‘The Earrings of Madame De...’ is a treasure that shows what mammoth
blossoming can be done with even the simplest of premises. A Woman (the lovely
Danielle Darrieux) sells her earrings. The reason is not heavily stated - it may not even be
known to her. She lies about it to the jeweler. She lies about it to her husband, the
General (Charles Boyer), who goes into a panic and demands a search of the opera house
where she claims to have lost them. This sparks an seemingly unending twist of fates in
which the earrings travel to Constantinople - and back - back into the hands of Madame
De... (her identity playfully well-hidden throughout the entirety of the film). But it’s not
simply a film about fate. It’s not simply a film about the earrings.

 What becomes of the earrings is love, lust, jealousy, anguish - and finally,
tragedy. What we are seeing is sometimes an allegory of the opulent ones - unable to
ground themselves in the base things necessary to carry on relationships; it is sometimes
an almost ‘Jane Eyre’-like statement about the perpetual enslavement of women - and the
lengths they go to upend their imprisonment; and finally, I go back to what the Hungarian
Count says to Nicole Kidman in ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ - (paraphrasing) “Women used to get
married to be free. So that they could lose their virginity to their husband. Then they
could have the men they really wanted”. In ‘The Earrings of Madame De...”, this twisted
statement is in full effect as Madame De... falls hopelessly in love with an ambassador
called Donati, played with a charming naivete by Italian film director Vittorio De Sica.
Totally bored with her husband - and though that seems to be understood by both parties
at the opening of the film - she is magnetically drawn to him.

 And their romance is fleeting - and beautifully tragic. As is everything in the film.
While it sure looks like an American film (Ophuls directed many films in the United
States as well) - it does not resemble the heavily censored cinema of the 1950’s. It’s got
the screwball natures in scenes; the elaborate camera set-ups and decor lighting - it’s a
movie made entirely American - in Paris. The resemblences cease, of course, at it’s look
- particularly it’s ending.

(stop reading if you’re squeamish about ending-giveaways)

 Ah, the unending sorrow that plagues their lives. Descending into jealousy, the
General challenges Donati to a duel - and in a classic self-loathing moment, Donati
accepts. And he does it to spite Madame De... By now the earrings have been sold and
bought back from the jeweler upwards of six times - money being thrown around simply
on the off-chance that her expression may change - it doesn’t. She’s always enthralled by
the jewels - and always disappointed by who has given them to her. By this time - what’s
left, but death? Such an icy message in the upper classes - or in fiction itself. Human life
being disposed of at such a well-staged drop of the hat.

 It takes me back to something written - the first sentence of Ford Madux Ford’s
‘The Good Soldier’ - “This is the saddest story I’ve ever heard” - he writes from the
Point-of-view of someone involved throughout and viewing in retrospect. And here, too,
when there is no miraculous ending and no “saved-at-the-last-minute” trickery - when the
General proceeds to shoot Donati - and Madame De... dies of a heart attack - all the
majesty scaled by that wonderfully twisting plot simply vanishes. And the film has made
it’s point.

 It’s really quite a powerful film.

 [And Scorcese must’ve seen this film. The tracking shots in ‘Goodfellas’,
‘Casino’ and countless of his other films look very similar, almost too similar; to the ones
that appear, all through the settings, sets and various other dwellings - throughout the
whole of “The Earrings of Madame De...”.]