The Flood aka Le Deluge (2024)

One of my biggest pet peeves is how long it takes for foreign films to get a decent (i.e., not film festival) release in the US — or sometimes they never get released at all! Given my interest in French queen Marie-Antoinette, I’ve been particularly peeved that The Flood (2024) aka Le Deluge STILL isn’t watchable in the US two years later. In particular, because I don’t like reviewing things that most of you can’t watch! But I decided to take advantage of the fact that I’m in France and so could stream it on Canal+ with French subtitles, so I could actually understand what was going on.

The film, directed by Gianluca Jodice, stars Mélanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds, The Round Up, Return of the Hero, Operation Finale, The Mad Woman’s Ball) as Marie-Antoinette and Guillame Canet (Cezanne et moi) as Louis XVI, and tells the story of the royal family’s imprisonment in the Temple from 1792-93. It’s a very intimate film, really focused on the couple, although minor characters include the Princesse de Lamballe (Roxane Duran), Louis’s sister Madame Elisabeth, their two children Marie-Thérèse and Louis Charles, plus a few servants, guards, and revolutionaries. It’s organized into three acts: Gods, Humans, and Corpses, and essentially shows the two main characters coming to terms with their situation and each other.

Overall, I enjoyed the film. Whenever I say I’m interested in Marie-Antoinette, I always feel like I have to qualify that that doesn’t mean I’m a FAN. I’m interested in what a complicated person she was and how misunderstood she is today, but that doesn’t mean I think she was some paragon of perfection. I think she was thrust into an impossible situation where she could never have truly pleased the French, even if she had totally sublimated herself to the dictates of protocol; the fact that she was a real person with foibles, weaknesses, and limitations further exacerbated the situation. And, of course, I’m fascinated by how much fashion is wrapped up in historical and contemporary opinions of her — something I’m reminded of, as I just gave a research presentation on the subject in Paris, and will be giving a public lecture about the same in about two weeks, if you happen to be in town.

The imprisonment and eventual executions of both monarchs was just so damn unfair and tragic, even if you think they weren’t terribly great at their jobs (especially Louis XVI, one of the more unsuited-for-royalty people in history), and the film does a great job of showing that. I also liked that they showed the king’s real limitations, Marie-Antoinette’s frustrations with those, and then the two coming to understand each other better (whether that happened in real life or not), whether or not all of that unfolded emotionally on this timeline I don’t think anyone can say. That being said, I do think the film perpetuated some myths of Marie-Antoinette, showing her as relatively haughty, cold, and self-interested in the first act in a way that she really wasn’t. And the honest conversation that the couple finally has seemed a little too self-aware for the 18th century, especially for royalty.

But at the same time, watching the king who had spent his whole life being trained to play a particular role and just couldn’t pivot to a new one IS heart-breaking on a human level; and the fact that both were mistreated and eventually executed as symbols instead of for who they actually were, whether that be personally or politically; and the poor fucking children, who are shown (especially Marie-Thérèse) as appropriately traumatized by the experience … god. It’s tough! (Of course, on the other hand, if they HAD managed to either escape or restarted the monarchy, the rest of their lives and our modern perception of them would probably be VERY different, and not for the better).

I did think it was a bit weird to end the film where it did, with Louis XVI’s execution, because the trial Marie-Antoinette went through (being accused of molesting her son) is even more awful — but the film actually doesn’t show anything outside of the prison, and maybe that stuff felt TOO theatrically dramatic for them?

I did want to mention that I recently came across this painting of the royal family having mass while imprisoned in the Tuileries palace:

And realized that it was what they were referencing in this scene:

I talked a LOT about the costumes in my preview post, so I’m not going to totally do a retread of that, just add further thoughts to designer Massimo Cantini Parrini‘s work. The one down side is that the main characters appropriately get VERY FEW costume changes, so you’re looking at a LOT of the same costumes for most of the movie. The good side is they’re very well made and suit the era, even if they’re not exactly what I think the actual characters (well, Marie-Antoinette specifically) would have been wearing.

First, the main redingote worn by Marie-Antoinette really was stunning, from its beautifully constructed satin, cut-steel buckles, and layered collars:

That being said, I say with ALL sympathy, satin is not your friend:

She does indeed wear it over a striped sheer petticoat (with a solid petticoat underneath):

And some really great bling, including the earrings and bodice brooch:

The blue-grey redingote she wears later:

…is actually worn by Lamballe when they arrive; note the portrait buttons, which I discussed in my preview post:

I still TOTALLY question her wearing the robe en chemise/chemise à la reine, given how much negative publicity she got for it in 1783:

And while the 1790s was a huge era of corset change, would Marie-Antoinette of all people be wearing a fashion-forward style with actual bust cups?

Looking at Lamballe, again she’s in that redingote at first with an AMAZING hat — the veil! The satin ribbon! The giant steel? doodads!

Later she wears this dress with a gathered collar, which may have been meant to be a lévite?

And we get occasional super quick glimpses of a serving woman wearing a fabulous black and white striped redingote with big stomacher cut out:

Which reminded me of this 1786 redingote at the Museo di Palazzo Mocenigo:

The hair did and didn’t bug me as much as I thought it would; some characters, like Madame Elisabeth, had decent backs. But it was too obvious that Marie-Antoinette was wearing a wig, even though they never showed us her putting it on/taking it off, and that split in Mme. Elisabeth’s hair (also seen on the serving woman above) was just weird:

Poor (on several levels) Marie-Thérèse only got one outfit, a gown with cutaway front and a striped petticoat like mom’s:

At one point we see that the underbodice is actually her corset, which, okay!

Louis looked great all dressed up, although I was SO distracted by the obvious nose prosthetic:

He spent a lot of time in his waistcoat/without his coat, and I spent a LOT of time trying to figure out why his waistcoat had linen sleeves attached. Yes, attached sleeves were a thing, but I thought they were usually in the fashion fabric and for warmth? What reason do these have for existing? (Not a menswear expert, happy to be corrected!)

And while Louis’s wig was great, other than the weird back twist discussed in the preview post, the rest of the guys had GREAT wigs with the proper short and turned under on top, long and in a queue in back:

Do you like when we review films that don’t ever seem to get released in the US? What’s your take on the downfall of Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI, plus the costumes in The Flood?