LADY L

France/Italy, 1965, 124 minutes, Colour.
Sophia Loren, Paul Newman, David Niven, Claude Dauphin,
Philippe Noiret, Michel Piccoli, Cecil Parker, Peter Ustinov. Directed by Peter Ustinov.

Lady L is based on a novel by Romain Gary. He was responsible for such novels turned into films as The Roots of Heaven, Birds Come to Die in Peru, and his autobiographical story, Promise at Dawn. He himself directed his then wife Jean Seberg in Birds Come to Peru. Lady L is an enjoyable story of the 19th century and shows the seamier side of high society, especially in a Paris setting. It shows the fairy-tale kind of story of the rise of a poor young girl into a fashionable lady in society. She has a shady background and, in flashback, the film shows just this. Sophia Loren is charming in the central role and has done this kind of role many times but always effectively. David Niven is his usual suave self and Paul Newman is somewhat ill at ease in a costume drama. However, there is a light touch about the whole film and it is directed by Peter Ustinov who also has a small role. It is stylish satirical entertainment.

1. Was this an enjoyable film? Why? For its comedy? For its satire? For the value of the stars in it?

2. Comment on its style as a film. The sumptuous sets and presentation. The wit and the subtlety of the screenplay? Was it consistent in its quality? Why?

3. How effective was the structure of the film? The presentation of Lady L at eighty, the recounting of her impressions, the flashbacks and the truth. and the reprisal of her old age with the impressions behind us? How did the structure then enhance the moral of the film?

4. How satirical on British style was the film? The presentation of the family and the traditions? Cecil Parker's role as the typical British?

5. Lady L herself referred to the theme of appearances versus reality. How well was this illustrated during the film? What points were being made about appearances and reality?

6. The film was episodic. Was it successfully so, or was it too episodic? Why?

7. How attractive a character was Louise? In her old age? In her treatment of Cecil Parker? In her reminiscing? In the revelations for her biography? As a Corsican? Like Napoleon? What impression did she make on her first appearance when young? In the bordello? Her role as a washer-woman? Her relationship with the girl from the bordello? That she was attractive to the politician? Armand and his help? Why did she help him? Her relationship with the police and their suspicions of her? What attracted her to Armand and he to her? Why did they fall in love? Was it genuine love? That she bore his child? Why did she fall in love with the Lord? How resourceful a person was she? How shrewd? How naive?

8. Did you think Armand was an interesting character? Why? How impressive was his first appearance with the robbery and the disguise? Paul Newman in this role? His being helped by Louise? Did he fall in love with her? Why did he get caught up with the anarchist and his idealism? Was this credible? Did he really believe in the values? His association with the revolutionaries and their playing with the bomb? His relationship with the Polish musician? Why did he agree to throw the bomb?

9. Why did Louise intervene with the bomb? The importance of the bomb exploding in the piano? Her taking the bomb away to the hotel? Why did she rob the Lord? Why did she agree to his deal? Why did she want Armand to escape? What was your impression of the deal? Why did Armand finally agree? Why was he suspicious? Why was she torn between the two? Did she love the Lord at any time?

10. How humorous was the scene with the Crown Prince? Peter Ustinov's contribution? This piece of comedy in the middle of the romance?

11. How ironic was the nature of her marriage and Armand fathering the children? Were you surprised? Louise said this was a very moral arrangement? Do you agree? Did it make a point about society's hypocrisy?

12. Comment on the film's presentation in its lavish scenes e.g. the bordello, the hotel and the dinner with the Lord, the state arrival, the fancy dress ball in London, Louise’s reunion for her birthday? What values were present in these sequences?

13. The film had a very subtle style in its gentle poking fun and its exaggerations of behaviour. Which sequences best illustrated this? Were they too subtle for most audiences? Why?

14. Although the film was light entertainment it still treated a serious theme about behaviour good and bad and hypocrisy. How did it point its moral? Was it a moral fable?