User reviews

One of the big achievements of Un Secret which must be noted is that the director, Claude Miller, doesn't entirely sympathize with his characters or make them out to be all completely good Jews. They're not. This is a film concerning the holocaust that doesn't just make a blanket statement like "Nazis = Bad". No, there were Jews who were in denial, and tried to cloud over the horrible fact that was upon all of Europe, and indeed it's when the film takes its most dissecting view at the flaws of these characters that the veneer is stripped away of completely innocent people being swept up in the maelstrom. While Miller obviously acknowledges and shows the horror of anti-semitism in France (one brief scene in a classroom showing Night and Fog is especially startling) and of the rise of Hitler, he puts his eye on the Grinberg family and what really happened between François Grimbert's parents (name changed when he was a kid) before and during World War 2.

Miller's approach with Un Secret is a tricky one structurally, and it doesn't quite find it's footing until a third of the way into the film. He tries to find a back-and-forth-and-back form of dealing with three periods of time: 1930s, 1950s/1960s and 1985 when everybody is older and it turns to black and white (an opposite touch that works, for a moment), and it's only effective in about the first five minutes. I became wary of those sudden jumps to the 1985 portion of the film, where we see an old Maxime Nathan Grinberg (Patrick Bruel) grieving over the loss of his dog and his son trying to find him, and found it didn't strike anywhere near as well as the 50s scenes. On top of this, after all of the film has ended, that huge chunk of the film with the focus on that first marriage of Grinberg's with Hannah and his very obvious but eventually-acted-on infatuation with Tania (very sexy Cecile de France) was far more effective dramatically and tonally than anything else in the film.

This is not to say Un Secret doesn't cast a very fascinating look into this particular boy's lack of perspective and of his father's determination to compete on a physical level with the Germans, to almost "be" one in a perfectionist sense athletically, and how this one secret is part of scarred memory, attachment to one's faith and religion and who they are, and love and lust. The cast is generally excellent, with Bruel, De France and Sagnier delivering work with nuance and exquisite, painful emotions that resonate from one into the next scene (Sagnier is so good she gets us to feel repulsed, or at least taken completely aback, by what she does while in hiding). And the moods of joy and despair in a Jewish family circa 1930s and 1940s- and the subsequent self-imposed shame of people in Europe even after the war ended- is captured with some real power and accuracy.

But Miller also can't completely fix together his narrative; he feels the need to jump around as if it will create a really intriguing rhythm, where if he stepped back and told it without sudden jumps or surreal bits like the "brother" in the boy's bedroom at night the film would benefit. There is also a lack of a real resolution; the 1985 scene just didn't cut it for me as far as an unspoken father/son thing, and despite it sounding conventional a confrontation of the boy to his parents might have brought something more interesting than the uneven subtlety of the ending. A lot of this is so hearth-breaking in its true dimensions and probing of the subject that the only real disappointment is how it doesn't fell... complete with itself.

Since the structure of the movie, works with many flashbacks, there is not a big surprise in the end. The acting is more than decent (even I recognize many french actors and I'm not really familiar with most of them) and the story deserves to be told. Although I'm not sure, if it really is based on a true story, it's still a gripping story ... unfortunately, this movie does underscore many things. And while sometimes it might work out to underplay a few things, it doesn't work in the favor of the movie ...

I watched it with another person and he kind of despised the movie. He thought the theme was nice, but was unhappy with the handling of that subject matter. I do agree with him to some degree, but I think it would be unfair to the actors and the (overall) story to give it a lesser rating ...

This is a complex, moving and beautifully realised film by Miller. The themes of rejection, love, loss and guilt are explored in a complex narrative structure where ultimately the guilt of one man and the rejection felt by one woman are mirrored in the guilt of the French nation in their rejection and abandonment of their Jewish fellow countrymen.

Lush cinematography, precise mise en scene and excellent performances including Ludivine Sagnier cast against type as the object of non-desire make for a totally satisfying cinematic experience. Perhaps we could have done without the coda in Laval's pet cemetery but by that stage I and the rest of the audience were emotionally drained. Go see.

Well, I'm very definitely with those who praise this film. I think it's quite excellent.

It has many qualities that I value. To begin with, the narrative is entirely believable. I particularly liked the fact that one of the principal characters was a Jew who didn't didn't care much about being a Jew and felt no need to proclaim his Jewishness to the world: there are many Jews like that and they are as entitled to respect as a non-practising Christian or Muslim or anyone else. The knowledge of the son that he's a disappointment to his father rang true. The acceptance by some Jews of the Nazi laws, and the belief of those same Jews that if they obey the laws, wear the star, stay away from public swimming pools, then they will be all right. The desire of those who live through the holocaust to put it behind them rather than dwell on it.

I like its directness and understatement. There are no histrionics. The story is told; the audience observes and draws its own conclusions.

The acting and directing are uniformly outstanding. I'd never had much time for Cécile de France, but she is perfect in this rôle. Patrick Bruel as the athletic father is just as good, and Julie Dépardieu as the family friend and the three actors who play the son at different times of his life are up there too; in fact, it's unfair to leave anyone out.

The director Claude Miller deserves special mention. I haven't seen any of his other films, but I'll look out for him from now on. He handles the film with absolute confidence, never obtruding, but conveying every nuance without faltering. This is a classic example of how simplicity, directness and lack of elaboration can add to the power of a story.

This film deserves much more than it's current user rating of 6.7.

I was really expecting more from this adaptation of Grimbert's novel by Claude Miller. The director showed us with his last movie, "La Petite Lili" that he was able to take an important literary text (that was "The Seagull" from Tchekhov)and to transform it into an interesting cinematographic experience. But with this secret, Miller only manages to give a boring and literal (even if he takes some liberty from the book) adaptation without any relief.

If the structure of the film, all in flash-back and time traveling, gives a modern aspect to the movie, it's merely an illusion, and a useless style effect, for the movie rapidly gives this artifice away and finally adopts a linear form. The story is the one of a young boy who learns in the 50's the secret story of his family during WWII. His family was Jew and it hasn't been easy for them during the french occupation by the German. This last sentence seems ridiculous, but it's the key to the secret of the movie ! That's how much you will learn while watching it.

The movie is also lame concerning the individual story of the child that learns the story of his family. If you have the feeling this could be the real subject of the movie during the first minutes of the film, that shows a a man (Mathieu Amalric) remembering his child wood where he learns this story, the consequences of such a discovery are eluded in the movie. And the scenes with Amalric, that seems to come from another french film d'auteur, with it's Garrel Balck and white look, are completely useless. You just get to see an old maked-up Patrick Bruel and Cecile De France in a "Once upon a time in America"'s style, but all I can say is that Claude Miller isn't Sergio Leone, and that this flash-forward effect is close to ridiculous.

The narrative structure, the mise en scene, the themes, the reconstitution, and the story of the movie are so predictable, academical and uninteresting, that the spectator attention, close to fall in beautifuler dreams, is merely kept alive by the presence of two good french actress : Ludivine Sagnier and especially Cecile De France. They're the only reason to watch this movie 'till the end and they're the one ones to bring some interest to this mediocre adaptation.

Having read the comments on this site, after having heard a friend (whose opinions aren't always reliable) say I must see it, I expected a marginally good picture when I rented the DVD. OK, I thought, another personal story about French and German anti-Semitism in WW II. This time my friend was right! A Secret was a knockout. It hit home and revived childhood memories. And it's as much or more about pre-WW II & post-WW II as it is about during. I won't repeat what others have rightly said about the uniformly excellent acting or the directing or the photography, etc. Among the things that hit home to me were the child's (or children's) point of view--SO on target--and the very different types of Jews portrayed in this film. Even though I "knew" (intuited) what would happen to some characters, what actually did happen was better than my imaginings. Its reference to the big illusion (La grande illusion) was apt (as well as the one character who actually saw it). More than one illusion is shattered by this pic, which like my friend I highly recommend.

Beautifully filmed - stunning screenplay A simple story beautifully acted by the entire cast.

Stunningly beautiful female leads as well.

This film gets my vote as one of the best foreign language films I've seen. It can be a little slow moving in parts so it's a film that you want to watch when you are not in any hurry, just sit back and enjoy.

The story revolves around Francois growing up in 50's Paris who find out a family secret. It jumps from the 30's - 80's in telling the story and I thought it a nice touch filming the 80's section in black and white. Don't miss if you like good well acted drama.

Director Claude Miller ('The Little Thief')has gone and crafted a fine, taut,heartbreaking tale of repression,tragedy & truth,leading to closure. 'A Secret',adapted from the novel of the same name by author Phiiippe Grimbert,concerns a man,Francois,who as a young boy,had the feeling that he had an older brother. When he couldn't get a straight answer from his tight lipped family,he goes on a search for the truth & gets more than he bargained for. The film boasts of a fine cast,including Julie Depardieu,daughter of actor Gerard Depardieu,and the always welcome Ludivine Sagnier (Swimming Pool). The story's pace may be a bit slow for most Western viewers,but waiting it out will be well worth it,for the final solution. The film's visual look is a treat for the eye (with the present day sequences filmed in black & white, and the scenes that take place in the past which were filmed in colour,which may remind some viewers of 'Les Violins Du Bal'). Films like this deserve far better than they get (unlike any & all of the latest cine crapola that feature Pauly Shore or Adam Sandler). No rating,but contains nudity,sexual situations & some gruesome images of concentration camps that would be disturbing to youngsters under 15.

I was able to see to see this film as part of a recent festival of French films shown at Cannes. It was one of the better French movies that I've seen but somehow it lacks the emotional impact to make it a truly outstanding film.

Un Secret is about Francois, who gradually learns about his family's secret history, dating back to World War II, that continues to haunt his parents and himself even up to the present. The director expresses this idea visually by shooting the present day scenes in black and white and the flashback scenes in color.

The plot of Un Secret is well-laid out and comes together satisfyingly enough. I have to admit that one problem I had with the film was that I had some problems following the complicated family relationships among the characters, but once you get past that, the way the story unfolds is ultimately rewarding.

The problem I had with the film, which may just be my problem, is that the film lacks emotional impact. The film'e emotions are understated and, while this is not necessarily a bad thing, prevents it from becoming truly memorable.

Still, its one of the better recent French films and you should see it if you get the chance.

All François knew was that his father wasn't overly fond of him. Part of it may have been because he wasn't as athletic as his parents. His father would get upset when he talked of an imaginary "brother." No one talked of the family secret until he was 14 and Louise (Julie Depardieu) decided he should know.

She tells him of life during WWII, and his father's first wife, and his son. Unbeknownst to him, they were all Jews, even though his father never practiced his faith. During the war they escaped France. All except his wife (Ludivine Sagnier) and son. She decided to demonstrate her independence at the wrong time. Of course, she was also upset that her husband (Patrick Bruel) couldn't keep his eyes off her brother's wife (Cécile De France). Who could? What happened didn't become known until François (Mathieu Amalric) was older. We, the audience knew what was going to happen, but the Jews at the time had no clue.

Julie Depardieu really excelled in this engrossing tale. Cécile De France was also very good. It was a brilliant work of art.

Claude Miller is a director I have been much interested in in the past, and the sufferings of those targeted by Nazis during the war can't fail to affect me, but this film dealing with a Jewish family before, during and after the war somehow does not grip me as it should. I can't fault the actors, they are all good, and Cécile de France is inspired, but the endless flashbacks and flash-forwards tried my patience greatly. When I have to ask myself who this character is who is hurling angry words at another character, I lose patience with the story. Some pruning of plot and characters would have benefited the film.

Miller also made L'Accompagnatrice, again a war story, which suffered from many of the same faults. I think he is best at contemporary stories like Betty Fisher et autres histoires and Garde à vue, when he can work with the actors without having to recreate an historical context.

All François knew was that his father wasn't overly fond of him. Part of it may have been because he wasn't as athletic as his parents. His father would get upset when he talked of an imaginary "brother."

No one talked of the family secret until he was 14 and Louise (Julie Depardieu) decided he should know. She tells him of life during WWII, and his father's first wife, and his son. Unbeknownst to him, they were all Jews, even though his father never practiced his faith. During the war they escaped France. All except his wife (Ludivine Sagnier) and son. She decided to demonstrate her independence at the wrong time. Of course, she was also upset that her husband (Patrick Bruel) couldn't keep his eyes off her brother's wife (Cécile De France). Who could?

What happened didn't become known until François (Mathieu Amalric) was older. We, the audience knew what was going to happen, but the Jews at the time had no clue. Julie Depardieu really excelled in this engrossing tale. Cécile De France was also very good. It was a brilliant work of art.