La Ville Dont Le Prince Est Un Enfant (1997, Christophe Malavoy)

AKA: The Fire That Burns – Runtime: 91 Minutes – Country: France

Please note that this film is based on the same-named stage play by Henry de Montherlant; first performed in 1951. This motion picture is focusing on a deep friendship between two boys. Set up in a pre-WWII catholic school in Paris, young Souplier (Clément van den Bergh) and Sevrais (Naël Marandin) are encountering a deep devotion for each other. They are trying to establish their friendship – but this is not really possible due to the rather harsh restrictions in the school. They are going to different classes, are having different time schedules – and of course, not much free time left.

Meanwhile, there is L’abbé de Pradts (Christophe Malavoy, who also is the director of this film), one of the catholic school headmasters (actually he is the # 2) – who is trying to have a serious influence on the life of Souplier. But what does he really want; he seems to be rather obsessed – and envious about Sevrais who maintains a permanent contact with Souplier. He is starting to develop an inscrutable plan – which is mainly consisting of getting Sevrais out of his way…

Young Souplier, who has to face some serious conflicts and personal struggles

This obviously is an unusual and rather rare topic for a film. A catholic headmaster, who is falling in love with one of his young male students – by not tolerating any “opponents”.L’abbé de Pradts certainly is an ambivalent person who is steady moving between his daily tasks as a headmaster; and his devotion for young Souplier. The main focus however is not laid on showing the effects of his obsession(for both himself and his environment), nor the history of it – it is rather referring to the actual events that are only concerning the spoken-to “trio”L’abbé de Pradts, Souplier, Sevrais).

And that is why I did not generally like this film. Of course, this is an unusual and daring topic (still, this is nothing new) – but at least I could not get a real feeling for it. Neither for the (rather antiquated) scenario, nor for the depicted characters – which seemed to be badly reduced just to fit into the storyline. It seems that the whole school is only talking about Souplier, who again is deeply adored by L’abbé and Sevrais - how come, it does not seem that there is anything special about him at all ? At least the film can not really transport this, I guess. But if you look at the (original) title you might be able to shape yourself an answer.

The two boys are trying to live their unique friendship – what is not really possible at all

How about the technical part ? Well, to state it here: it is rather weak. I do not know if there are better versions (I own the UK-Dvd), but the image and sound quality are very poor; some scenes way too dark – note that this film was shot in 1997. However, the acting part is overall great, especially referring to the three main characters (although I do not like the roles they are playing) – and this is certainly balancing out a lot.

So for me it turns out to be a balanced film somehow. But I do not think that I will watch this one again. I guess that the book will be a much more interesting experience, since I am assuming that it is offering more sub-plots, side-stories, and important details (what about the origin of this love, et cetera). But the whole content of the book, shrunk to a 90-minutes cinematic realization… I found it so sterile, the general developments so slow (or call it too subtle, if you like); the focus totally drawn to the character of L’abbé (and even then, only referring to the actual events) - and rather not towards the original friendship of the two boys. Considered alone, this friendship already is rather unusual, leaving a lot of things to talk about; if you would ask me. But there already is an excellent film about such a topic (maybe I will review this one later)…

L’abbé de Pradts, who obviously has drawn an eye on young Souplier

Warning, spoilers ! Finally; the two boys become separated indeed – that was predictable, if you are asking me.L’abbé is having success (referring to his position), since it seems like the two boys are separated and never ought to see each other again. This is followed by a scene which mainly consists of a serious dialog betweenL’abbé and the # 1 headmaster (who even watched and toleratedL’abbé’s obsession for a long time). They are arguing a lot, trying to represent their own personal standpoints – and this is certainly going into a very ambitious direction with a lot of criticism; and a flexible statement on the true meaning of love. And of course, there are a lot of questions asked, indirectly adressed to the audience.

However, this is one of the few scenes that really has a noticeable tension, leaving me impressed. The whole argumentation, which could also be interpreted as a struggle for life (referring toL’abbé’s standpoint); his desperate way of trying to get himself out of the trouble seem to be portrayed in a very authentic way. Since it also seems that this is the first time that someone is ever bringing up the whole truth behind the big personal secret of L’abbé. But as I said – I could not get a real feeling for the film in its entirety. Of course, just feel free to tell me if you agree or maybe disagree here.

Recapitulatory: I would rather recommend to get a view on “Les Amitiés Particulières” (in terms of a special friendship), or: “The Boys Of St. Vincent” (in terms of a dangerous devotion towards children, including serious abuse). “La Ville Dont Le Prince Est Un Enfant” seems to be mixing these two (and some other) ones up, without inventing anything totally new. A “fire that burns”, which rather left me cold – 6.3/10.

The Dvd on Amazon.com – The Trailer on Youtube