Roar Post#5 [Reaction to a review of film]

James Kendrick from Film Desk Reviews seems to have given the movie Chocolat a bad review. Although I do not agree with his rating of 2 stars, after reading his review, I do understand why he gave the movie the rating that he did. According to Kendrick he says,“ Everything is spelled out to the letter. Every character represents this or that, thus they never register as humans, despite the admittedly great cast. The characters are nothing more than stand-ins for various life philosophies, and the film stacks the deck awkwardly in favor of those it wants us to side with”. I did not think of this before, but now that I read it, I do agree with it. As I’ve said in my previous Roar posts, the structure of Joanne Harris’s book is very nice. It is very nice in the fact that it switches perspectives from protagonist to antagonist, something that I don’t encounter that often. Given the chance to peer into Reynaud’s thoughts, you start to feel sympathy for him, and sometimes you feel as though he is the good guy. In the case of the movie, it is very classic in the sense that it is all about Vianne and her battles against Reynaud and the church. One can instantaneously begin to vilify Reynaud after a couple of minutes of watching scenes of Reynaud staring menacingly at Vianne. The reason is because the movie shows only one side of the story, which is the point that Kendrick tries to make. This is probably the only point that I agree with Kendrick though.

In his review, he also states that, “For all its anti-religious and anti-establishment posturing, Chocolat is terribly conventional”. I did not find this movie to be terribly conventional, but rather relievingly conventional. It is probably due to my weakness for happy endings, but I never get bored of them. In the book, the ending had a major plot twist for me involving Pere Reynaud’s downfall. Therefore, as I watched the movie and began seeing plot changes, I began to hope that the producer changed the ending as well. It seems as though I got my wish in the end, which is why I say the movie, to me, is relievingly conventional.

Another point that I will have to disagree with is when Kendrick states that,

“And, just in case the theme of tolerance, inclusion, and the rejection of traditional religious moral imperative didn't stand out enough during the first hour and 45 minutes, the film delivers nothing short of a sermon--not a speech, but a sermon--to sum everything up in a nice, pithy three minutes”. Kendrick’s message is that the movie offers an overkill of morals and lessons. But I think that Pere Henri’s sermon at the end was the cherry on top that was seriously needed to wrap everything together. During this scene it also showed mayor Reynaud nodding in approval to the words of the priest. This time, it was the priest’s own words, and to see Reynaud agreeing with them shows that he has finally changed in the best of ways. That’s what I like in a movie.

Kendrick, James. “Chocolat”. QNetwork Entertainment Portal. 1998-2011. 28, February, 2011. < http://www.qnetwork.com/index.php?page=review&id=168>.