After François Clicquot (Tom Sturridge) passes in 1805, his wife Barbe Nicole (Haley Bennett) is made a widow at the young age of 27.  Ownership of Clicquot’s vineyards passes to Barbe who is determined to continue operations and promote her husband’s legacy despite urgings from her father-in-law, Philippe (Ben Miles), to sell the estate to the Moet family.  Barbe persists, and with the assistance of Louis Bohne (Sam Riley) a wine seller, and Edouard Werle (Anson Boon), an accountant, both loyal to François, she brings the fields to harvest and cements Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin as one of the largest champagne houses still in operation today. 

Thomas Napper directs the historical drama Widow Clicquot from a script penned by Erin Dignam.  The 90-minute period piece premiered at the 2023 edition of the Toronto International Film Festival as part of the Discovery programming and was later given theatrical distribution by Vertical Entertainment.  Opting for a non-linear structure, the story opens with François’ funeral and goes on to tell of the brief but passionate marriage between Barbe and the dearly departed in tandem with the troubling and fraught first few years of Barbe’s ascension to control of the company. 

As with most stories told in a split fashion, it is easiest to reconcile the film more linearly and Widow Clicquot is no exception.  Dignam is presented with quite a challenge in how best to break the story, assisted here on that front by Christopher Monger as they worked to adapt Tilar J. Mazzeo’s 2008 novel.  Being that this is Barbe’s story, it makes sense that we want to see her fulfilling her role as the head of the vineyard, but Dignam also knows we need some supporting narrative to help inform us of who these characters are.  Unfortunately, the cuts to the past often break the tension of the scenes in the present and come at strange times that seldom allow the narrative to breathe.  Told linearly – and this is looking only at what was presented already – the film would have an insurmountably dull opening act that audiences would struggle to sit through so this fractured approach was the best way for the story but it still hangs around the film like a leaden weight. 

This strange case occurs because the scenes in the past never tell a whole story.  It serves its purpose, though, so as not to bog down the main action of the film with clunky exposition of people who have been working together for years introducing themselves to each other as if they are new acquaintances.  Narratively, this section tries to support the brief yet bold romance shared between François and Barbe while also investigating the former’s undiagnosed given the medicine at the time eccentricities that would lead to his hypothesized death by suicide.  Sturridge is given a rough and undeveloped role to try and humanize and though Caroline Champetier’s romantic lens lends some credence to the relationship, Dignam leaves the actor to largely go through the motions of a man whom bloodletting will do no good.  On one hand, this is not his story so it makes sense more attention was given to Barbe, but because we continually return to this font of memory, the story demands that this relationship be shored up for audiences. 

As for Bennet, she is given a much broader and more defined arc than her scene partner. In 2024, it is unfortunate that her story is still presented as being so intrinsically tied to her husband and a will they/won’t they arc which she shares with Louis, so in that regard, the script does let down not only Bennet but also the legacy of Veuve Clicquot which it is seeking to honor.  Further, so many of the advancements in the industry of which she was a pioneer are regulated to title cards at the end of the film and though we do see some of the science around the art of champagne, the film prefers to frame its heroine as a savant; the grape whisperer following in her troubled husband’s footsteps.  The film shies from discovery, opting instead to try and chart Barbe’s success as a symbol of her enduring love, and while that very well may be the case, the narrative begs for something more exciting. 

Where Widow Clicquot exceeds is in its below-the-line talent.  As mentioned, Champetier’s lens is unafraid to break the A/B conventions and lends an almost fairy tale aspect to the narrative.  It makes sense as love is a key theme in the film as well as following one’s heart and convictions.  Most remarkably, Napper shakes the temptation to add a magazine gloss to the image to overly romanticize it.  Sure, the fields are often shot in golden hour which helps highlight the natural beauty of the French countryside, but the interiors are still dark and damp in a way that is often unseen in period pieces made today.  Later, in winter, we feel the cold wetness as the characters trudge through the snow and the mud, building fires to keep the roots warm lest the harvest be lost before it even has a chance to grow.  Lastly, Richard Marizy in the editing suite blurs the lines between past and present in such a way that it unfolds like a dream, oscillating seamlessly between the two time periods.  The script, unfortunately, uses the dual narrative as an easy out and does not always allow the scenes to build upon each other, but Marizy sets the film off at a steady, energetic pace so that it never gets bogged down by its period trappings. 

Widow Clicquot serves much better as an introduction than a comprehensive biopic of its subject.  It can be lauded that it does not require an audience to come to the screening with an already esoteric understanding of champagne and its process and history, but that same audience will not leave their screening with any deeper understanding beyond a few names and general ideas of their contributions to the beloved bubbly.  Without backing knowledge of the book, it is hard to say what liberties in structure and nuance were taken in adapting it to the screen, but by any measure, the film as presented begs for more introspection, more discovery, more excitement, and more knowledge.  An increase in its runtime to more deeply explore these themes and history would have elevated this film to something as truly remarkable and timeless as the champagne itself.