Gabrielle is young, gorgeous and on her way up in life. She is a TV weather lady but the network has plans for her to become an anchor. She also seems very confident, bright and articulate. Yet, at the same time, she's a complete idiot when it comes to men. She has two simultaneous affairs--one with a married author (Charles) and one with a super-possessive and scary heir to a huge family fortune (Paul). Neither is a great choice--the married guy is interesting and she loves him, but he'll never leave his wife. Paul, on the other hand, seems to have nothing to offer--other than, perhaps, money. He is so possessive that anyone with half a brain would run from him--and at first she does. But, when she realizes her married lover isn't ever going to commit, she marries the nut-case on the rebound. And you KNOW that all this will end in tragedy--partly because of the plot and partly because it's a Claude Chabrol movie and they almost always end with someone dying! So, until something horrid happens, you sit back and just wait....
You know, it's interesting that this is actually a recreation of the famous very early 20th century American crime--when a very unstable millionaire (Harry Thaw) murdered architect Stanford White in front of MANY witnesses. It was prompted by Thaw's jealousy about his wife's affair with the much older White before she married Thaw. And, in an interesting twist, Thaw (so some extent) got away with it--spending a bit of time in a mental hospital and not prison or capital punishment. When I realized all this, it made the ending of "Girl Cut in Two" a foregone conclusion. In every major way, it's the same story set now in 21st century France. Even the way the killer's mother reacts to the wife is pretty much the same as well as the court case.
So, the plot, though interesting, is certainly not original and is 100% predictable. Yet, despite the poor choice of recreating the original story almost exactly (a bit mistake--they should have rearranged the story much more), the film is good. The acting is excellent and the deliberate pace very nice. It looks good and is more enjoyable to those who don't know American history, nor have seen "Ragtime" or "The Girl on the Red Velvet Swing". It's interesting how few of the other reviewers realized this was based on the famous Thaw trial--and this does put an entirely different slant on the movie. And, it's also sad that this unoriginal plot was director Chabrol's last film--though his direction, to be fair, was very good.
By the way, and this is NOT a criticism of Chabrol, but I am getting sick of seeing people refer to his films as 'Hitchcockian'. Part of this is because exactly what this is no one can really say. Also, it's not fair to Chabrol--can't a film be 'Chabrolian'?! Just me two cents.
You know, it's interesting that this is actually a recreation of the famous very early 20th century American crime--when a very unstable millionaire (Harry Thaw) murdered architect Stanford White in front of MANY witnesses. It was prompted by Thaw's jealousy about his wife's affair with the much older White before she married Thaw. And, in an interesting twist, Thaw (so some extent) got away with it--spending a bit of time in a mental hospital and not prison or capital punishment. When I realized all this, it made the ending of "Girl Cut in Two" a foregone conclusion. In every major way, it's the same story set now in 21st century France. Even the way the killer's mother reacts to the wife is pretty much the same as well as the court case.
So, the plot, though interesting, is certainly not original and is 100% predictable. Yet, despite the poor choice of recreating the original story almost exactly (a bit mistake--they should have rearranged the story much more), the film is good. The acting is excellent and the deliberate pace very nice. It looks good and is more enjoyable to those who don't know American history, nor have seen "Ragtime" or "The Girl on the Red Velvet Swing". It's interesting how few of the other reviewers realized this was based on the famous Thaw trial--and this does put an entirely different slant on the movie. And, it's also sad that this unoriginal plot was director Chabrol's last film--though his direction, to be fair, was very good.
By the way, and this is NOT a criticism of Chabrol, but I am getting sick of seeing people refer to his films as 'Hitchcockian'. Part of this is because exactly what this is no one can really say. Also, it's not fair to Chabrol--can't a film be 'Chabrolian'?! Just me two cents.