Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, this 1973 epic prison drama explored the life of Henri “Papillon” Charrière (1906-1973). The film was adapted from his 1969 Papillon autobiographical novel.

It’s part of the great cinematic tradition of prison dramas (think Shawshank Redemption and the like), where viewers can subject themselves to mental trauma for a few hours… then walk happily free into the night at the end.

Although unrelentingly bleak (a theme that makes it divisive to this day), we thought Papillon was largely brilliant drama. It also features the best performance from McQueen we’ve come across.

Papillon’s Relentless Pursuit of Friendship, Misery, Suffering, and Escape

Papillon begins in 1933. A line of prisoners is leaving France for a notorious penal system in French Guiana (South America, near Brazil).

Henri Charrière (McQueen) claims he’s wrongly convicted for the murder of a pimp. As soon as we meet him he’s already plotting how to escape. He goes by the nickname Papillon (“butterfly”) due to the tattoo of the creature on his chest.

Early on he meets Louis Dega (Hoffman), an introverted character who’s nevertheless facing life for embezzlement and forgery. Dega is convinced his wife will send the money to secure his permanent release.

Papillon sees how vulnerable this individual is and offers to keep him safe when they’re at the prison.

The two become firm friends and watch others backs, which is crucial at the brutal jungle labour camp where they deal with violent guards, crocodiles, and cramped conditions.

After Papillon defends Dega from an overly aggressive guard, Papillon is forced to do a runner from the camp. He’s inevitably caught and returned to the prison, with such escape efforts punished with two years in solitary confinement.

Dega bribes the chef to ensure his friend receives extra rations, but the guards find out and demand to know who’s responsible.

Papillon keeps his mouth shut, but has his rations halved and his cell blacked out. He begins to starve and go half mad under these conditions, but strives to keep his friend from facing the wrath of prison guards.

As you can see, Steve McQueen was on fine form in all of this.

In other films we’ve seen McQueen in he seemed to be on cruise control, drifting through the performance by being himself (“The King of Cool”). In The Great Escape (1963) his character seems invincible and the Nazis don’t dare touch a hair on his head.

For Papillon, this was a very mentally and physically demanding role involving having to convey extreme mental and physical decline. He did it all very convincingly.

The solitary confinement section to the film is one of its highlights—bleak as it is. But we’ve not seen this done as well in any other film.

Papillon’s mental battle to keep himself sane and to tick by the two years is enthralling to watch (whilst also godawful to comprehend).

Once released from solitary he’s sent to the infirmary to recover, whereupon he bumps into inmate André Maturette (Robert Deman) who hatches another escape plan with Papillon. The latter also catches up with this grateful friend Dega.

What follows on from this is a successful (rather tense) escape from the prison, followed by a long battle through the jungle to find freedom.

Papillon, Dega, and Maturette face a mixture of good and bad luck, eventually securing a boat to carry them to Honduras. However, they’re immediately spotted by a small police force and only Papillon is able to make a break for it.

He faces various trails and tribulations ahead before finally being apprehended by an abbess (Mother Superior) who turns him over to the authorities.

Once again, Papillon must face the rigours of solitary confinement at the French Guiana prison. This time the maximum sentence—five years. He emerges back into the world an ageing man.

There’s an extra element of poignancy here. McQueen was in his early 40s at the time of this shoot and died in 1980 when he was only 50.

Becoming an older man isn’t something the actor ever faced. Instead, the excellent makeup used in the film merely hinting at how the process may have gone for him.

As for the finale of the plot, Papillon is moved to Devil’s Island. It’s a remote penal colony that, in real life, operated between 1852 and 1952.

This prison had a death rate of 75% of incumbents due to the brutality of prison guards and the rapid spread of disease in the tropical climate.

In the film, it’s where Papillon rediscovers Dega. The latter has abandoned his dreams of escape and recuperation with his wife, who he now finally acknowledges has abandoned him.

Jittery and simplistic, Dega now leads a life of panicking about ghosts invading the vegetable patch outside his small home.

Papillon attempts to stir up in his friend a final escape attempt (throwing themselves into the waters in the hope the tide will carry them to freedom).

Dega agrees but has no intention to go through with the effort. In the end the two men hug on a cliff face before parting, with Papillon hurling himself off a cliff face and powering out on the tide onto the wider ocean.

As a reminder of McQueen’s commitment here, that was him hurling himself off the cliff. He said that experience was “exhilarating”.

The film then ends with a narrator stating the prisoner makes it to freedom and Devil’s Island prison was shut in 1953.

And the main takeaway we got from all of this was:

• Don’t go to prison.
  • But if you do, what the hey, you might as well indulge in various escape attempts.

It’s one hell of a bleak film. Watching it is seeing the continuous suffering of two friends over decades, their attempts at gaining freedom thwarted by a brutal penal regime that was eventually outlawed.

The strength of character Papillon exhibits is admirable, with an excellent performance from McQueen to note this.

Hoffman also convinces as the mild-mannered Dega.

It may make for depressing viewing, and it does has its lulls in pacing, but on the whole we’d say Papillon very nearly hits classic status. And has many iconic moments with its focus on finding some sort of escape for its main characters.

The fact it doesn’t really offer redemption at its conclusion, with a slightly strange ending shoehorned in, is in keeping with the harsh reality check director Schaffner seemed hellbent instilling into viewers.

Notes on Henri Charrière’s Book

Born in November 1906, Henri Charrière was from Ardèche (in France, duh) and served in the French Navy as a young man.

In 1931 he was convicted for the murder of Roland Le Petit, a pimp. Charrière did quite freely admit to various other petty crimes he’d committed. But he denied murdering anyone and maintained this stance throughout his life.

His imprisonment at the French Guiana penal colony was accompanied by various escapes, which eventually led him to Venezuela where he was imprisoned for a final time. In a brutal prison in the Bolivar State he spent a year there until his release on 3rd July 1944.

That’s one account of his story, anyway, as French records suggest he was imprisoned on the Guyanese mainland before making his escape.

What seems clear is he received total liberty, after a year of probationary freedom, from 1945 onward. From there he remained in Venezuela and opened two restaurants.

We mention the above as these exploits are questionable. The book was published in 1969 and Charrière claimed it was largely autobiographical, but it’s a contested claim by historians.

Some argue the work combines various stories of many inmates whom Charrière spent time with.

Regardless, in his post-prison life he was treated well by locals. Viewed as a bit of a celebrity figure he even made appearances on local news shows. Then, after the publication of Papillon, he became famed worldwide.

The book’s success in France (shifting some 1.5 million copies) led him to finally return to his country.

A 1970 translation of the work also led to its publication in the UK and US.

In fact, 1970 proved a busy year for Charrière. He had a small role as a jewel thief in the film Popsy Pop by French director Jean Vautrin. The film got a wider international release as The Butterfly Affair.

You can see Charrière at the 13 second mark here.

More importantly for his reputation was the French Justice System issuing him a pardon for his 1931 murder case. This was documented as far as The New York Times on October 19th 1970, in this rather brief statement:

“PARIS, Oct. 28 (AP)—Henri Charriere, author of the best seller “Papillon,” has been pardoned for the murder that sent him to Devil’s Island and the imprisonment and escapes he recounts in his book. Justice Minister Rene Pleven signed the decree Oct. 17, informed sources said.”

There are echoes of this story in Billy Hayes’ work Midnight Express (1977) and the subsequent 1978 film—another harrowing time of it.

However, and unlike Hayes, Charrière didn’t get to enjoy his sudden rise to fame.

Having developed throat cancer he died in Madrid on 29th July 1973. He was 66. The timing of his death meant he never got to see the film.

The Production of Papillon (1973)

The sweep of the film was impressive, advancing on Hollywood epics like Ben Hur (1959) with dramatic sets on actual locations.

That was thanks to a (for the time) big budget of $13.5 million. $2.5 of that went to McQueen for his acting services. With its big name star in tow it landed a strong box office return of $53.2 million.

Critical reception in 1973 was decidedly mixed.

Film critic Roger Ebert wasn’t too impressed and handed it 2/4. The New York Times’ Vincent Canby liked it a bit more, praising its ambition whilst criticising its pomp and ceremony.

More recently, in 2020 Quentin Tarantino said of Papillon:

“[It’s] a pretty iconic film for boys my age who saw it when it came out. The film is very involving. It contains maybe McQueen’s finest serious acting moment on film, when he sticks his head out of the solitary confinement door and is not only unrecognisable but completely deranged. And the film contains one of the most powerful time cuts I’ve ever seen in a motion picture. The film’s also not a little pretentious, self consciously arty, unrelentingly grim, extremely gruelling and except for Dustin Hoffman keeping a bankroll and an extra pair of spectacles up his ass, completely devoid of any entertainment value.”

It seems like a lot of people are eager to praise the film, whilst heaping a tonne of scorn onto the thing for its various foibles.

For what it’s worth, we think critics were a bit harsh.

Right now it holds a 77% combined critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, whilst the audience score from 25,000+ reviews has it on 90%. In other words, it’s one audiences love and critics have some problems with.

More inexplicable was the 2017 remake of the film. It was directed by Michael Noer and starred Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek.

The film had a disappointing box office run of only $10.1 million.

We’ve not seen this version yet, our main issue right now being how redundant it was funding a remake of a film that didn’t need updating. What was the point?

There are plenty of great original screenplays out there being ignored by Hollywood, but this just desperately needing a modern update? Bit baffling.