User reviews

The above mentioned movie is the final part of a 3 part series of which Maurius and Fanny were the predecessors. Out of the 3, I like this one the best. One, the very good actor, Raimu gets to step out of the background and take the lead. Two, it wraps up all the pieces that have been set up in the previous movies, as the major theme of life goes on, and destiny must not be avoided, despite of silly human follies of pride, societal scorn and by-law morals. A charming family movie, all at once, an unsentimental love story sporadically. Raimu delivers monologues here that define the character and the nature of the others. Also, I must the add, the son of Fanny and Maurius is very well played. Pagnol must be applauded for bringing his hit play to the screen. A musical movie was made in the sixties starring Leslie Caron which put all three plays into one movie titled Fanny. I remember as being sporadically entertaining with its deep sets and lush technicolor. But this is the one to watch. Pagnol use of outdoor sets is invigorating for early sound cinema and his camera is an unobtrusive detailer and watcher. A fine movie forgotten but worth remembering.

This could actually be the best part of the trilogy. It is directed by the author Marcel Pagnol himself, which you can feel, for you get closer to the characters here than in the previous two. It is not Jean Renoir, it is not René Clair, but it is genuine, and like in the two previous parts, the acting is absolutely outstanding, while the one who takes the price is Pierre Fresnay. In the first film he dominates the entire show, in the second he is like an intruder, but here, when he finally re-enters the stage at last, he is just magnificent in all his extremely shifting moods between deep resentment and arduous love that never dies. He finally brings the ship home.

I appreciated writers reign's comments which I fully agree with. I would just like to say that I have in hand Pagnols' memoirs entitled "Confidences" published in 1981,i.e.7 years after his death.Pagnol states that he got along very well with Korda when "Marius" was shot for Paramount.Korda told Pagnol:"It's my first talking picture.I know what you don't and you know what I ignore.We should do a good job together". Actually,according to Pagnol,it's Korda himself who answered a complaining sound recording engineer:"Mr Raimu cannot be replaced.You can".Raimu bought the man a drink and they became good friends. I hope I did not hurt your excellent correspondent's feelings.I am just luckier to have Pagnol's memoirs at home.Thank you for your attention.

Having had the good fortune to live a portion of my life in Marseilles, I still get a frisson of nostalgia for the city every time I see the films in this trilogy. The way of life in Marseille has obviously modernised over the 7 decades since they were filmed, but the underlying generosity of spirit and joie de vivre is still there. Marseilles is to Provence and its bourgeois pretensions as London is to its satellite and suburbs: squalid, frenetic and crime-ridden, but nonetheless magnetic. The people of Marseilles still possess the same uniqueness of character that they did back then. A mixture of Italian, Corsican, Maghrebin and French, blended in a huge and historically important trading port. The largest Foreign Legion barracks was (and I believe, still is) in Marseille, ready to be unleashed on the subjects of the French African colonies at a moment's notice.

The port is still (albeit much less so) a smuggler's paradise, and the social life of the city is still centred around good food, good love, and strong drink. Pagnol and Raimu knew the city well, and gave it the starring role in the trilogy. Imagine their joy at being able to relocate a stage play to the Mediterranean coast and use genuine atmospheric exteriors of the old port in all its pre-war glory. The city, and particularly the docks, took a real beating from both sides in WW2, so Pagnol not only created a few masterpieces of cinema, but also an invaluable document of a lost architecture and layout.

The nonsense between L'Academie and Pagnol was related to the prevailing Parisian view of southerners as being crude, unsophisticated people who lived a simple life of manual labour, procreation, drinking and eating (cul terreux). The view from the south that still prevails, is one of a Paris riddled with snobbish elites (peigne cul) totally divorced from the realities of healthy living . The wonderful climate and diet of the Mediterranean coast has long been a source of envy for those condemned by fate to dwell in the damp root vegetable fogs of northern France. Pagnol was gleefully rubbing their noses in it.

Pagnol opened up a lot of avenues in film, but the people of Marseilles remember him mostly for his authentic capturing of la vie quotidienne. I'll drink to that.

All the three films in Marcel Pagnol's Marseille trilogy ('Marius', 'Fanny' and 'Cesar') are well worth watching, personally would go as far as calling them must sees. All three are wonderful in their own way, though all the great things about the trilogy and what makes it special are present in each film. To me, they are important films in regard to French cinema and early talkie film-making and are a few of the finest examples of somebody with theatrical origins moving into film and became important.

'Cesar', the only one of the Marseille trilogy to not be directly based on the play, is the third and final film in the trilogy and a great way to end it. It is not quite as good as my personal favourite 'Marius', but is on the same level as 'Fanny' for generally the same reasons. Despite having occasional story problems, 'Cesar' (named after one of my favourite characters of the trilogy) is the most human, most understated and most moving of the three perhaps and benefits greatly from having Pagnol in the director's chair again and the original cast returning yet again.

It though does have the slightest story of the three films in the trilogy and the only one to feel slightly contrived on occasions. That is my only complaint though.

Like 'Marius' and 'Fanny', 'Cesar' looks lovely and surprisingly evocative. In fact all the great things of those two films are here, for the same and different reasons. Scotto returns as composer and his score is equally as whimsical and charming. Did appreciate that 'Cesar' did have a much better beginning than that of 'Fanny' and that it got to the point much quicker.

There is some nice wit in the writing, the dialogue can be described in the same way as the dialogue in the previous two films. It succeeds in the humorous elements and even more so the emotional moments, balancing both well while having more of the latter. Did love how understated and compassionate the story was.

Which added to the poignancy and humanity of one of the most easy to root for love stories in early talkies. The characters are still compellingly real and their situations are still relatable and relevant now, did find that what happens resonated with me. Pagnol's direction is never too static or theatrical, he stays true to his roots while opening up the drama enough so it does feel cinematic.

Fanny is slightly underdeveloped again, but again that is namely down to the deeper characterisations of the other characters. Especially Cesar. The acting is great again, especially Raimu giving perhaps his best performance of the trilogy and he was astounding in 'Marius' and 'Fanny' as well.

Concluding, great and a more than worthy end to a wonderful trilogy of films. 9/10

This film is the third part of Marcel Pagnol's "Fanny Trilogy". They were originally a stage production, then made into three films from 1931-1936. Many years later in 1961, the three films were distilled into one film that was much prettier to look at and was a Hollywood-financed production.

While I loved MARIUS (1931) and Fanny (1932), I found myself falling asleep repeatedly while watching César. Again and again and again, I found myself dozing. At first, I thought I was just tired, but when I stopped the DVD each time I felt wide awake. I think in hindsight my reaction was because after the first few minutes of this movie, the trilogy, for me, was finished. In other words, the story was as complete as it should be and continuing it seemed superfluous. The 1961 Fanny film ended there, but continuing was probably, in hindsight, not the best decision. I honestly feel that the average viewer could see MARIUS and FANNY without having to see César. It just didn't seem necessary or compelling.

As far as performances and writing go, Raimu, who played Marius' father, was a marvelous actor and was excellent in all three movies. He was also fantastic in Pagnol's film La FEMME DU BOULANGER. An amazing talent. Also, Pagnol has written some amazing films apart from this series--try to see them all. It's just that of all of his work and the books I have read by him, my least favorite is César.

A fitting finale to Marcel Pagnol's touching Marseilles trilogy (perhaps the strongest part of them all), this wise and witty heart-warmer offers more of the writer-director's wonderful dialogue, particularly in the lightly satirical immensely funny opening sequence.

Still, there's enough room for musings on family, friendship and the sacrifices life demands. The cast is top-notch, with Raimu as brilliant as ever, while Fresnay delivers an electrifying speech towards the end.

Some may find the whole affair too slight, contrived and emotionally charged, but trust me, these three pics are definitely worth six hours of anyone's life... at least, anyone who loves good storytelling.

8 out of 10 hilarious deathbed confessions

César (1936) : Brief Review -

A sweet and fulfilling end to The First Ever and One of the Finest Trilogy of world Cinema. Cesar came after a gap of 4 years since Fanny and this was the only film in the Marseille Trilogy that was directed by writer Marcel Pagnol himself and wasn't adapted like earlier two films. One interesting thing i noticed about these 3 films is, these films are named after 3 characters but in the films the main focus is on other character. To elaborate a little, Marius (1931) was named after Marius but the film was more about Fanny's sacrifice. Next it was Fanny (1932) named after Fanny, but it was more about Cesar and Panisse and then came this film named after Cesar but it was more about Marius and his redemption. Cesar is about Fanny and Marius's son Césario who realises about his real father after the death of Panisse. The film is little longer unnecessarily where the first half doesn't really warm any things up. Then, the second half is all about emotional mess which makes couple of intelligent speeches on the family affairs. Like they said in the film, "Family Scene", actually the film ranks up there only. The character of Marius finally gets justice even though he doesn't clear the earlier mistake but the way he puts himself as a victim is nothing short of unexpected intellectual writing. Yes, the film could have been much better with sort of painful ending just like Marius had and that's why it became a Cult Classic, however, Cesar is a sweet send off to the trilogy with the mainstream idea of fulfilling the positive mindset of audience. Performance wise, Raimu outshines everyone despite less screen space, rest are fine. Pagnol's writing and direction both had minor faults but overall it was very good. In short, Cesar wraps up the trilogy nicely but with little more finesse it could have been a Classic.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest

This final film of the Pagnol trilogy, written and produced by Pagnol, was also directed by Pagnol himself. Although all three films were very well directed indeed, this third one was the best directed of all. It contains many more exterior shots than the others and has 'extra doses of passion' because Pagnol was so emotionally involved in the story. Eighteen years have gone by since the end of the story told in FANNY (1932, see my review, and also my review of Part One, MARIUS, 1931). During all of that time, Marius has been away from Marseilles. He served for some years in the navy, and then he opened his own garage in the town of Toulon, where he is now living. Toulon is another port town on the Mediterranean, not far east of Marseilles. Toulon also happens to be the home town of the actor Raimu. Pagnol himself, by the way, was born at Aubagne, which is inland between Marseilles and Toulon. As this film opens, Panisse, the husband of Fanny and pretended father of the young lad Césariot, is seriously ill and lying in bed, possibly near to death. His friends, including César (played by the brilliant Raimu), think a priest should be fetched to hear Panisse's confession and to administer the last rites (known as Extreme Unction in the Catholic Church, which involves anointing the forehead with oil and committing the soul of the dying person to God's mercy). So a priest comes, but the entire section of the film concerning this episode is both raucous and hilarious, as the quayside friends behave in their usual irreverent and comical manner. As has been the case throughout all three of these films, wonderful comedy is continuously interwoven with all the tragic stories. Panisse insists on his final confession taking place in front of his friends, rather than in private with the priest, and this leads to some delightfully funny dialogue and scenes, especially when Panisse confesses that he has been naughty with some girls and his friends all tease him and joke about it while the priest tries to quieten them so that he can get on with his sombre task of preparing Panisse for death. The priest himself is teased, and the entire business can only be described as 'high comedy'. Then the priest kicks the friends out of the bedroom to have a private word with Panisse. He says that it is not acceptable that everyone knows that Césariot is really Marius's son, and not Panisse's, except for the boy himself. He says the boy must be told. Panisse does not want to do this. Eventually, however, the boy is told the truth by his mother, and he reacts very badly. He seeks out Marius at Toulon without identifying himself, and they get to know each other. Panisse dies but Marius does not want to return to face everyone in Marseilles whom he has not seen for 18 years. In the end, he does come back, and he and Fanny see each other again. But getting back together is not at all easy. Will they or won't they finally be reunited so that their great love can fully realized at last? Can several serious misunderstandings be cleared up? How will the son react if they do get back together? Can he get over his contempt for Marius and his shock at his mother having had him illegitimately? Meanwhile, the main focus of this film is upon César, whose only child, Marius, has at last returned to Marseilles after all those years of his father's desperate loneliness. How is he coping? Will Marius ever forgive him for insisting that he leave Fanny and his child with Panisse all those years ago? Will César ever forgive Marius for refusing to see him for 18 years and thus deserting his old father? Can anyone forgive anyone? As the characters work their ways through the tangles and knots of emotion and fate, the intensity of the story increases. All three of these films are peppered with marvellous supporting performances by utterly charming, maddening, impossible, and delightful local characters. Alida Rouffe is especially wonderful as Fanny's mother Honorine. Her very first film role, at the age of 57, was in MARIUS. She then not only appeared in the rest of the trilogy, but also in Pagnol's CIGALON (1935), Pagnol's TOPAZE (1936), and Pagnol's THE BAKER'S WIFE (1938, once again with Raimu). In 1939 she stopped working as an actress and only resumed again in 1946 (hence she refused to work under Vichy), for her very last film, dying in 1949 at the age of 79. She was one of the best French character actresses of her time, and Pagnol used her in six films, well appreciating her talents, which he himself had introduced to the screen in the first place. This trilogy by Pagnol may have plots which are as simple as daily life itself, but the three films rise to magnificence through the passionate belief in them of Pagnol, his troupe of actors, his co-directors, and apparently everyone associated with them, not to mention the people of Marseilles who found themselves being portrayed sympathetically in a medium which was usually dominated by the sophisticates of Paris. These films are classics in the grand sense. They will be watched and loved as long as there are people to see them. The world of the Old Port of Marseilles in the 1930s is long gone, but it lives on forever in this priceless record of its bygone time, subculture, and milieu which mixed sadness and hilarity in perfect harmony. Above all, these films are a lesson in authenticity, for they come alive with such childlike spontaneity, humour and tears, that they raise cinema to a true art form free of all artifice and made with such passion and love as has rarely been seen in the history of film.

Ah, vraiment and verily, I say unto you, Marcel Pagnol was a "camp" of the premier order. Not only that, he succeeded in morphing what was and is, at heart, mere soap opera and sitcom into the stratosphere of cinema verite and classic dramaturgy. Poor "planktonrules" has to be a juvenile, like the Pierre Fresnay of Marius, else he would have savored the wit and bonhomie of this conclusion to an essentially witty and clear-eyed projection of a worldly if folksy milieu and ambiance, a fleshly and fleshy cinematic approximation of a time and a place and a people of more than recognizable humanity. And "Writers Reign" continues to have his way with the rest of us, even as I must demur, quibble?, that too, on two points, to wit: First, to me at least, Gene Kelly was no more and no less of a "dancer" than Fred Astaire. Yes, the former projected a street-urchin pretension to the latter's urbane and seamless "dancing," with or without Ginger, Rogers that is. Neither began to essay the likes of "true" dancing, as in ballet and/or "modern," wherein the entire body instrument is involved, trained and disciplined to a T-fall. Both danced with their feet only. Second, I find his putdown of Charles Laughton contumely rather than mere "criticism." If not for "Bligh," at least for his stark stagings of "Night of the Hunter." That said, Raimu is indeed, peerless, a Gallic Beery avec subtleties AND profundity, and most if not quite all of his cronies, female as well, rise to the occasion of universal gemutlichkeit and whimsy, barbs and all. As for the young Fresnay and the better-as-matron-than dewy-eyed deb Demazis?, both mature and convince in the finale, revelations and confessions and insights tout-a-l'heure?

Following his sterling work in the first two episodes Raimu finally gets to play the eponymous character in the wind-up. It's impossible to overpraise this outstanding actor, dead in his 60th year with a far-too-meagre body of screen work as his legacy. Orson Welles once called Raimu the 'greatest actor who ever lived' and anything good enough for Awesome Welles is more than good enough for me. A local lad, Raimu spoke with the accent of the 'Midi' and whilst directing the first part of the trilogy, 'Marius', Alexander Korda, hired by Pagnol to direct, remarked to Producer Pagnol that Raimu's accent was execrable and would not be understood outside Provence. Pagnol's reply not only did him credit but was a classic. 'Monsieur Raimu cannot be replaced. You can'. Nuff said. Here, some five years after he first played Cesar on film and seven since he created the role on stage, Raimu segues seamlessly into the middle age of the character and gives an Acting Class to disciple Charles Laughton, who, in imitating slavishly the Frenchman found only ham and missed completely the filet mignon; indeed the comparison between Raimu and Laughton is akin to the one between Fred Astaire and Gene Kelley, one the one hand a thoroughbred on the other a carthorse. Inevitably with loose ends to be tied up and the death of a major character to accommodate this final episode is destined to disappoint if only because it reminds us of its illustrious predecessors. The 'minor' writer, Pagnol, would continue to write classic tales as all great storytellers do and Raimu would even appear in a couple, The Baker's Wife and The Well-Digger's Daughter, but what he would have brought to 'Papet' in 'Jean de Florette' and I write as one whose admiration for Yves Montand knows no bounds. 9/10

Criterion / Janus Films

Marius (1931) + Fanny (1932) + César (1936)

"César" (1936): The Grand Finale of the Marseille Trilogy

Written and directed by Marcel Pagnol, "César" is the final film in the renowned Marseille Trilogy, holding a significant place in the golden age of French cinema. The fact that I'm only discovering these films now is a point of self-criticism. It's a serious oversight, especially for someone like me who prides themselves on their love for François Truffaut, to be unaware of Pagnol's trilogy. But perhaps this is a common thread among today's cinephiles-getting lost in the vast sea of information.

Within the context of the trilogy, "César" brings the story that began with "Marius" (1931) and "Fanny" (1932) to an emotional and philosophical climax. The film delves into the years following the events of the previous two films, examining the long-term consequences and impacts of the characters' decisions. From the perspective of both contemporary and period cinema, this makes "César" a significant work of French realism. Pagnol's mastery of dialogue, stemming from his theatrical background, is on full display in this film.

"César" weaves together all the themes and characters of the trilogy, crafting a magnificent conclusion to the story. Raimu's performance as César is not for nothing considered one of the most impressive acting examples in cinema history. The depth, complexity, and human aspects of César's character are brought to life perfectly through Raimu's extraordinary talent. The film goes beyond being just a family drama, touching upon philosophical themes such as the transience of life, the power of forgiveness, and intergenerational relationships. At times, I felt like I was reading Victor Hugo, not watching a film.

I would love to explore this trilogy from a filmmaker's perspective.

Yes, this trilogy isn't made up of films you'll watch frequently, but they are magnificent films to watch occasionally and cleanse your soul.

We owe thanks to Janus Films and Criterion for ensuring that films like these don't fade into obscurity.