Reaction to Silberman and Romance in a Minor Key

I very much enjoyed Silberman's analysis of Kautner's Romance in a Minor Key, yet I felt as if there was something missing from his analysis. Silberman does an excellent job explaining the roles that Michael, Victor, and the husband play, in terms of both the narration and in the critique of National Socialism. What Silberman does not explain so well is the role that Madeleine plays, which is a shame because her character is the most enigmatic. This is not to say that Silberman doesn't shed any light on her character, because he spends a significant portion of the essay discussing the importance of her smile, her longing to escape, and her recapitulation, but Silberman never says what exactly it is she represents!

Romance in a Minor Key is an adaptation of the short story "Les Bijoux," in which "a low-level bureaucrat ... marries a beautiful young woman with a weakness for the theater and for ostentatious, fake jewelry." Silberman does recognize that by focusing the cinematic perspective away from the husband Kautner transforms the message of Maupassant's story. Perhaps he should have also looked at the difference in Madeleine between the two versions. In Maupassant's story, she is beautiful and the kind of woman who loves theater and ostentatious jewelry. This is not at all the Madeleine that Kautner gives us. Perhaps this Madeleine is similar in that she is merely arm-candy to her husband, but the Madeleine of Kautner's film is austere, wears subdued costumes, and is almost masculine looking. That the men of the film think she is beautiful makes her only more enigmatic to the audience. Kautner's decision to make Madeleine more androgynous suggests that Madeleine represents all citizens. Of course, this weakens Silberman's argument concerning Madeleine and male fantasies of domination, but I think this link would have made Silberman's overall analysis stronger.