Séraphine (2008)

Director: Martin Provost


By Marilyn Ferdinand

Cherchez la femme. And so France seems to be. In 2007, La Vie en Rose (La Môme), a biopic about troubled singer Édith Piaf, won a boatload of Césars, France’s Academy Award. Last year, it was Séraphine, a biopic about troubled primitive artist Séraphine Louis, also known in the art world as Séraphine of Senlis, the town where she lived and worked. Séraphine was pushing 50 by the time art critic and dealer Wilhelm Uhde discovered her in 1912. He barely had a chance to encourage her before he had to flee France to escape reprisals from both French and German troops at the start of World War I. He rediscovered her in 1927. After a promising reception for her work and a blush of prosperity to ease her meager existence as a housekeeper, Séraphine’s fortunes again went south when the Great Depression killed the art market. A lifelong mental imbalance became a full psychotic break in the early 1930s. Séraphine died in a mental institution in 1942, her paintbrush long idle.

While there is no shortage of crazy/tormented artist biopics, the novelty of Séraphine is that the artist it considers is relatively obscure today. For now, the vogue in primitive art (see In the Realm of the Unreal or Junebug for recent examples) has benefited Séraphine Louis, bringing her eerie, obsessively rendered depictions of flowers, fruit, and leaves to light for new generations in France and for those in other countries who are lucky enough to attend a screening of this film. Unfortunately, despite its triumph at the César Awards, Séraphine has not gotten a lot of buzz; this unusual, self-taught artist might return to relative obscurity—if she emerges at all in the first place—in most of the world. But for now, the spotlight is turned her way with a film that is both illuminating and illuminated from within by the committed performance of Yolande Moreau in the title role.

Like Séraphine herself, the film hides her unsuspected depths for quite a while. We first spot Séraphine scrubbing a wooden floor when her mistress, Mme Duphot (Geneviève Mnich), tells her to open the shutters on the first floor for a new tenant. We move from a close-up of a brush moving across a bald and spotless floor to shutters opening one by one. A portrait is removed from the wall.


The new tenant, Wilhelm Uhde (Ulrich Tukur), examines his new surroundings with his sister Anne-Marie (Anne Bennent). The next day, Uhde is awakened by unexpected noises in the kitchen. Séraphine is cleaning on orders of Mme Duphot. Surprised but not displeased, Uhde asks her to finish up and pays her the 10 sous she asks. For some time, we follow both Séraphine and Uhde as they go about their work—Uhde writing an essay about Picasso based on a portfolio of drawings he owns and Séraphine beating laundry on the riverbank, cleaning homes, and working in a butcher’s shop where she fills a small bottle with blood. She goes to church, and praying and doing the equivalent of winking at God, blows out several votive candles and pours the turpentine fuel into a bottle. Later, she goes through a meadow tearing at wild flowers to put in her basket. It is only later that we see her grind the flowers into a powder and mix it with her other collected ingredients to form paint. She sits, illuminated by candlelight, and forms circles on a board with her fingers.


These routines continue and expand until Mme Duphot rather improbably asks Séraphine to bring a painting of hers for Madame, a member of the local art society, to evaluate. She dismisses the painting as odd and places it under a table. When Madame asks Uhde to dine with the art committee, he reluctantly agrees. Bored at first, he spies Séraphine’s painting and buys it on the spot. Séraphine, no longer a mere servant, becomes his new discovery. Séraphine develops an attachment to Uhde, becoming jealous of Anne-Marie until she learns they are siblings. “I will never marry a woman,” is reassurance to Séraphine and the only signal we get that Uhde is homosexual. When he has to flee France, Séraphine is distraught and tries to extract a promise from him that he will return. He tells Séraphine to work hard to develop her gift.


We meet up with Uhde and Séraphine again 13 years later. Uhde rents a home in Chantilly with his sister and lover Helmut Kolle (Nico Rogner), a painter. Convinced that Séraphine has died, he nonetheless checks out an art show in Senlis, where he comes face to face with two large canvasses that bear witness to Séraphine’s continued existence and amazing progress as an artist. Séraphine, old, haggard, living on charity, yet still relentless in pursuing her art, accepts Uhde’s return as nearly inevitable. After a short period of prosperity, Séraphine loses Uhde’s patronage to the market downturn and soon also loses her mind.

Emotion is in short supply in this film. Tukur plays Uhde as an important man who doesn’t wear that importance on his sleeve. He mainly wants to be left alone, hence his move to small-town France from Paris. He is gracious and quiet, somewhat troubled, and ultimately businesslike in his handling of his protege, which is more realistic than the usual codependent relationships that are normally found in films such as this. Rogner has a small role, but with a single look, he shows the resentment of a lifetime when Uhde tells an ailing Helmut to move from his bed to the guest bed because people are coming to call. Bennent portrays a loving sister with the kind of knowing playfulness that balances her brother’s melancholy. When they must flee their rented digs in Senlis, she sees Uhde look despairingly at his collected canvasses and quickly pulls one from the stack—a Rousseau—to help him leave the rest behind. It is small moments like this that elevate this film from formulaic biopic to a believable life story.


The portrayal of a simple, yet complicated character like Séraphine is not an easy job; indeed, Séraphine seems borderline autistic for most of the film. Yet Moreau somehow finds a way. Her Séraphine is not exactly sympathetic—she’s childish, brusque, a figure who causes unease in Uhde and in us with her undercurrent of madness. Yet, she is, literally, a tree hugger, a person who delights in seeing the sun filter through leaves, an observer who tries to help others, as when she helps conceal Madame’s son’s affair with the chambermaid from his mother. She never becomes self-pitying when she becomes too old to make a living, but she also doesn’t thank those who give her money and food. If anything, she goes further inward, toward God and the art her guardian angel commanded her to make.

There are some awkward moments in the film. In a really odd scene, Anne-Marie looks at one of Séraphine’s paintings and asks her if she was ever in love. Séraphine says she was and still thinks about her soldier, hoping that if she’s thinking about him that he might be thinking about her. I still don’t know what that was all about. Another misstep was to have Séraphine wearing the same clothes throughout the movie. As poor as she was, it simply strains credulity that she wouldn’t get anything else to wear for 13 years. And the removal of the portrait from the wall near the beginning of the film, deliberately shot as some sort of cue to the audience, goes nowhere.

While not everything works and the tone is rather subdued, Séraphine truly is a fine achievement. Provost directs his wonderful cast skillfully to bring subtlety to a subgenre overburdened with histrionics. It’s certainly not easy to convey the religious experience that creation often is, but Provost and Moreau pull it off spectacularly well.

  • Greg spoke:
    22nd/06/2009 to 9:46 am

    Séraphine has not gotten a lot of buzz
    I’ll say, it wasn’t even on my radar but now I can get it and surprise my wife with it, who knows every painter that has ever existed. Well almost. I thought I knew art until I met her. She’ll love this (even though it’s made past the forties) and I think I’ll love it too. It sounds terrific, and quite frankly, we both love a good tortured artist story.

  • Marilyn spoke:
    22nd/06/2009 to 9:51 am

    I’m no slouch when it comes to artists, but Séraphine Louis was completely unknown to me. And yes, I thought of you two when I saw this film. It’s really a cut far above most biopics of this type.

  • Ryan Kelly spoke:
    22nd/06/2009 to 11:20 am

    Great review, Marilyn, and you’ve succeeded at making this film a priority (hopefully I can catch it before it vanishes from NY, if it remains as cast-aside as it is now). That there aren’t really major critics yelling “Powerful!” or “Tour-de-force performances” makes it all the more appealing.

  • Sam Juliano spoke:
    22nd/06/2009 to 11:45 am

    I saw this film three weeks ago, but sadly I have been unable to squeaze out my own review of it. Your work here is typically stellar, and for the most part I am on the same page with you. I am no fan of the episodic and depth-less LA VIE EN ROSE, but just a few weeks ago I came upon what may well be the greatest film about ar artist/painter ever made, Peter Watkins’s EDVARD MUNCH, which has a few excesses, but still ranks among th emost formidable achievements of the 70’s in any category.
    I completely concur with you that the film was largely ‘unemotional,’ though I think that was precisely what the filmmakers intended to avoid a saccharine presentation that would have detracted from the psychological study on display. Seraphine is a fascinating character, but not unlike so many other artists of this caliber, she was unable to negotiate her demons and wound up in an asylum. But you do note (and again I agree) that she was borderline ‘autistic.’
    The fimmaking here is lush and beautiful, the music sublime and the performances first-rate. This kind of craftsmanship is what wins Caesars, but they could have done a lot worse than choosing this (on balance) lovely film.
    “Another misstep was to have Séraphine wearing the same clothes throughout the movie. As poor as she was, it simply strains credulity that she wouldn’t get anything else to wear for 13 years…”
    hahahahaha!! Good observation there!

  • Marilyn spoke:
    22nd/06/2009 to 1:07 pm

    Ryan, I hope you enjoy it. It’s got a one-week run at one of our art houses, but despite Roger Ebert reviewing it, doesn’t seem to have caught fire. That said, the audience had respectable numbers on Saturday night.
    Sam – I’ve been in the reviewing doldrums, too, so I get that. I agree that the music was wonderful, but I did think the costumes and decor were a little thrown together. The camera work was good, particularly with all the candlelit scenes. I agree that the subdued tone was by design, though I felt it was just a little more distancing than it needed to be. But better distance in an art biopic than too much familiarity; I’m quite tired of the ruckus directors of these things seem compelled to throw at us. Her art was plenty exciting enough.

  • michelle spoke:
    20th/09/2009 to 8:46 pm


  • Jo Sucherman spoke:
    23rd/04/2010 to 2:42 pm

    I agree with all of the above. I was a fine arts major but never heard of Seraphine. What a delicious find. Her works should hang in most of the prestigious museums or galleries.

  • Marilyn spoke:
    23rd/04/2010 to 2:58 pm

    Thanks for stopping by, Michelle and Jo. I’m grateful this film was made to bring another artist, and especially a woman, to light.

  • Jeff Strate spoke:
    23rd/04/2011 to 10:04 am

    Last night, in desperation amid hundreds of schlocky titles and not knowing what Seraphine was about, I checked its DVD version out at the local Blockbuster as April snow flurries began to fall. I was overwhelmed by the story and the supportive artistry contributing to this film. It looks and feels honest to those times. I was speechless with emotion during the last sequence in the meadow with a single tree and for a quarter hour there after. Saraphine, in the end, knew what life was about. Thank for your perceptive review but may I suggest that it is reasonable to assume, as has the director, that an impoverished cleaning woman with a strong obsession to paint, would wear clothing that pretty much looked the same over the decades.

  • Marilyn spoke:
    23rd/04/2011 to 10:30 am

    Jeff – Thanks for stopping by and for sharing your appreciation of the film. I disagree with you about the clothing, obviously, for a number of reasons, including the great chance that clothes worn every day would fall apart in 13 years and that it would be hard to find exact replacements for them. But this is a minor detail. The film itself is quite miraculous in its quiet way.

  • Ben Schreiner spoke:
    23rd/09/2012 to 7:26 pm

    My wife and I stumbled across this film on Netflix and loved it. Magnifique!!

Leave your comment

(*)mandatory fields.

What others say about us

"You put a lot of love into your blog." – Roger Ebert, Roger Ebert's Journal
"Marilyn and Roderick … always raising the tone." – Farran Smith Nehme, The Self-Styled Siren
"Honestly, you both have made me aware of films I've never seen, from every era. Mega enriching." – Donna Hill, Strictly Vintage Hollywood

Subscribe to Ferdy on Films

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts


Chicago Resources

Collected Writings

General Film Resources