La viuda de Saint-Pierre no es una mujer. Es el instrumento que deja a las mujeres sin esposo.

La viuda de Saint-Pierre es una guillotina.

Basada en hechos reales, la cinta nos transporta al año 1850, a la pequeña isla franco-canadiense de Saint Pierre. Neel Auguste es condenado a muerte por asesinato, pero bajo la ley francesa, sólo puede ser ejecutado con la guillotina. Pero en Saint Pierre no hay viuda (coloquialismo francés para la palabra guillotina), así que hay que esperar que importen una.

El condenado (Emir Kusturica), es un hombre taciturno, gentil y dócil. Está bajo la custodia del capitán de la guarnición militar de la isla (Daniel Auteuil), un hombre independiente, orgulloso, humano y muy enamorado de su esposa, conocida como Madame La (Juliette Binoche). Ella, con la aprobación de su esposo, rehabilita al prisionero, ofreciéndole confianza y la oportunidad de redimirse a través del servicio comunitario.

Mientras Neel se gana poco a poco la simpatía y los corazones del pueblo, el Gobernador de la isla, pomposo y dedicado a mantener su propia autoridad por encima de cualquier principio de justicia e igualdad, se afana con determinación a llevar a cabo la ejecución.

Desde la primera escena, se percibe que este es un film sobre el fatalismo. La historia no es lo más importante, sino la evolución de la misma. Tiene la inevitabilidad de una gran tragedia y al mismo tiempo, la frescura e intriga de un trabajo genuino y original.

La viuda de Saint-Pierre es una historia de elecciones morales, el valor de las convicciones, los crímenes sin redención y el amor de una pareja fortalecido por el respeto mutuo.

Kusturica, director de piezas de gran calidad como Undergorund, debuta como actor en un rol que dice poco pero expresa millones con sus ojos y lenguaje corporal. Juliette Binoche brilla como la heroína apasionada y voluntariosa, mientras que Auteuil refleja perfectamente la confianza y nobleza del capitán, virtudes basadas en su convicción y autoridad, no en su título o uniforme, como es el caso del gobernador.

Sin crear un discurso aleccionador, Leconte también nos entrega sutilmente una lección sencilla pero conmovedora, que nos hace reflexionar: cualquier oportunidad de redención en esta vida perece junto al condenado a muerte.

I find it odd that when reviewing the reviews of this film that people seem to either give it perfect or abysmal scores. The dichotomy of opinion is probably a direct result of the skill and immense power of Leconte's images, (especially those that his chosen actress affords us).

Leconte is a master and quite possibly the greatest living auteur currently making films. His movies often contain a refreshing difficulty that gives one hope that images still mean something, that film is still worthy of being explicated, that someone still cares enough to think that much without being overly clever such as the Coens and Anderson. I shouldn't say still. I should say is and will be, as Leconte is on a different level than any who has ever worked including Kieslowski (the master of images). I enjoy how Leconte has said that although it was his second period piece he approached the film as if that had nothing to do with it, learning from "Ridicule". I should point that out I have no problem with "Ridicule" and the fact that it is a period piece has a great deal to do with the presentation, but I can see what he meant. Like I said, I enjoy the statement, but I should also point out I'm a jerk.

Binoche and Auteuil are two of my favorite actors and this film shows them at their virtuosic best. They deliver amazing performances of a truly passionate couple who both hold unconditional love for the other which in itself contains ultimate trust of decision and character. Possibly more Auteuil's for Binoche's but the sympathy generated by his character fuels her as an equally sharing partner, making any difference negligible. There is a third character, Neel, but he is there only to accentuate the relationship between the other two.

The movie, quite simply is about unconditional love and what it means to love unconditionally. There is a subplot of equal merits (mainly concerning Neel) about the belief in redemption, and what it truly means to believe in redemption. In short it is about the consequences of action through belief, more so out of the love for another than those of moral ground or stance. Some people are not willing to accept the belief that actions can or should occur solely out of sympathy for another. Some people will never allow themselves to love unconditionally. Some people will not understand or even like this film.

Binoche deserves a prize that doesn't yet exist for her most exquisite performance. Leconte deserves recognition for what he has done and what he has given us with this film, certainly one of the best I have ever seen.

Early on, a comment is made that there are many widows in the neighborhood. It is an oddly pertinent observation.

Too many reviewers have written about pre-revolutionary France, Canada, and how the story must be totally unrelated to reality - wrong on all counts, also English spelling, recognition of famous actors on-screen, and basic comprehension of literature and art.

The story is quite realistic and perhaps historical, and, the behavior of Neel - where else would he go in an island of snow, or isolation? If sobriety does his character such good, perhaps he is truly remorseful, and grateful for the undeserved years given him. It was a given that Mme. La wasn't just another Republican, as it were, with vulgar bourgeois mores and tastes, and shallow tri-colore-wearing patriotism. In showing Neel humanity, his humanity was developed, not without a bit of recidivism when provoked, but he was reformed enough for it to be obvious to the rest of the islanders. Part of the tension is between the reformation of Neel, and the typical bureaucrats [invented in France for export to the White House] failing to take any initiative or possessing imagination at all.

The actual guillotine is in a museum on the island, and the islands are still part of the French Republic, not at all Canadian - the only place in the region using Euros. I guess you'd need to go to the Falklands, if you were to find another in this hemisphere! The French had been completely revolted, and Napoleon had begun strutting his stuff long before the century of the film. The French had even beaten us to ending slavery by this time!

Considering the facts' placement in history, surely the story could have unfolded much as the movie portrays.

This film tells a powerful story, a "Crime and Punishment"-esque recovery of the soul, except without the ending that Dostoevsky had in his novel. After Neel Auguste committs the murder, Madame La (Juliette Binoche), much like Dostoevsky's Sonya, takes on the monumental task of recovering a lost soul and succeeds. Those who suggest this film is unrealistic have no grasp of eternal, Christian values of compassion and those who call this film ideological propaganda have no appreciation for beauty, as the acting (by all three, especially Kusturica and Auteuil, whom I have discovered through this film and who almost eclipse the talented Binoche), the cinematography, and the directing are absolutely brilliant.

This is a must-watch for many different kinds of people, from those interested in St. Pierre & Miquelon (I had to look up the islands on a map and was surprised to learn they are French, not Canadian), to those who would like an illustration of why there is never a soul, lost forever, to those who would just like to receive aesthetic pleasure from a beautiful film.

Finally, some have commented on the character of Neel Auguste, saying that he is "retarded" for not running away. Do not let a comment like that fool you. It would not be made had the reviewer understood the character or even picked up on a direct quote from Madame La, "You are so fatalistic!". Never trust someone who tells you not to watch a movie. Watch it and decide for yourself. I cannot envision that you wouldn't like it.

Patrice Leconte's 2001 film on a garrison captain (Auteil) and his wife (Binoche) stationed on the Island of Saint Pierre near Nova Scotia in 1849. Although the film shines with brilliant direction, cinematography, and acting, it presents its theme through a rather improbable plot.

The film is character based and follows the life of a garrison captain (Auteil) and his wife (Binoche) stationed on the Island of Saint Pierre near Nova Scotia in 1849. The captain and his wife are portrayed as the standards of justice and mercy when a villager (Emir Kustuica) is tried and sentenced to death for killing another in a drunken brawl. The captain realizes that this man, although guilty of murder, is a good man who just made a fatal mistake. Feeling that the death penalty is unjust for such a crime, the captain gives the prisoner various liberties outside of his cell. The condemned man suddenly becomes a model citizen and helps the other villagers with various things while awaiting the ship that carries the guillotine to be used for his execution. The captain and his wife are riddled with guilt and try to plead for the prisoner's release.

I found the plot and theme rather contrived. The film is character driven and the main characters simply don't reflect the prevalent values of French society in 1849. The theme is a parallel of Victor Hugo's 'Les Miserables' in which the prisoner is somewhat of a Jean Valjean and the captain a morally superior Javert. The reality though is that it would be extremely unlikely for a character such as Auteil's captain to have the morals portrayed in the film: being a military officer in charge of a garrison, he would have to be a man who's prepared to oversee various cases which would involve similar moral doubts as the prisoner's: cases such as desertion, insuboordination, and mutiny, which would all carry the penalty of death. This is a period of time in France in which even petty thieves were regularly shipped off to prison colonies such as Devil's Island to perform years of hard labor. It was a period of time in which Victor Hugo was sent into exile by Napoleon III for his outspoken social critiques such as 'Les Miserables.' In sum, the characters in the film are little more than crude caricatures of the past on whom are imposed purely modern concepts: concepts which were still very foreign for 1849.

Despite some of the thematic problems in the film, the direction and cinematography is excellent. All of the actors deliver outstanding performances to make this movie a pleasant and moving experience.