Along Came Love review: Diverting melodrama just about delivers on early promise of knotty personal drama
Along Came Love
Director
:
Katell Quillévéré
Cert
:
None
Starring
:
Anaïs Demoustier, Vincent Lacoste, Hélios Karyo, Morgan Bailey, Josse Capet, Paul Beaurepaire, Margot Ringard Oldra
Running Time
:
2 hrs 5 mins
This diverting French melodrama, spanning decades of postwar French life, begins with a promising meld of fact and fiction.
Archival footage shows us the sexual partners of now-repelled (or killed) German soldiers having their heads forcibly shaved before public shaming in the town square.
We then meet Madeleine (Anaïs Demoustier), shot in matching black and white, evading the mob, before the film, now in idealised colour, meets her again as a waitress in liberated Normandy. Her family have ostracised her. She is raising a son who believes his father to have died in the war. He may well have done for all Madeleine knows.
It is to director Katell Quillévéré's credit that she does not fret overly on any guilt Madeleine may or may not have about fraternising with the enemy. That was then and this is now. Survival is all. As most anybody would, she focuses on living from difficult day to difficult day.
READ MORE
Help comes in the form of a middle-class student named François (Vincent Lacoste). They fall in something like love and get married, but it soon becomes clear his sexual interests do not lie entirely – or even largely – with women. Fractious toing and froing takes us through France's uncertain 1950s and up into its turbulent 1960s.
[
James Bond franchise owners seek more time to defend control of 007 spy's name
Opens in new window
]
The director does not connect much with wider politics. Anyone hoping for a social history of the times will be in for disappointment. This is the sort of film in which people happen upon news reports on the Vietnam War merely as way of clarifying which decade we have reached. Along Came Love is, rather, a saga of wavering emotional dynamics. The central encounter with a black GI really doesn't work – not least because his dialogue has that flat, disconnected quality you so often get when characters speak English in a film not otherwise in that language.
Neither principal seems certain how much affection their character feels for the other in this necessarily compromised marriage. But the film does eventually find balance and power in later sections that confront the miseries into which different classes of ostracisation have forced both Madeleine and François.
Along Came Love (which has a deceptive title) does not torture the emotion or tax the brain, but, well acted and easy on the eye, it just about delivers on its early promise of knotty personal drama. It also has important things to say – implicitly for the most part – about the unjust expectations placed on women in French society.
In cinemas from Friday, May 30th
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ukraine and Russia agree to new prisoner exchange in Istanbul
Ukraine and Russia agreed to hold a new prisoner exchange and swapped memorandums on a possible ceasefire to end Vladimir Putin's three-year war, despite a gulf remaining between the two sides' positions at a meeting in Istanbul on Monday. After talks at the Çırağan Palace on the Bosphorus, Kyiv's and Moscow's delegations said they had agreed to swap all seriously wounded and sick prisoners, as well as prisoners of war under 25. The talks, which lasted for just more than an hour, were the second round of negotiations brokered by Turkey and the US after the peace process resumed last month for the first time since early in the conflict. Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the meeting was 'great' and added that he would move to organise a summit involving Mr Putin, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and US president Donald Trump . READ MORE Vladimir Medinsky, the head of Russia's delegation, said the upcoming exchange, set to involve '1,000 to 1,200' prisoners, would be the largest since the war began, adding that Russia was 'satisfied with the results' of the talks. But the two delegations did not shake hands and suggested they had made little progress on any potential deal as Mr Putin refuses to budge from his demands to cut down Ukraine's sovereignty or accept Kyiv's calls for a ceasefire. Vladimir Medinsky (secon from right), head of the Russian delegation, delivers a statement to the press after a second round of direct talks between Ukrainian and Russian delegates. Photograph: Getty Images Mr Medinsky said Moscow had offered a ceasefire for 'two to three days' on 'specific areas of the front' that would allow the sides to pick up the dead. Ukraine's delegation said that Russia had rejected its proposal for an unconditional ceasefire and for the US to be more involved in the talks after Mr Trump suggested he might attend to bring Mr Putin and Mr Zelenskiy together. Kyiv also said Russia only handed over its memorandum on a possible path to end the war at the meeting and declined to comment on it further. After the meeting, a senior Ukrainian official said that no major breakthroughs had been achieved, 'just minor steps as we expected'. The official added: 'It seems they're staging a picture of diplomacy for Trump.' Rustem Umerov, Ukraine's defence minister, said Kyiv's delegation gave Moscow a list of several hundred Ukrainian children who were deported to Russia during the war. Mr Medinsky said Russia would work to reunite stranded children with their families in Ukraine when possible but accused Kyiv of turning the issue into a 'shameful show' for the Europeans. [ Analysis: Kyiv braced for Russian summer offensive Opens in new window ] Russia's intransigence has frustrated the US president, who had bragged that he could solve the conflict on his first day in office and thought his close relationship with Mr Putin could help broker a deal. Instead, Russia dismissed a 22-point US peace plan and held fast to its demands, prompting Mr Trump to suggest the US would take a back seat in the peace process after the first round of talks in May. On Sunday, Ukraine launched one of its most daring military operations of the war, hitting dozens of Russian aircraft at four airfields as far away from the front line as eastern Siberia. Those attacks themselves came just hours after Russia launched its largest drone strike on Ukraine since 2022, attacking the cities of Kyiv, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia with 472 unmanned aerial vehicles. Remarks by Mr Medinsky other senior Kremlin officials in the weeks following the first meeting indicated that Moscow was not prepared to budge from its insistence on solving the 'root causes' of the conflict. [ Putin wants written pledge to halt Nato expansion in return for peace Opens in new window ] Mr Putin has previously demanded that Ukraine withdraw from four regions partly controlled by Russia — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — accept caps on its armed forces, and pledge never to join Nato. During the first round of talks, Mr Medinsky made what Ukrainian officials called 'unacceptable' territorial demands and threatened that Russia would conquer more regions if its conditions were not met. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov also said after the first round of talks that Moscow wanted Kyiv to enshrine protections for Russian speakers in the country and roll back much of the legislation passed under Mr Zelenskiy's government. Ukraine argued that those conditions would amount to surrender and the end of its existence as a sovereign state. Russia has also downplayed the possibility of a face-to-face meeting between Mr Putin, Mr Zelenskiy and Mr Trump, saying such a summit could only be planned after results were reached at the talks in Istanbul. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on consumer rights in Ireland: transparency in pricing vital
The least consumers should expect from retailers is honesty and transparency when it comes to product pricing. This is of particular importance during sales windows, when shoppers can be particularly vulnerable to manipulation. In a blizzard of promotional promises it can be difficult for the public to assess if deals on the table are real, or if the figures have been massaged to exaggerate the scale of the bargains. Sales pricing legislation introduced in 2022 requires traders to base discounts on the lowest price over a 30-day period before a sale begins and to display that lower price clearly - in essence it stops retailers hiking prices briefly in the run-up to a sale, before slashing them to suggest bigger savings. The early tests of the legislation have found some retailers wanting. Last week in the Dublin District Court, Boots admitted breaching the legislation following an online pricing sweep conducted by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) in November 2023. READ MORE That sweep pinpointed three products that were listed as being on sale at prices that were either higher or at the same level as they had been at in the days leading up to a Black Friday sale. In erring in such a fashion, the pharmacy joined Lifestyle Sports, DID Electrical and Rath-Wood Home and Garden World who were before the courts in March. Boots expressed regret for the pricing anomalies which they attributed to human error and pointed out that the products represented a minuscule fraction of what was on promotion at the time the CCPC conducted its investigation. And no doubt this was indeed the case. While the transgressions were limited in scale, the CCPC deserves credit for taking the actions which should serve as a warning to others. The shops will no doubt wish they had not made headlines in such a fashion but ultimately, they and other retailers as well as consumers will benefit from the knowledge the system is slowly becoming more robust and more transparent.
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
The truth behind the Normans and Ireland: ‘They abolished slavery'
The Government has announced that it intends to participate in an international year in 2027 to celebrate Norman culture and the 1,000th anniversary of the birth of William the Conqueror. Minister for Housing James Browne , himself of Norman heritage, said the year will acknowledge the huge impact that the Normans had on Ireland and other parts of Europe . However, Sinn Féin TD Aengus Ó Snodaigh described the plans as 'offensive' given the 'legacy of William's successors invading and subjugating Ireland in the name of his English crown'. So who is right and who is wrong? READ MORE The Irish Times sought the views of four experts: Seán Duffy is professor of medieval Irish history in Trinity College Dublin (TCD). Brendan Smith is professor of medieval history at the University of Bristol. Conor Kostick is a historian and the author of Strongbow: The Norman Invasion of Ireland. Sparky Booker is an assistant professor in medieval Irish history at Dublin City University. Should Ireland participate in such celebrations? Seán Duffy: Yes, of course. Celebrating Norman culture – its scholars, architects and artists, the intellectual curiosity that gave rise to the medieval universities – is not the same as celebrating the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland and, contrary to what Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh has implied, nobody is proposing to do that. What is proposed is that the Norman cultural achievement be marked in 2027 in those parts of Europe which experienced it, in the same way that we value the achievement of ancient Greece or Rome, of Charlemagne and his Carolingian empire, or of Renaissance Florence under the Medici. Brendan Smith: It is a bit of a stretch. Ireland-Normandy contacts by the time Ireland was invaded in 1169 were slight. 'Norman culture' is a tricky concept. The culture the Normans invigorated and exported everywhere from Palestine to Pembrokeshire was French. There wasn't much that was specifically 'Norman' about it. A re-enactment of the Battle of Hastings in which, on October 14th, 1066, William the Conqueror's Norman-French forces defeated an English army, beginning the Norman conquest of England. The 'Normans' arrived in Ireland in 1169. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Wire Conor Kostick: No [to celebrating William]. The guide to answering this question is in his name, William the Bastard, as he was known until he crushed his opponents. Should we celebrate Ireland's Norman heritage? Definitely. As with every period of settlement in Ireland – for example, the Vikings – the people who came here eventually made an important contribution to the development of our country, even if they first came to plunder. To what extent were the Anglo-Normans who arrived in Ireland from 1169 Anglo and/or Norman? Seán Duffy: The simple answer is that – almost without exception – whenever any of the so-called Normans who came to Ireland refer to themselves, they call themselves not Norman but English. What they mean by that is more complicated. They are not referring to what we might call ethnic identity, but rather asserting their political allegiance to the crown of England. The problem with painting everyone with the 'Norman' brush is that many of those who began arriving in Ireland in the late 1160s had probably never set foot in Normandy. [ Art in Focus: Daniel Maclise – The Marriage of Strongbow and Aoife Opens in new window ] We don't know for certain because, to our shame, the kind of large-scale research we need to conduct into individual family origins – tracing the background of the Barrys, Costellos, Cusacks, Dillons, Joyces, Keatings, Powers, Purcells, Roches, Tobins and so many others – still hasn't been done. My hope is that one outcome of the Government's commitment to marking the Year of the Normans is that we start to get answers to such questions through detailed scholarly research. Brendan Smith: Some of the early conquerors of Ireland, such as Strongbow, had estates in Normandy as well as in England and Wales, but they were in a minority. All of them, from lord to peasant, regardless of what language they spoke, identified themselves as 'English', by which they meant they were subjects of the king of England and thus entitled to use English common law. The word 'Norman' is almost entirely absent from contemporary accounts of what happened in Ireland between 1169 and 1171. Sparky Booker: The answer to how 'Norman' these 'Anglo-Normans' were ... depends on the moment in time you are asking about as well as what aspect of their culture – language, architecture, law, politics – you focus on. This is one reason that, in my own work as a historian who primarily works on the later period, the 14th and 15th centuries, I use the term 'English of Ireland' rather than 'Anglo-Norman'. Were the Normans who arrived in Ireland civilisers, conquerors or both? Seán Duffy: One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a single instance of the 'civilising' effects of the invasion because it was not about bringing civilisation, whatever its advocates at the time or since have averred. Brendan Smith: The invaders certainly portrayed themselves as bringing civilisation to a barbarian country. The papacy reinforced this message by praising King Henry II – who had only recently brought about the murder of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury – for bringing true Christianity to a people who, in religious terms, had lost their way. Conor Kostick : Both. The Normans were warriors who used their advantage in military technique to muscle their way to control of southern Italy, Sicily, Antioch, England, much of Wales, and – the last of their conquests – the east of Ireland. They wanted control of the wealth being created by land and trade and, having got it, were very eager to consolidate by becoming respectable members of the culture they had invaded. They were quick to marry into the local community, to secure religious approval via donations to the church, to appoint talented locals as administrators, to use local architectural styles. Those who lost out when the Normans arrived in any region were the local elites, who were killed and replaced. Those who benefited were everyone else. This was very evident in Ireland where the poorest people in 1169 were slaves. Slavery was rampant in Ireland. The Normans abolished slavery. Not that they were in favour of human rights. The Normans had learned that to farm grain efficiently it was better to use serfs, who kept a share of the crop and therefore had an incentive to improve the yields, than slaves. Sparky Booker: Rather than either or both, I would say that neither civiliser nor conqueror is the best term for the Anglo-Normans. Military activity was indeed a key part of Anglo-Norman activity in Ireland in 1169 and for centuries afterwards, but their conquest of Ireland was never completed in the medieval period and Irish lords maintained control over significant areas of the island. Is it the case that the English get all the blame for the '800 years of oppression' and the Normans get none? Seán Duffy: This is a classic example of our failure as a nation to dig deep into this invented past we have created. It entrenches a kind of nonsense. It was only in the 19th century that we began calling the invaders Normans – for two reasons, I think. One is the extraordinary popularity of Sir Walter Scott's novel Ivanhoe (1819) which practically invented the myth of the Normans and made the Normans 'sexy'. The second reason is less benign and had to do with Anglo-Irish relations. In the 1840s, Daniel O'Connell became the first Irish nationalist leader to begin to repeat the refrain of 700 years of English oppression and it has remained a powerful message. In his statement on the Government plans to mark the Year of the Normans, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, no mathematician, referred to '900 years of occupation'. [ The Irish Times view on Sinn Féin vs the Normans: a cartoonish version of history Opens in new window ] And one way in which unionist historians, from the late 19th century onwards, could subvert this nationalist axiom was to implant the idea that for the first half of this 700 years the newcomers were not English but French-speaking Normans. The reality is that – whatever their direct or indirect links to the actual Normans of Normandy – most of those who settled in Ireland after 1169 came either from England or Anglo-Norman settlements in Wales. Brendan Smith: Not a Norman in sight in Ireland in 1169, so the fashion for calling the invaders 'Normans' really reflects something else. Study of the past in Ireland and elsewhere became more professionalised in the late 19th century, and that's when 'the Normans' really take off in how Irish people thought about what had had happened in 1169. It avoided a whole range of sensitive issues to call the invaders 'Normans' rather than call them what they called themselves: 'English.' If the Irish Government arranged a 'celebration of 850 years of English culture in Ireland' in 2019 it escaped my attention. Conor Costick: The oppression of Ireland by England really begins to accelerate when England becomes economically more powerful from the end of the 16th century. Back in 1169 we are looking more at a game of thrones between medieval kings and lords, rather than one nation trying to subjugate another into its economic growth. So I wouldn't blame the Normans for English imperialism. After all, the Normans conquered England as well. What do you feel about the statement made by Sinn Féin TD Aengus Ó'Snodaigh that King Charles III is in a line of English kings going back to William the Conqueror? Seán Duffy: I am not remotely persuaded by Deputy Ó Snodaigh's argument that we should ignore the Year of the Normans 'with the North still under the descendants of William the Conqueror's crown'. As of now, for good or ill there exists in these islands an entity whose official name is the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. No organ of this State denies that the 'Normans' came to Ireland as conquerors. But as with Ireland's extraordinarily mature and successful commemorations during the Decade of Centenaries, we can use the 2027 millennium to see where Ireland fits into the Norman world. Conor Kostick: In essence, I don't think this is correct. It gives the impression that Strongbow's invasion was the foundation for later imperial conquest, settlement and occupation of Ireland. But it was a different era and the victorious Normans weren't in Ireland to send wealth to the kingdom of England. They had come to stay.
