Sweet friend still relevant “Dear friend” Maupassant is filmed with enviable regularity. And each time the same story of career rise reveals different energies and meanings of life.
The film “Dear Friend” 1955, production: France, Austria, Germany (GDR), directed by Louis Daken. In the picture there is a feeling of tight space: due to the crowding of people, it seems more human, the impression remains that the air is saturated with character, sensuality, then people. Already here there is proportionality to the text of Maupassant, however, the film still did not reach the strength and expressiveness of the book.
The rise on the social ladder of a man who is not outstanding either in virtues, shortcomings, or claims (the bereutor is his adequate choice), very average in his mental abilities, education and spiritual qualities, outlined the society in which this man succeeded. And it was done by the writer easily, with brilliance, very vividly.
It was as if society had brought Mr. Du Roy to the heights of its Olympus. The handsome young man quickly shook off his corporate military honor, as his small conscience shrank in shaking skin. And at the peak of his success, the hitherto sincere and charming Du Roy, nicknamed Sweet Friend, discovered malicious envy, vindictiveness, cruelty, vanity.
With the plasticity of a banal man, he became a hero. But what kind of hero is this and what kind of society such heroes thrive in? We read about this in the book of the great Maupassant. And this is the film of 1955 with some degree of success.
The film "Dear Friend" directed by Philippe Tribois 2005 France, Belgium. Georges Du Roy is flying up the social ladder, but this man is not like a literary prototype. Accordingly, some events of the plot were changed, but the main feeling remained: success depends on the symbiosis of the hero and society, in the process of merging a person who focuses only on personal benefit loses freedom and individuality.
The dear friend in the novel has no firm principles and beliefs, so this metamorphosis happens to him. He is enthusiastic about the society that gives him weight and importance. How can society not accept an inexperienced person who sincerely trusts and wants to succeed? In gratitude for his studies, he pays women with love. Learning ends – gratitude and love end.
The emancipation of women, the expansion of her role in society, while still behind the scenes, may have become a new feature of that time. Outside of formal relationships, they were freer and more open to contact of any kind and opened the way up to their “cute friends.” The contemporary perspective that I think caught the 2005 film is not about the role of women long emancipated. Naturally, Dear Friend in this interpretation does not seem like a scoundrel who changes women like gloves, securing his career and wealth.
He is young and beautiful, but the qualities of his personality are more interesting than these advantages: smart, creative, fast learners and, most importantly, does not abandon their principles, therefore, independent. If this Du Roy takes risks or acts rigidly, it is his choice and his responsibility (and his prototype is intuitive, fast, plastic, insecure).
In short, we have a completely different person, and time is different. And the space is not at all cramped, it will spring will, separating people from each other. Dialogue at a dinner party, where the hero first came, is like reconnaissance by battle. Not a single empty word falls down here. The conversation goes without pause, leaves the impression that there are strings between people. And immediately a decision is made that will mark the beginning of Du Roy's rapid career. The impression that the director F. Tribois conveyed the picture of modernity.
Different characters, but the plot is the same: achieving success in a career. One at once got more than he could claim and therefore seemed safe to his masters; the other outplayed them. In the end, they were both hostages to their success. Du Roy in the 2005 edition is aware of this. He has not yet committed his villains, but he understands his perspective. So he finds a prostitute whom he first met in Paris, and gives her money to arrange her life. In response to her gratitude, she notes: “Soon you will be the only person who will think well of me.”
The donkey on which both characters are cut is a jackpot they are unable to digest. One profession of a journalist was not up to the shoulder, and he immediately fell into a dependent position. Another broke down on big money and position in society, intriguing against his wife Madeleine, ceased to be his own master.
The measure must be measured by measure: measure of labour by measure of success; otherwise the degradation of the individual and of the society in which he succeeds is inevitable. Whether it’s the run-up to the 20th century, when a rabid society makes money from colonial scams, or the bloated financial bubbles of the 21st century, when all shores are already lost.
Last year, another “Dear Friend” was released on Russian screens, shot by English directors D. Donnellan, N. Ormerod, produced by Great Britain, Italy. In this film, I didn’t see Maupassant’s character, nor the problem he paints in the plot of the way up. The path is due to the symbiosis of man and society. The grounds on which this fusion occurs reveal personality traits and behavioral features in society, which later turn into mechanisms of action and determine the historical fate of players.
In the Anglo-Italian film Sweet Friend doesn't love anyone, and doesn't change throughout the plot. As he appeared with the vengeful squint of a wounded egoist, he left, narrowing his eyes even more, crushing them with insolence and complacency that beat from within. This is a monster that has no soul life, but only its inherent function: to break through to the top by any means. And society is a collection of the same lonely evil monsters, except that on Bald Mountain.
The English, perhaps the most culturally fixated on spiritual life and moral values, seem to have somewhat tendentiously exaggerated this motive. But, not finding the ground for his positive development, we got monsters. Maupassant created a vivid and vivid picture, the depth of which is not suddenly visible behind the interweaving of quick actions. A person must be integrated into society, successfully socialized. Where are the boundaries in this process, after which he loses his freedom and individuality?
In the first film, we see the score of the novel played out in the faces. The second – I want to summarize the words that end another novel by Maupassant “Life”: You see what life is like: not as good or as bad as you think it is. The third film shows that the problem has worsened: society does not exist as a society, and the hero has lost human depth. Eight times the great novel was filmed, today it opens in a new context, exposing the current meanings of modernity.