From a film appreciation standpoint Chéri is interesting. One of the giants of French literature adapted by director Stephen Frears and screenwriter Christopher Hampton, who were the makers of one of the definitive version of Les liaisons dangereuses, or as English speakers say, Dangerous Liaisons. Both films star Michelle Pfeiffer, who in Liaisons played Madame de Tourvel, the rather innocent object of affection for the lecherous Vicomte Sébastien de Valmont played by John Malkovich. Now several years wiser, yet no less radiant, Pfeiffer plays the mature and experienced courtesan that becomes the title characters object of infatuation and later obsession. Chéri is staged well, and I’d expect nothing less from the sure hand of Frears, but for a film supposedly wrought with emotional blackmail and exploitation, it seems oddly staid.

Based on two works by the French author (and provocateur) Colette, Chéri takes place amongst the upper crust fringe of French society. Courtesans, or professional long-term mistresses, known for bankrupting the rich and powerful of Europe, are wealthy enough to be independent women of means but are normally shunned by the old money crowd. As a result they mostly stick to themselves, which results in tenuous friendships like the one between Léa de Lonval (Pfeiffer) and Madame Peloux (Kathy Bates). Madame Peloux son Chéri (Rupert Friend) is a man of leisure with a constant morose and rather bored disposition; that is until Léa takes him under her wing (and into her bed). Their six year affair ends when Chéri’s mother finds him a wife in the shy and reserved Edmee (Felicity Jones).

As a film, Chéri provokes a divided mind in the viewer. There are two competing mind sets as to how one feels about the film; one positive, the other not so much. The good first, I suppose. The acting is excellent. Pfeiffer and Bates as turn-of-the-century frenemies is biting with a lot of subtext. One can tell there’s a mutual appreciation for each other, but it’s one of those situational friendships where under different conditions they’d probably never let their paths cross. But they’re both greater, Pfeiffer feigning composure and calm masking a broiling passion while Bates’ wicked laugh is used to cover a more bitter reaction to the savage tongue lashings the ladies toss at each other. It’s a wonderfully boisterous laugh, but it’s covering up the sharp end if you know what I mean. Out of the main triad, Friend is the weakness, but whether that’s a flaw in the character or a flaw in the actor it’s hard to say. It could be Friend is playing it straight, and if so bravo, I’d hate to think anyone’s that bland in real life.

On the other hand, the story was so prim and precise, seemingly so preoccupied with not showing its feelings that it barely shows any feeling at all. It’s like watching an adaptation of The Great Gatsby, everything’s placed just so on the table, and nothing’s rearranged out of place. All the action feels staged and watching a movie over the book you lack the narrator’s first person context. I’m not sure if that’s the case with Chéri, but I know that I’ve never found a film about Gatsby as satisfying as the book it’s based on. The story is well staged, unquestionably. One feels like a fly on the wall as these people trade barbs and hide their feelings from one and other, and actors are so polished and so game that some scenes come off like well rehearsed play. But while the acting was engaging, I’m not sure that the story being told was. Perhaps there’s something about the day and age that makes watching whiny, lazy, rich people being whiny, lazy and rich seem kind of distasteful.

Truly though, Chéri is expertly staged no matter how engaged you are with the material, and at the very least you can revel in one of the seemingly rare appearances of Michelle Pfeiffer. Even after seeing it and writing several hundred words about it, my feelings about Chéri are still rather ambivalent, that is to say confused. The divide between the things I enjoyed and the overall ennui I got after the credits rolled are definitely in conflict. Perhaps without the title character and his misery wallowing there might have been more to enjoy, but would there have been a movie? Probably not, I guess. Or maybe I’m reading too much into things. Perhaps like Chéri himself, the movie is all style with no substance. “I can't criticize his character, mainly because he doesn't seem to have one,” observes Léa about Chéri. Sounds about right to me, actually.