Widow Clicquot: film review

A conventional biopic with some fizz but not a top vintage.

Yesterday I watched Widow Clicquot at the Towner cinema in Eastbourne.

It was a very conventional biopic: strong-minded woman inherits failing business and, despite many obstacles, turns it into a world-beating brand. One of the tropes of our times.

Set during the Napoleonic wars, Barbe Clicquot inherits her husband’s vineyards in the Champagne region on his death. He had been working on improving the quality of his product but a combination of poor weather and a fire in the cellar during the second fermentation meant that he had lost a lot of bottles and the financial situation of the business was dire; his father wanted to sell up to the neighbouring Moets (presumably the originators of Moet et Chandon) but Veuve (French for Widow) Clicquot refused to sell despite the fact that the market was contracting due to Napoleon’s ban on trade with his enemies. Clicquot decided to smuggle her wines to the market but the roundabout route necessary meant that all but eight bottles were damaged. These eight however were sold at the Russian court and discovered to be of such fine quality that a down payment was made on the next vintage. More problems beset the Widow including the need to light fires all over the vineyard to stave off frost damage, the invasion of Russian soldiers, and another attempt by her father-in-law to call in his loan. But dogged persistence and self-belief paid off and Widow was triumphant. At which point there was an attempt to remove her from the business under the Code Napoleon which said that a woman was not allowed to run a business, although a widow was. It boiled down to the question of whether she was remaining a widow in name only in order to get around the law ...

The story was told with frequent flashbacks. I was very glad that Barbe wore white in the flashbacks and then widow’s black after her husband died.

It starred:

• Haley Bennett (Roxane in Cyrano) who only really impressed with her acting own during the final scenes
• Tom Sturridge (Morpheus in The Sandman) as Francois, M Clicquot, “the film’s most compelling and volatile character, an imbalance accentuated by the whirling intensity of Sturridge’s performance” (Variety)
• The ever-brilliant Ben Miles (Toby in Douglas is Cancelled).

As I say, it was highly conventional and adhered to two mainstream narratives in today’s society:

• Firstly, that many of the problems facing a woman are that she isn’t a man and that the patriarchy will do its best to deprive her of opportunity. Although it was clear that Clicquot's father-in-law never actually pulled the plug and that men worked for her and defended her.
• Secondly, that hard work, perseverance and the possession of a dream will ensure success in this world. I find this a pernicious belief. It is often said by successful people: ‘if I can succeed than anyone can, yes I had talent but I also worked hard and believed in myself’. It is manifestly untrue. If you consider, for example, the world of acting, it is clear that there are many incredible actors - who can sing and dance and make you believe that they are someone else - who never achieve stardom. Musicians are the same. Hugely talented musicians play pub venues or busk. They are brilliant writers who never breakthrough into being published. Perhaps the same is true of athletes: certainly the margins between gold medals and not-even-in-the-Olympics might be a few seconds which could have been overcome had the unlucky athlete had access to the training that the winner had. The fact is that in these hugely competitive endeavours the difference between success and failure is often down to luck, being in the right place at the right time. Losers in life are often as determined as winners, sometimes more so, they dream as hard, they try as hard or harder, sometimes they have even more talent. But the winners cannot allow themselves to believe that their success is largely due to luck. They have to tell themselves, and the world, that they are super -special. It's misleading.

So I would have preferred a narrative that challenged these tropes. Perhaps someone should write a film about a failure.

IMdB gave it 6.3/10. On Rotten Tomatoes the critics (Tomatometer) gave it an impressive 81% whereas the audience (Popcornmeter) gave it 86%, perhaps because of the feel-good factor which always seems to boost ratings. The Guardian (“attractive but not quite grand cru") rated it 3/5 stars. The NY Times called it “muddled”.

This review was written by the author of Bally and Bro, Motherdarling  and The Kids of God