Viewers Are Warned: ‘Eiffel’ Is ‘Freely Inspired by Real Facts’
Ultimately, what the director and screenwriter have crafted is a sweeping tale of love thwarted, love rekindled, forbidden love, and love thwarted again. Heaving of bosoms ensues.

With more terms and phrases being deemed objectionable or worse seemingly every week, contemporary nomenclature is a hot-button issue. As such, it behooves one to tread gingerly. So, let me ask: Is it still permissible to peg a movie as a “chick flick”?
Because “Eiffel” most certainly would have fallen in that category not long ago. One may cast doubt upon the terminology, but after having conferred with cinephiles of a certain persuasion — that is to say, women — the label has, in fact, been deemed accurate for this, the latest effort from director Martin Bourboulon.
As the title makes plain, the film concerns itself with Gustave Eiffel, the French engineer renowned for the Parisian monument that bears his name. Did you know that Eiffel was also pivotal in the establishment of the Statue of Liberty? Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi sculpted the thing, sure, but it was Eiffel, along with his right-hand man, Maurice Koechlin, who insured Lady Liberty’s structural integrity.
Eiffel’s success with Lady Liberty, along with the work his firm did on various bridges for the French railway system, pretty much guaranteed that his proposed centerpiece for the 1889 Universal Exposition, “a great pylon,” was a done deal. Work began on January 28, 1887; the tower was completed, after much controversy and not a few travails, two years later.
All of which is accounted for in “Eiffel,” but be cautioned: Historical accuracy isn’t paramount here. Although Mr. Bourboulon and screenwriter Caroline Bongrand have done their homework, what they’ve ultimately crafted is a sweeping tale of love thwarted, love rekindled, forbidden love, and love thwarted again. Heaving of bosoms ensues. Turns out that civil engineering is hot stuff.
When we first encounter Eiffel (Roman Duris), he’s a widower with a precocious teenage daughter (Armande Boulanger). Not much is revealed about Eiffel’s late wife, but, boy, do we get an eyeful of Adrienne Bourgès (Emma Mackey), the stunning wife of journalist Antoine de Restac (Pierre Deladonchamps).
Adrienne, you see, is Eiffel’s one great love, a paramour lost to circumstance whom he meets again at a dinner rife with political muckety-mucks. Eiffel is there to sell his proposed monument to those in attendance, extolling it as a symbol of “a century of industry and science.” All the while, he keeps a tab on Madame de Restac.
What will happen to Eiffel and his ambitions now that he’s reconnected with Adrienne? This is where the picture’s introductory note — that the events about to occur are “freely inspired by real facts” — bears examination.
The filmmakers tell us that Eiffel and Adrienne were, in actual fact, set to marry, and that the nuptials were canceled by mère and père Bourgès. They also point to how Eiffel had little initial interest in pursuing the tower project, only to abruptly turn around and embrace it.
Here’s where Mr. Bourboulon and Ms. Bongrand take a fictive leap. Although they did meet again briefly, Eiffel and Adrienne never resumed their love affair. The filmmakers state, all the same, that “the only reason” they could ascertain for Eiffel’s change of mind regarding his signature edifice was a reunion — passionate, of course — with Adrienne.
Who’s to deny a director and screenwriter their fantasies? The heirs of Gustave Eiffel couldn’t care less about objective fact: “Eiffel,” they claim in a statement accompanying the film, is “a beautiful tribute to our ancestor.”
Swath a notable predecessor in a fog of Rembrandtesque cinematography, have a dashing hunk of man portray him, and I daresay most of us would be happy with the results. As it is, “Eiffel” is a handsome contrivance, a romantic fantasy as soupy as it is extravagant. Better to take a trip to Paris. The real thing can’t be beat.