sub-titles, some people will be turned off from an otherwise English-speaking film, despite the French actors often lapsing into that language.
Have not read the novel, but the movie itself is slush (not having read the novel I can't say whether to blame the author).Supposedly, the story explores the values gulf between America and France, with sex the American taboo and money the French taboo.
Characters act stupidly or self-destructively, doing the kind of nasty or narcissistic things that would make them the villain of most any other putative comedy of manners, only to have their clueless behavior transcended (to the downside) in the very next scene.The only real surprise in the film is that it was made by the same folks who gave us "A Room With A View" and its distinguished successors.
(Thank goodness they have another film coming out soon.) Rather than engaging the audience, "Le Divorce" is so absurd that about halfway through, it joins the group of films that are so bad you watch to the end just to hoot at the screen.Our antipathy to the characters is particularly amazing because there is not a bad performance.
After all, it's a Merchant Ivory movie that stars actors like Naomi Watts, Glenn Close, Stockard Channing, Romain Duris and Kate Hudson, so how bad could it be?
Sadly, this is perhaps Merchant Ivory's weakest film.'Le Divorce' contrasts between the French culture and the American.
Much 'use' is made of the stereotype Americans have of French people but there are also certain interesting differences made here (such as Roxanne's unfair divorce settlement and how her in-laws become obsessed with a painting she owns).
As a French woman and Parisian I felt insulted by it and really wondered what was in James Ivory's mind when he made it.Kate Hudson's and Naomi Watts' characters seem to be attracted by French rude and worthless men, but as far as I know, not all French men are rude and worthless...
There is an obvious juxtaposition of the two families (one very "typical" American, the other more "old money" French) with the people in the middle (Naomi Watts' and Glenn Close's characters, who are from one "side" but live amongst the others) which is refreshingly handled.
My niece and I found the film version of Diane Johnson's comedy of manners to be nice, sophisticated fun despite a heavy-handed subplot with Matthew Modine stalking his estranged wife, the catalyst for the title situation (the fact that Roxanne's husband would leave her for this annoying chipmunk of a woman shows that his taste is all in his mouth).
Director James Ivory also co-adapted this film-version of Diane Johnson's novel about a pregnant American writer in Paris getting a visit from her vivacious half-sister on the same afternoon her husband walks out on her and their young daughter; while the estranged couple squabbles over legal matters, the sister gets a job working with another female writer and seduces a French politician, whom she calls "Uncle Edgar".
The French people have no respect for marriage or for the feelings of their pregnant daughter/sister-in-law (Watts) whose husband has left her with no explanation like a b**tard and a coward.
I don't think I laughed once in this "comedy." Both the Americans and the French are annoying and there is barely any actual humanity in their characters.
By the end of the movie I found myself, perhaps much like the French, as seeing the situation as a "comedy" but in a philosophical way.
I guess I was hoping that at any moment something exciting would happen, but needless to say it didn't happen.As previously mentioned in other comments, I did appreciate the scenery as well as the restaurant scenes, but I think that was it.I would vote this movie as a 3 based on the fact that I couldn't even finish watching the film..
The movie started out to be deceivingly mysterious and interesting, you know, pretty American girl sets out to discover her future via a visit to her sister in Paris, France.
Not only does the plot make no sense at all, Kate Hudson plays a dumb promiscuous woman who, instead of helping her recently divorced pregnant sister, spends all her time having an affair with an old pathetic man.
Huh?"Annoyances: Cloying Hudson(with her distractingly crappy, sub-plot haircut); Watt's embarassingly unemotional performance(and she was so good in Mulholland Drive, it's a shame); Modine's madness which is supposed to be hillariously disturbing but is just sad and irritating; the Russian girlfriend's constant woman-of-India whiny singing (every damn time you see her!); long, boring scenes with one-dimensional characters who add nothing to the, um, "story".Okay, there was one little scene that I liked where two French cops are talking in a car.
Aside from miscasting Matthew Modine (and his ridiculous subplot which should have been either eliminated from the movie or transformed into something much more profound (such as a serious attempt to woo)) and the nonsense over the Georges de la Tour picture (what was the point?), the rest of Le Divorce has good wit, interesting social commentary, and very fine performances, especially Kate Hudson as the American ingenue, played with just the right touch of insouciant charm..
I left this film feeling a bit drunk -- it's light, sophisticated, smartly written, and features an unbelievable ensemble: Kate Hudson (who I sometimes have reservations about) won me over completely as Isabel Walker, an American girl discovering herself abroad -- she is so much more accomplished here than when she is using her usual romantic-comedy bag of tricks.
Given the fact that I'm neither a Kate Hudson fan nor a Naomi Watts fan, I probably shouldn't have rented this movie expecting to like it.
Unfortunately for me, she was in Le Divorce and I had to sit through it.Kate Hudson goes to France to support her pregnant sister Naomi Watts, whose husband has just left her for another woman.
People who absolutely love France and the French culture, or die-hard Kate Hudson fans might like Le Divorce, but besides that, I can't imagine most people getting through it.
Kate Hudson plays an aimless American who soaks up the local culture while visiting her unhappy, pregnant half sister (Naomi Watts) in Paris.
Watts as Roxy is headed for divorce while Hudson as Isabel leaps into an affair with a married French diplomat.It took me several attempts to get through this movie.
I said great American cast because the French actors, especially the young ones (Thiery Lhermitte is better than he usually is, but it's difficult to see what the character played by Kate Hudson found sexy in him), are awful both as actors and film stars.
Naomi Watts and Kate Hudson shine although Hudson's character doesn't have the quirky comments like she does in "How to lose a guy in 10 days".Don't watch this film if you have an afternoon to watch a good quality film....however if you've got an hour and a half free it's a great way to past the time.Lastly, the 12 rating is a bit low I think.
So the shock of culture can only spread continuously, because the movie is about the rift of a divorce between a American-french family.In those days of religious misunderstandings, it is a good recall that even people who share the same faith but leave in different countries, are so much disparate.A good recommendation, even if the DVD lacks terribly of bonuses..
The posters and other advertising material for this film make one think that 'Le Divorce' is a sweet and charming Parisian romantic comedy, but instead the audience is subjected to nearly two hours of poorly thought-out characters, a plot that goes nowhere, depressing lives and confusing motives.'Le Divorce' is a conspicuously anti-male and anti-French film.
I had thought that "Jefferson in Paris", though pretty and set to wonderful music, was a blip on the radar that would quickly go away, but evidently they decided to waste more money and tell a tale of nothing.The treatment of the women in this movie is degrading and merely enforces ideas that women will stay with a man no matter what, no matter how much he abuses her (what would it have taken to finally tell her husband that he is an ass for just leaving for no reason and then showing up with a half-wit Russian girl).Kate Hudson comes over to Paris and rounds out the whole show by portraying the ultimate in stupid American girls.
Santa Barbarans should be outraged by the insistence that this absurd family represents such a nice place and its good people.Can we please make movies that promote women as thinking, feeling, strong persons instead of people constantly being dragged around and walked on?I suppose that M/I just wanted to ride the current problems between the French and Americans to make a buck.
Even so, it's hard to ignore such a charming cast (Naomi Watts, Kate Hudson, Glenn Close, Matthew Modine, Stephen Fry and Leslie Caron, among others), and the stereotyped French versus Americans imbroglio shouldn't be taken too seriously.I'd give it a 5/10 (you won't die if you don't see it, but you may have a nice time if you do)..
Maybe they were making things up as they did the filming, since it's hard to believe that they started with a complete screenplay that was so obviously lame.In an opening scene we have Charles-Henri (Melvil Poupaud) walking out on Roxeanne (Naomi Watts) setting up the premise for the movie's title.
A rather gratuitous murder is tossed in for good measure - are you starting to get the picture?I assume that part of what was to have been interesting about this movie was an examination of the differences between American and French cultures.
And there's also Olivia Pace (Glen Close),some American writer who keeps talking about scarfs and French women who, like the rest of the cast, somehow forced her way into the story.Even Bebe Neuwirth join the circus as a museum curator prompting the painting bore.Now what really bugged me about this movie is that after the equivalent of two entire life times, i was drowsy, frustrated and STILL hadn't figured out the whole point of the movie!
The movie is not about any of those idiotic sub-plots, it's actually about the contrast between the French and the American culture and in that aspect, it's not only interesting, but it's brilliant!
Interesting Ivory movie, mainly because you keep on pondering: what the bleep was he thinking?Naomi Watts is an American woman living in France with her husband.
It's international alright!Meanwhile, the Hudson character is having an affair with the uncle of the husband of her sister (no kidding), plus the American husband of the Russian woman comes into play (although it's not sure why he's in it...).It is totally unclear what Ivory want to say with this movie.
We have Hudson and Watts most unexciting performances in their careers, an awful plot (if you can call it that), terrible pacing, really really bad script, completely stereotypical view of the french, etc etc.
Other than Matthew Modine, Thierry Lhermitte, and Glenn Close putting great performances and a few interesting facts about marriages, divorces, and social norms in France, there really isn't anything worth watching.Unlike the last great U.S. pseudo-french film, Chocolat, this lacks meaning, sexiness, acting, and a beautiful soundtrack to underscore the film.
Maybe it was a deeper role than the usual superficial character role we are used to but her part certainly did not appeal to me.On the other hand, the presence of Naomi Watts, though more limited than that of Hudson, stole the attention of the film in a sympathetic way.If you are up for laughs I would not recommend this movie.
I went in expecting to see at least some good acting performances from Naomi Watts and Kate Hudson, but Le Divorce came up short even on that.
If there is a movie about stereotyped "gringos" out of "America" this is it.It is loaded with xenophobia and Glenn Close does a great job again portraying an obnoxious "Yankee-loving" "American" woman stranded in a foreign country longing to return.Actors are good but the plot is poor.THIS IS NOT A COMEDY but a tragedy, not funny and not recommended as an export film in times when the world is turning into a "gringos not welcomed" place.It is not possible for us to relate to any of the characters portrayed in this movie.Please stay away from this piece of crap..
My watching "Le Divorce" reminded me of myself being the main character in a Theater of the Absurd production where I keep watching a movie that has no point, the whole time thinking that something interesting will eventually come along.Kate Hudson's character added no value to the film.
Naomi Watts is gorgeous, and Kate Hudson is also nice to look at.It's hard to believe any man would walk out on Naomi, but the world is a strange place.The satire on French customs and mores is mostly interesting for most of the movie.