A bit hard on George, no? (SPOILERS)

I must admit that I only caught the end of this on TV yesterday, and am no authority on Sand and Chopin, but was this movie not a bit hard on George Sand? The woman, it seems, was no saint, but the optimist in me finds it hard to believe she was such a toxic monster. Apparently, friends of Chopin claimed she had a poisonous influence on Chopin, and contributed to his premature death. But the woman was still human.

Oberon was superb as the viperous femme fatale of high melodrama, but she is more Veda Pierce than historical woman. That goes for the rest of what I saw of this movie...history as a loose jumping off point for attractively filmed, high-brow melodrama.

Judy Davis's George Sand came across as a more balanced representation, as a woman not on the same moral plane as Chopin, but still lively, intelligent, and concerned about him.

Frankly, I thought Sand's outbursts at the end of "A Song to Remember" were logical and well-founded. What was she saying? "Don't waste a great life to go on a foolhardy tour that will surely kill you." Who wouldn't make that argument for someone they loved. I didn't see the rest of the film, but the ending villainises Sand, essentially for being concerned for his health. She loves the man more than his art. The others in this film, the "saintly" figures (e.g. that ninny Constantina and that Paul Muni professor character), care about the art, but are willing to sacrifice the man. I say that these are the reel monsters, who will exploit a week and brilliant man as a human resource, extracting his brilliance for the sake of "ideals" and leaving the man a dead shell.

Yep, Sand was right...I side with her.