đ„ Join the Quillette team at our party in Sydney on 27 September
Learn more
→
A Filmmaker in Spite of Himself
Sacha Guitry disdained cinema as an art form, but with a slew of recent Blu-ray releases, his acidic comedies are finally receiving the attention they deserve.
The playwright and filmmaker Sacha Guitry (1885â1957) remains little known outside France. He was famous for half a century as a writer, actor, and director. During the First World War, his comedies began to dominate theatres, not only in Paris, but throughout the French-speaking world. From the 1930s onwards, he gained renown for his crowd-pleasing movies, while also alienating critics with his high-handed disdain for established conventions of filmmaking. He never thought twice about breaking the rules of âclassical French cinemaâ because he never bothered to learn them in the first place.
Guitry was a star of the âboulevard theatre,â and Parisian audiences loved him for his cynical wit and dazzlingly magniloquent monologues. Most of his plays are farcical sex comedies. Yet when he performed on stage, he demonstrated the commanding manner and exquisite diction of a classical actor. He was fifty before he thought seriously about cinema as a vehicle for his talents. Once he saw how much fun he could have as a director, he became hooked on the process, and ended up making three dozen films.
François Truffaut, an influential film critic who became one of the best-known auteurs of French cinema in the 1960s, praised Guitryâs cavalier, slapdash attitude towards directing films. In Les Films de Ma Vie (1975; translated into English as The Films in My Life, 1978), Truffaut identifies Guitryâs mischievousness as the secret to his appeal: audiences are charmed by him and his work because he is like a spoilt boy who gets away with misbehaving because he makes us laugh.
Of course, Guitryâs flippancy did not always go unpunished in real life. On 8 October 1941, the German writer Ernst JĂŒnger, then an intelligence officer in Paris, wrote in his wartime journal about his first meeting with Guitry at the home of Fernand de Brinon, who was then the Vichy governmentâs representative to the German High Command:
... I made the acquaintance of Sacha Guitry, whom I found very pleasant. His dramatic side also far outweighs his artistic side. He possesses a tropical personality of the sort I imagine [Alexandre Dumas] had. On his little finger there gleamed a monstrous signet ring with a large embossed monogram SG on the gold surface.
On 24 August 1942, Guitryâs name was listed in the American weekly Life Magazine as one of âthe Frenchmen condemned by the underground for collaborating with Germans: some to be assassinated, others to be tried when France is free.â Guitryâs reputation never fully recovered. Needless to say, in occupied France he was regarded with suspicion by all sides. He was too much of a live wire to be politically trustworthy.
JĂŒnger found Guitry fascinating, and enjoyed spending time with him, but he was less impressed with Guitryâs work as a dramatist. His journal entry for 25 January 1942 notes:
In the Madeleine Theatre in the afternoon to see a play by Sacha Guitry. Enthusiastic applause: âCâest tout Ă fait Sacha!â [âItâs pure Sacha!â] Cosmopolitan taste is always a matter of perspective, and delights in scene changes, mistaken identity and unexpected characters, as in a hall of mirrors. The complications are so intricate that they are already forgotten on the staircase. Who did what to whom seems irrelevant. The nuances are pursued to such an extreme that nothing is spared.
JĂŒngerâs polite disdain is partly the result of his fastidious literary tastes, but also has something to do with Guitryâs habit of defiantly mocking the Germans, both on stage and in his films. To modern eyes, his satire seems toothless, but during the occupation even gentle teasing could be risky. Guitry got away with it by cultivating relationships with influential Germans, and poking fun at them under the cover of plausible deniability. Was this courageous, or merely self-indulgent? Such questions recur again and again about Guitryâs life and work.
Outside France, only nine of Guitryâs films are available on DVD or Blu-ray. In 2010, the Criterion Collection released Presenting Sacha Guitry in their Eclipse seriesâa four-disc box-set of DVDs consisting of films he made between 1936 and 1938; in 2018, Arrow Films released a limited-edition box-set of four further films from the same period in both DVD and Blu-ray formats. There is also a 2013 edition in the Eureka Films Masters of Cinema series of Guitryâs 1951 black comedy La Poison; this was released in the US by the Criterion Collection in 2017 with some additional material.
The 1936 film of Guitryâs 1919 play Mon pĂšre avait raison(âMy Father Was Rightâ) offers revealing glimpses of how Guitry regarded his parents. The story centres on Charles Bellanger, a serious-minded Parisian gentleman who adores his roguish father Adolphe, a widowed playboy, but is cold and impatient with his ten-year-old son Maurice, whom he decides to send off to boarding school to get rid of him. Maurice is a stand-in for Sacha; Adolphe is Lucien; Charles begins as Lucien and ends as Sacha. Charlesâs wife Germaine obviously represents Sachaâs mother, who died when he was a teenager. The depiction is distinctly unflattering.
Early in the film, there is a sudden crisis: Germaine rings to announce that she is about to board a train to flee abroad with her lover, whose existence Charles has never even suspected. Shocked and humiliated by this abandonment, he has a complete change of heart, and decides to take Maurice out of school entirely to educate him wholly by himself. Most of the action takes place twenty years after this crisis, when Maurice is thirty and still living with his father. Germaine, whom nobody has heard from since her elopement, unexpectedly decides to come back home, now that her love affair has finally ended. Meanwhile, Maurice wants to get married, but is reluctant to leave home because he thinks his father canât live without him.
Mon PĂšre avait raison is one of Guitryâs weaker films, but there are memorable scenes, especially early on, when Adolphe drops in on Charles to offer some spectacularly selfish advice on how to live life pleasurably and without illusions. This is the old manâs only appearance; the rest of the action unfolds after his death, as a demonstration that his philosophy is correct.
When the playwas originally staged, Adolpheâs role was performed by Lucien Guitry; Sacha of course played Charles; Parisian audiences thus watched the son transform into the father before their eyes. The film version was made a decade after Lucienâs death. The actor who plays Adolphe, Gaston Dubosc, inevitably lacks the chemistry that Lucien must have had with his son, and in the absence of a counterbalancing force, Sacha dominates the film.
Mon pĂšre avait raison turns surprisingly ugly when Guitry the writer decides to enact simultaneous revenge fantasies against his long-dead mother, his first wife (who was eight years his senior, and past forty when he abandoned her), and various mistresses who cuckolded him. For all the self-conscious elegance of the dialogue, there is an emotional rawness to a lot of the action. Much of Guitryâs reputation for misogyny stems from his lifelong resentment of his mother. The slightest reminder of her could make him lose his cool, and much of his long-suppressed rage was vented in the form of wittily cruel epigrams.
Lucien Guitry, for his part, was hardly a responsible father; his idea of parenting involved throwing money at Sacha and his brother Jean so that they would leave him alone to pursue his complicated love life. After Sacha dropped out of school at the age of seventeen, Lucien raised the ladâs allowance so that he would be able to afford a proper mistress. This parenting strategy backfired when Sacha seduced one of his fatherâs mistresses, Charlotte LysĂšs, and subsequently married her. Father and son stopped speaking for years.
In 1915, LysĂšs convinced her husband to think about making a film, even though he despised the medium. He ended up shooting a documentary, Ceux de chez nous(âThose of Our Landâ), which features the only film footage in existence of the artists Edgar Degas, Claude Monet, and Auguste Rodin, as well as other actors, writers, and celebrities who had been Lucien Guitryâs friends since the 1880s. They all knew Sacha well, and had been trying to reconcile father and son for years.
But perhaps the most interesting figure on screen is Guitry himself. At the age of thirty, he still seems anxiously deferential in front of his elders. With Sarah Bernhardt, he is seen sitting on a bench in the sunshine; she laughs and reads out a letter as Guitry looks on, as unsure of himself as an adolescent wrestling with puberty. His uneasiness in front of the camera contrasts strikingly with his magisterial air as he narrates the sound version of Ceux de chez nous that was re-edited for television in 1952.
The later reissue is more than twice the length of the original; most of the additional footage features Guitry seated at his desk reading out a prepared text, surrounded by paintings from his impressive private collection. Above his head is a portrait of Lucien, who is seen in a few seconds of footage at the end of the documentary. The film is made to look like a sonâs grateful tribute to his father, but Lucien did not appear in the original 1915 cut because father and son were not yet on speaking terms when Ceux de chez nous was shot. The reconciliation only occurred in 1917, after Charlotte LysĂšs caught him cheating on her and demanded a divorce.
One of Guitryâs last plays with LysĂšs, Faisons un rĂȘve (âLetâs Make a Dream,â 1916) is perhaps the archetypical Sacha Guitry sex comedy. The story is simple: a notorious ladiesâ man decides to seduce the wife of a boring businessman, and runs into unexpected complications. As in much of Guitryâs work, the dialogue often feels like a distorted confession: Guitry wrote this play in the middle of a passionate affair with Yvonne Printemps, who became his second wife and best-known leading lady.
The most famous scene in Faisons un rĂȘve is a tour-de-force monologue in which Guitryâs character waits at home with mounting impatience because his intended conquest has not arrived yet. On the page, this scene seems wordy and unfunny. Indeed, most of Guitryâs plays donât read very well: like David Mametâs, they are not meant to be works of literature; they are more like the verbal equivalent of musical scores. This particular monologue is a challenge even for classically trained actors because of its peculiar rhythms and sheer length; but when performed properly it never fails to bring down the house.
Guitry knew that he had no talent for the sort of naturalistic acting that his father had pioneered, so he went to the other extreme. His scripts veer between casual, sometimes startlingly realistic banter, and elaborate speeches that are so self-consciously artificial that you almost expect Guitry to stop and take a bow in the middle of his performance. This quality is on full display in the 1936 film version of Faisons un rĂȘve, which alas was made after his relationship with Yvonne Printemps was over.
By the time Delubac talked her husband into making films for her, he was already fifty. She breathed new life into Guitryâs career, and helped him discover that his real vocation was the cinema (a fact that he denied to the end of his life, even when he had all but abandoned the theatre even as a spectator). Admittedly, Guitryâs first full-length film Pasteur(1935) is just a photographed stage play, but he was openly using this project as an opportunity to teach himself moviemaking.
Guitryâs first original venture for the cinema, Bonne Chance (âGood Luck,â 1935), is a charming road movie about an artist (Guitry) who is secretly in love with a laundress (Delubac), and always wishes her âGood luck!â when she passes by his window. Then one day she wins the lottery and feels obliged to split her winnings with him. There are some lovely scenes, but the film reveals Guitryâs fundamental weakness as a dramatist: his stories are often lazily conceived.
The sparkle of Guitryâs dialogue can never fully mask the thinness of his dramatic conflicts and plotting. Even his most inspired work sometimes feels like it needs at least another draft or two. This is particularly true of Roman dâun tricheur(âThe Story of a Cheat,â 1936), which is an amazingly playful piece of filmmaking. Orson Welles was particularly impressed by what he saw, and adopted several of Guitryâs innovations in Citizen Kane (1941). Roman dâun tricheur remains Guitryâs best-loved film among connoisseurs of cinema, if not general audiencesâthe main character is not very sympathetic, while the narrative feels like a barely disguised excuse to experiment with various storytelling techniques.
Guitryâs generosity was partly tactical: he made his collaborators work very hard. Between April 1935 and December 1938, he completed ten feature films, as well as a half-hour film in verse that he finished shooting in under seven hours. During the same period, he also staged ten new plays. You wonder how he found the time to write so much, let alone carry out research for his elaborate costume dramas.
Early in his career, Guitry began writing stage plays about major writers, artists, and figures from history as an excuse to read about all the things that he had ignored in school. His autodidactic mania culminated in a series of patriotic historical movies that remain among his best-loved achievements. Purely as history, these films are all preposterous. Yet they are held together by Guitryâs sense of spectacle, and infectious love for his country.
This is no ordinary teacher: he turns out to be descended from various bastards of Napoleon, King Louis XV, and the revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat. Despite his Revolutionary lineage, he seems to envision France as a giant amusement park, at one point explaining to his class that the filmâs title is what young lovers tell taxi drivers to give them an opportunity to make out in the back seat for a little longer.
The best section in the film comes in the first half, where Guitry plays King Louis XV in an uproarious sex farce. He and the cast have the time of their lives re-enacting court intrigues whilst wearing extravagantly expensive costumes. Jacqueline Delubac makes her last appearance in a Guitry film as a seductive fortune-teller at a carnival who tells the king when he is going to die.
Guitryâs fourth wife came from an aristocratic family, and his in-laws looked down on him as âa mere entertainer.â Over time, his wife came to share her parentsâ views. Ernst JĂŒnger lunched with the couple on 15 October 1941, and hints that they were obviously unsuited to one another:
I was astonished again by his effusive personality, especially when he told anecdotes of his encounters with royalty. When talking about different people, he would accompany his words with expressive gestures. During the conversation, he used his large horn-rimmed glasses to great dramatic effect. It dawns on me that in the case of such talent, the whole reservoir of personality that a marriage can possess gets used up by the man.
Guitry felt it was his duty to keep up his fellow Frenchmenâs spirits in the wake of their defeat, and reassure them that their nation was still great. His 1943 film Donne-moi tes yeux(âThe Last Mistressâ) includes an extraordinary prologue featuring a series of paintings and sculptures by Franceâs most distinguished artists: these were all produced, Guitry says, in 1871, in the wake of Franceâs humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. Audiences must have wondered how Guitry got away with such explicitly anti-German content; he constantly emphasised the grandeur of French culture as a means of implying his nationâs superiority to its barbarous occupiers. Alas, he did not always exercise tact when doing so.
The courts took three years to acquit him of collaboration, and his name was officially cleared on 8 August 1947. Meanwhile, his health began to decline rapidly. Yet during the final decade of his life, Guitry produced some of his very finest work. His postwar comeback film was to have been Le Diable boiteux, but the censors rejected the script, so he hastily transformed it into a stage play. He still intended to film it, but first he would have to reassert his place in French culture, and remind the public whose son he was. Then he would be in a better bargaining position with the authorities, if they turned him down a second time.
The play begins with a confrontation in a dressing-room between The Actor and his jealous lover, who leaves him because she thinks heâs having an affair with a younger actress. Then The Actor receives a visit from a friend he hasnât seen in thirty years; the friend tells him that his young niece is in love with The Actor, who relieves his friendâs embarrassment by promptly seducing the niece and making her his mistress. She is not yet twenty; he is past fifty. But the real conflict has nothing to do with age: she wants to become an actress, but she has no talent, only beauty, youth, and the fervour of a superfan. The stage is simply not her vocation. The Actorends up alone, loved only by his audiences.
The funniest scenes in Le Diable boiteux show Talleyrand outwitting an exasperated Napoleon, played by Ămile Drain, who doubles as one of Talleyrandâs lackeys. Indeed, all four of the actors who play the monarchs whom Talleyrand served also have secondary roles as his domestic servants. Audiences are meant to notice this, especially when Talleyrand is being carried up staircases by his staff. The film is exquisitely provocative throughout; certainly, the very idea of portraying Talleyrand as a hero of French history is outrageous. Yet this film is by no means Guitryâs most subversive comedy.
In La Poison, Simon plays Paul Braconnier, a gardener who lives in an idyllic village in Normandy. His neighbours all know how much he and his wife Blandine hate each other, and early in the film, Braconnier confesses as much to a kindly local priest (played by Albert Duvaleix). Blandine, for her part, is a sullen, spiteful alcoholic; disappointment has made her bitter, and Germaine Reuver gives a frightening performance, emphasising Blandineâs deep sadness as well as her self-fuelling rage.
One night, when Blandine has drunk herself to blackout on cheap red wine, Braconnier hears a radio interview with a self-satisfied barrister, MaĂźtre Aubanel (Jean Debucourt), who has defended a hundred murderers in court and succeeded in winning acquittals for all of them. Braconnier decides to get the lawyer to help him plot his wifeâs murder, little realising that Blandine has already bought poison to pour into his wine.
Guitry completed shooting La Poison ahead of schedule, in well under a fortnight, and decided on the spur of the moment to shoot one of his celebrated credit sequences. When the film opens, Guitry is seen writing out a generous dedication to Michel Simon, who is visibly moved by the tribute before thanking each member of the cast and crew for their work. At last, he starts pouring out champagne for everybody as the camera fades to black for the action to begin. The atmosphere of mutual respect and love undercuts the potential bleakness of the subsequent narrative. Indeed, La Poison is a disturbingly sunny film.
Some scenes are also unexpectedly poignant. During the credits, Lucienne Delyle performs a charming love song, âEt la vie est en fĂȘteâ (âAnd Life Continues to Celebrateâ), that is repeated a few times during the film. Under most circumstances, this would be a pleasantly forgettable tune; but in context it is heartbreaking: Delyleâs cheerful celebration of young love provides the soundtrack to one of the Braconniersâ silent, miserable meals. They eat supper every night with the radio on to avoid having to speak to one another. You come to feel their pain, and understand why they might want to kill each other.
Like his similarly multi-talented compatriots Jean Cocteau and Marcel Pagnol, Guitry was not so much a Renaissance man as a born filmmaker with a lot of distracting hobbies (writing and starring in plays, for example). He regarded cinema as a minor art form without any authentic tradition or history, and this attitude enabled him to pursue his idiosyncratic vision without the inferiority complex that often marred his attempts at literary work. The freedom and confidence of his movies can be exhilarating: you feel him having fun with the medium, unburdened by any sense of obligation towards the theatre, or by Lucien Guitryâs legacy.
Early in his career, Guitry told an interviewer that he thought the cinema had peaked as early as 1912. Although he came to appreciate film as a means of expressing himself, he could never fully take it seriously. But if he had never started making movies, he would have been forgotten long ago, like every other writer of French boulevard comediesâincluding Lucien Guitry, who is now remembered only as the father of a famous filmmaker.