Marie Curie

  • Marie Curie (2016)

    Marie Curie (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, March 2021) This is my fourth movie about Marie Curie in barely more than a year and a half, and I’m kind of astonished to see that they don’t really repeat each other. The 1940s American one is a straightforward heroic biography that delivers the essentials without fuss; the 1990s French one is a whimsical take that focuses on the romantic comedy of the Curies’ courtship and their acceptance by the academic community; the 2020 American film irritates by its progressive overreach, jumbled structure and factual inaccuracies (yes, worse than the 1940s version); while this Polish 2016 take on Marie Curie focuses on the unpleasant aftermath of Curie’s discoveries: the discrimination, the whispers when Pierre dies and she finds a new companion. It’s the hangover after the wild party and its tepid approach to the material means that it will test the patience of several viewers. It’s visually polished, although not necessarily in any flashy way. I did have a bit of trouble believing in the period detail, something that’s not necessarily helped by the late film’s blurring on past and present. Writer-producer-director Marie Noëlle clearly goes for a feminist interpretation of Curies’ story, but that’s in no way any different from any other interpretation of Curie’s life and work — she has been held up as a feminist icon for generations, and none of the movies about her (not even the 1940s one!) fail to underscore her struggles for acceptance. So, what’s left? Not a lot worth praising over other takes: This Marie Curie is more informed about Curie’s later life, sometimes more adventurous in its cinematography, and a good showcase for star Karolina Gruszka. Otherwise, I simply may be burning out on Curie as a topic — I couldn’t not watch the film given my high esteem of the historical figure, but at the same time I’m probably getting over-familiar with the material and going through a mildly allergic phase.

  • Radioactive (2019)

    Radioactive (2019)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2021) I was, really, really primed to like Radioactivity. I’ve always liked the story of Marie Curie, and I’ve liked much of director Marjane Satrapi’s work in different media. But the result steadily slips sideways the longer it goes on, to a point where I can’t really recommend the results. This is the third film about Marie Curie that I’ve seen in the span of a year, and if it’s easily the more technically polished, it ranks a distant third behind the classic 1943 Greer Garson biopic, and the far more comedic 1997 Les Palmes de M. Schutz. Proudly going for the obvious angle of presenting Curie as a feminist icon, Radioactive overplays its hand to the point of becoming unlikable, distorting the historical records and losing itself in tangents. The entire film is a flashback from Curie’s death that eventually flashforwards to events occurring decades later, and while the effect isn’t confusing, it’s scattered in a way that diminishes the film. The romance between Curie and her husband gets far less screen time considering that at least half the film is set after her famous discoveries, and the film sufficiently deviates from the record to have Curie physically assault her husband in a rage that has no basis in history. To be clear: I am not opposed to movies taking liberties with history (as was the case in the two other films I keep comparing Radioactive to), but when a movie about a scientist released in information-rich 2019 starts messing with fact in order to hammer thematic points that are already perfectly obvious, my disenchantment overweighs whatever admiration I can have for other aspects of the film. Technically, it’s up to the state of the art, using CGI and editing to blur one period with another, move back and forth in time and present her heroine in the best possible light. Rosamund Pike is really good in the lead role, but the film shouts its themes over her performance to an extent that diminishes the good work she does. It’s a deep paradox that while Radioactive is all about Marie Curie, she’s far less likable or admirable here than in the other two movies about her.

  • Les palmes de M. Schutz (1997)

    Les palmes de M. Schutz (1997)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, November 2020) Unfairly enough, I couldn’t help but compare Les palmes de M. Schutz to 1943’s Hollywood biography Marie Curie with Greer Garson. The comparison isn’t without cause, considering that both are films about the discovery of radium by Marie Curie and her husband Pierre. Curiously enough, I don’t have a clear favourite: the 1943 film is reasonably exact despite having been made in the 1940s, whereas this newest French offering is less faithful to fact, but often funnier, more dramatically diverse, and benefits from switching its focus from the Curies to their academic sponsor, the titular Mr. Schutz. On top of the Curies’ scientific quest (adequately vulgarized through a supporting character), there’s Schutz’s thirst for recognition, even as his own scientific skills are slight—there’s a curiously sympathetic side to his efforts at recognizing, fostering and sheltering talent here that would warm any middle manager’s heart. It does help that none other than Phillipe Noiret plays Schutz, bringing considerable warmth and sympathy to the character. Otherwise, Les palmes de M. Schutz is a very likable film—it’s filled with gentle humour, covers a lot of ground both scientific and personal, and actually gives anyone the impression that they’ve learned a lesson or two about the history of radium. It’s worth a look if science on-screen is the kind of thing that interests you.

  • Madame Curie (1943)

    Madame Curie (1943)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, June 2019) The ever-compelling Greer Garson had a remarkable five-year run of Oscar nominations in the early 1940s, and the biographical drama Marie Curie was right in the middle of it, focusing on the scientist’s turn-of-the-century discovery of radium. As befits a 1940s Hollywood production tackling scientific subjects, the emphasis here is on melodramatic sentiments, beautiful romantic black-and-white cinematography and actors mouthing off grandiose statements about science, peering sagely in a long-distant future to extrapolate the meaning of their research. Some of it comes across as silly and overdone, but everything must be put in perspective, and by most standards (including, often, our own), Madame Curie is still quite an admirable movie—it doesn’t soft-pedal either Curie’s femininity (easy enough with Garson in the lead role), the heartwarming loving relationship with her husband (Walter Pidgeon, looking dashing with a sharp-chinned beard), the importance of her discoveries or the effort that goes into actual science. While it does allow itself quite a few moments of unabashed Hollywood romanticism, those more conventional passages work at making the characters likable in addition to illustrating their serious intellectual achievements. The scientific vulgarization is not bad (despite a few shortcuts) and the portrayal of a woman scientist is still remarkable either for 1900, 1943 or 2019. I quite liked it, and I remain surprised that at an age where STEM for girls is rightfully seen an unabashed good, Madame Curie isn’t better known or more widely seen.