The Pearls of the Crown (1937)

People are voting emotionally.

A different way of telling a story

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Unexceptional telling of the history behind the pearls on the crown of England. Most of the film is narrated from the present day in flashback, as three heads of state, form England, France and Italy, manipulate family marriages, have numerous affairs and resort to murder to advance their own selfish desires. The pearls frequently exchange hands during all of this, eventually some end up on the crown but three are stolen. Back in the present day, three men are determined to track down those three pearls, leading to more flashbacks. Characters come and go at a lightning pace throughout, we hardly get to know one of them before another group is introduced. As a result, it's hard to care about any of them. Only the present day characters have any kind of continuity, and they are a wealthy, shallow group, obsessed with finding the pearls for no reason other than to make a movie about it.

"The Pearls of the Crown" is a very frustrating movie to watch. It looks very nice--with lovely costumes, nice acting and some gorgeous sets. But, unfortunately, it comes across as a very bad history lesson--so jam-packed full of characters and events from the last five hundred years that it made my head reel--and I am a retired history teacher!Sacha Guitry was quite the auteur here--co-writing, directing and starring (in several roles) in this film. He was a talented man and did some lovely films. This, unfortunately, is not a particularly good one. The film is the history of a set of perfectly matched very large pear-shaped pearls. These pearls pass through LOTS of hands and the film is sure to show each and every one in a long, long series of vignettes. The first one is very long and well done--the other 3722348 are all too brief and hit you like an out of control freight train! All this is strung together with a plot of a man (Guitry) and two others who are in search of these illusive pearls. Even more episodic than "The Story of Mankind"--this one NEVER engaged me and only got worse as the film progressed. A clear misfire.By the way, get a load of the Abyssinian queen--she's some white lady covered in copious amounts of dark paint.

Sacha Guitry's movies probably don't show up in college courses on French film. But then again, neither, I suspect, do Marcel Pagnol's, which says a lot about such courses. This movie, Les perles de la couronne, is not a great movie, by a long shot. It is, however, an extremely funny one. It is a whirlwind tour of French history, and the characters going flying by, most without development or even much dialogue. Acting, except in a few magisterial cases (Raimu), is non-existent. What you do get is a brilliant narrative delivered by its brilliant author, Sacha Guitry. He is nothing to look at - though he was married to a succession of some of the most beautiful women in French theater and cinema - but he knows how to read his own words. Cynical to the extreme, but very funny.Other than that, most of the women in this movie are remarkably beautiful to look at.And you get to see Raimu in his heyday. What more could you ask, after you've worn out your copies of Marius, La femme du boulanger, La fille du puisetier, and the other masterpieces he made with Pagnol? This is basically an extremely funny history lesson, history as it should be taught but seldom is.Definitely a movie for everyone, including and maybe even especially for those who have been fed a dull diet of "important" French cinema. The camera work may be nothing to write home about here, but the narration is a stitch.

Do you know who the granddaddy of the Monty Python was?Sacha Guitry is a serious contender."Les Perles de la couronne" was his biggest commercial success and it's still much fun to watch it today.It was the first of the "historical" movies of the artist: "Si Paris m'était Conté " "Si Versailles m'était Conté " "En Remontant les Champs-Elysées " were to follow.Guitry was French wit at its best .Only Henri Jeanson could write as good as he could .His is not a vitriolic style like his peer Jeanson,but a sense of humor completely mad which verges on absurd.Tell me who could put in a two-hour movie FRancois Premier and Henry the Eighth,Mary Stuart and Catherine de Medicis,Henry the Fourth and the popes,Napoleon and JOsephine,Napoleon the Third and Eugenie de Montijo ,the queen of Abyssinia and Elizabeth the First, Madame du Barry and the Sans-Culottes ,a cuckold and a courtesan, three thieves ,one of them being good at maths and logic,Virgin Mary in the flesh (two divine interventions),and more and more and more....??? Madness is everywhere and critic George Sadoul who would dismiss Guitry as "filmed stage production maker" and "as a man contemplating his navel ,if he were here today,should see his objections swept away in a deluge of joyful film making ,which only the snobs will not hear and only the deaf and the blind will not acknowledge.The extraordinary quality of the screenplay -which is very complicated ,Guitry really invented here the Film à Tiroirs- is one of simple happiness.You should see Ann Boleyn(sic) teach King François's son the indicative present of the verb "to have" (and the obsolete form "thou hast" )."I need an English teacher too,the king says ,would you be my mistress?".This is a film that should be watched in French with English subtitles to enjoy the word games the puns and the gags which show at every minute .About King Henry the Eighth:"He protested ,he protested ,he protested so much that he became a Protestant!".The film is marvelously constructed;Sheherazade could not do better even if she tried her best: Once there was a pope who wanted to get rid of his dear niece Catherine's gallant .He had two invaluable pearls so he asked the young man for five more pearls which he would find around the world: around the world in eighty days or more.The Queen of Abyssinia sequence alone is worth the price of admission.Arletty ,with soot or paint smeared all over her face ,can only speak Abyssinian! So it takes three interprets (English,Italian,French ) to translate the sovereign's mumbo jumbo! When the lad came back,the seven pearls were given as a wedding present to Catherine de Medicis.Four pearls ,through the years ,were preserved,but three of them were stolen.Guitry goes backwards and forwards between the present and the past,with absolute virtuosity.And he even manages to make a "poetic" ending : the last pearl gets back to where it once belonged in a way...Vive Sacha Guitry!