The scandalous film shot in the park of Versailles

Impresarios and artists appear in correctional court

If, on this afternoon of July 7th, the Great King, suddenly resurrected from the land of shadows, had returned, melancholy, to this Versailles where he had made his power and glory shine forth, what would he have thought of the spectacle that would have been offered to his eyes? These were not parties of this kind that he had accustomed to giving to his court in his gardens... On the terrace, in front of a crowd of people in evening dress and seated at tables drinking, about forty young people, dressed in bizarre and shimmering costumes, took plastic poses and, in cadence, performed slow gestures. In the front row, some of them, throwing their arms back, opened their dresses like a coat and appeared, except for a narrow belt, almost naked. In the absence of Louis XIV, gallant gentlemen and high princesses were there, to be astonished by this vision, a few strollers. To top off their surprise, around the stage, characters were struggling, seeming to order and direct it; they spoke out loud, in German. That German cinema entrepreneurs, because it was a film, should allow themselves to desecrate our Versailles, there was enough to move French opinion. The newspapers were seized of the public's protests and the prosecution had an investigation carried out.

The case came before the Versailles criminal court yesterday. If it is, on the whole, less serious than had been initially supposed, it nevertheless revealed to us some rather scandalous facts.

The cinema entrepreneurs, Mr. Kreisler, director of the Hélios house, and Mr. Fleck, director, were not German, but Austrian. They had obtained from the Fine Arts Administration, without indicating their nationality, authorization to shoot a mediocre and innocuous film, Madame de Larzac, in the Parc de Versailles. But, having had the idea of ​​inserting the spectacle of a party, they chose a scene from a revue that was then being performed in a Paris music hall, and hired in this establishment the artists who performed it every evening and who had the mission of rehearsing it in front of the pink marble steps.
This is how Mr. Otto Kreisler, Mr. Fleck, Misses Lucienne Legrand, known as Maryalis, Yvonne Schwartz, known as Diana, Hélène Bouchenot, known as Leduc, Yvonne Savolle, were charged with public indecency. Mr. Fleck, ill, did not attend the hearing, and his trial was disjointed. Miss Bouchenot, absent, and having not provided an excuse, will be judged in absentia.

Among the free defendants, Mr. Kreisler had taken his place, on one side, and on the other, Miss Diana, Savolle and Maryalis, the latter a brunette between her two blonde friends; Miss Diana adorned with a red rose, all three charming, evoking the three Graces who would have disguised themselves in today's fashion.

Mr. President Texier questions them. They answer with obvious good faith. They could not imagine that it was wrong to do at Versailles what they did in Paris, every day, in front of 1,500 people. But what was their costume like?

Oh! assures Miss Diana, behind it was very appropriate. A very wide crinoline skirt, with a long train. And then I had a very large hat.

Yes, but the dress, in front, was open. And, as Mr. Falco, deputy, points out to a witness, Mr. Deck, manager of the Hélios company; who claims that costumes with plumes had been desired, Miss Diana's costume with plumes consisted of a large hat with a large feather...
Through an interpreter, Mr. Kreisler explains and defends himself: he could not, either, consider this spectacle authorized in Paris to be reprehensible. And, knowing that the film would be subject to censorship, it would therefore have been absurd to make an indecent film...
None of the accusing witnesses responded to the summons. This is a deficiency that the lawyers, Mr. Rosenmark, Campinchi, Henriquet, Lauzenberg, victoriously note: these witnesses therefore did not dare to maintain their allegations. But Mr. Falco counters that he has other witnesses, these ones irrefutable: they are the photographs taken by the operator himself and where, the three Graces, dressed to appear before their judges, show themselves in their former nudity.

With the authority that goes with his name, Mr. Antoine, cited by the defense, comes to express regret that the young women, who have no real responsibility in these incidents and have limited themselves to carrying out an engagement that they believed to be lawful, have been retained by the courts. We can hope that he will be heard. This is the feeling of all those present. And Mr. Falco himself, at the beginning of his very remarkable and brilliant indictment, indicates that he is only asking for a very light sentence against Miss Maryalis, Diana and Savolle, a sentence of principle, and that all the severity of the court must go to Messrs. Kreisler and Fleck, who are only being prosecuted as accomplices but who are in reality the principal perpetrators of the crime.

With wit and moderation, in. in a sometimes tasty form, Mr. Falco puts this whole story back into perspective, which is that of young people, "adorned with many charms and devoid of clothes", and who "entered the park of Versailles as simple extras, and left as accused and stars". Mr. Falco refuses to revive the old quarrel between aesthetic nudity and indecent nudity. But what is tolerable in a music hall, where the assistants came voluntarily, is not tolerable in the public square, and even less so in a place which, like Versailles, has something sacred for us: "The idea of ​​transporting a scene from the stage of a music hall to the terrace of the Palace of Versailles seems profane to us." France cannot allow foreigners to dare to defile the most glorious sanctuaries of its history in this way.

Mr. Campinchi is very witty: it was easy for him, in such a debate where he pleaded for Miss Diana, to delight the audience and to cheer up the judges themselves. "In these times," he said, "in order not to see women with too low-cut necklines, one should never dine out"; so the code is late: it is from 1810 and the hearing is from 1924. Mr. Henriquet and Mr. Lauzenberg pleaded warmly for Miles Maryalis and Savolle, young artists whose conviction could compromise their entire future. Finally, Mr. Rosenmarck presented Kreisler's defense. In a conscientious, detailed, and complete plea, he endeavored to demonstrate the error of the prosecution, from a legal point of view, and the absence of any offense. But he ended with a few unfortunate and out-of-season words, in which he spoke out against the morals of the old regime and against the cult, according to him too fervent, that is devoted to the sumptuous memories of the great century. He claims, for anyone, the right to criticize our history, as in the too famous film devoted to Madame du Barry. This claim is untenable. The past of France must be an object of piety for every Frenchman, and it is certainly no more up to a foreigner, a guest of France, to draw from it, for the unhealthy pleasure of the crowds, this or that scandalous episode. Whatever the political vicissitudes, all French generations are united. And it is the honor of Mr. Falco, magistrate of the French Republic, to have well defended, against a sacrilegious violation, the marvelous creation of the Great King. The court will give its judgment in a fortnight.