PDA

View Full Version : New US Louis Malle release: LACOMBE LUCIEN



Chris Knipp
08-15-2006, 10:56 PM
Lacombe Lucien is part of a new Criterion Collection Louis Malle 3-disc DVD release (along with the director's 1971 Murmur of the Heart and 1987 Au revoir les enfants). Released in the US in the Seventies, Lacombe Lucien was never made available on US video, which makes this new release specially significant.

Louis Malle: Lacombe Lucien (1974)

A troubling complicity

For the lead role in Lacombe Lucien of a casual young collaborator with the Gestapo in wartime France, Louis Malle, after a long search, cast 21-year-old Pierre Blaise, a first-time performer of astonishing poise, authority and good looks. Blaise, whose life was tragically cut short by a car accident two years after the making of this film, was a provincial youth with a local accent Malle couldn't find among professional actors in Paris. Brutish yet cherubic, Blaise is sullen and pouting but ineluctably present. He has some of the looks of the young Delon, to whom a few compared him. As Malle says in a French TV interview (http://www.ina.fr/archivespourtous/index.php?vue=notice&from=personnalites&code=C0524224422&num_notice=2&total_notices=3) of the period, Blaise turned out to be "very, very gifted."

The atmosphere of this interview suggests that in some circles not everyone was as violently upset by or opposed to the film as we are told. After all, Le Monde did hail Lacombe as a masterpiece initially, even if they recanted and called it "dangerous" later. "Dangerous" is a strange criticism for a film, a sort of backhanded flattery.

Malle's eighteen-year-old anti-hero goes to work for the Gestapo, identifying himself to people as "police allemande," German police. He threatens many and kills at least one (the real person on whom he's based killed many). The essence of the film is to show how war alters realities, as in the recent André Téchiné film Strayed/Les Égarés (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=321), in which also a youthful outlaw briefly assumes considerable authority, and thus multiplies moral conundrums. There's no question that Lucien does wrong, but what is questionable is whether he is responsible for his acts. It's not the acts that are different on either side -- collaborator or resistance -- but the politics. Allociné's commentary (http://www.allocine.fr/film/anecdote_gen_cfilm=447.html) on Lacombe Lucien points out that "Malle adopted a Marxist approach in looking at the collaboration. He stated that his Lucien was inspired by Marx's concept of the lumpenproletariat as a social class with no choice other than to collaborate with the forces of repression because its members have no political culture available to them. Thus in the filmmaker's mind Lucien Labombe's enlistment in the militia was a choice determined not by ideology but by a need to gain material comfort and better his social position." This is in fact a classic "collabo" situation: while some supporters of the German occupation did so because of fascist, anti-Semitic beliefs, many more did it for expediency. It was the armée des ombres (to use Jean-Pierre Melville's title), the résistence "shadow army," whose members acted out of idealism. The determinism and sheer stupidity of Lucien's enlistment is underlined by the fact that it's late in the war: the Americans are coming, the Germans are losing, and the French resistance is inflicting daily casualties on the closest collaborators, as we see when Lucien's French Gestapo bosses get wounded and killed.

Lucien's lumpenproletariat helplessness couldn't be made clearer. Lucien begins with a job emptying bedpans. His father is prisoner of the Germans. His mother is living with another man and tells him not to come around any more. His prospects are grim. He has no status -- not even the comfort of parents. Though he's an ignorant boy, he has the solid (lumpen) physique of a man, and he also has a certain brutality: we see him kill first a small bird with a sling shot, then rabbits and chickens, and each time this is a gesture in response to being put down or rejected. Yet he has confidence. He asks his schoolteacher to take him into the maquis, but the man rejects him out of hand as too young, useless ("we have many like you"). By chance -- a tire blowout on his rickety bike -- he falls into a den of Gestapo collaborators. He's not daunted; he recognizes a bike champion among them and drinks with the men and with his tongue thus loosened, in an act of childish revenge whose dire consequences he probably doesn't know (and which are initially hidden from him), he informs on the teacher. He's soon taken to meet Albert Horn, an elegant Jewish tailor from Paris in hiding with his mother and daughter (Aurore Clément, intense in her first screen role). Horn makes a suit for Lucien, later another: they become his new uniform, an escape from his peasant identity and stepping stone to the power, status, and money that are why he's playing this deadly game.

On the way to the tailor in a collaborator's posh, sporty convertible, Malle brilliantly has Lucien try on a pair of big sunglasses -- which instantly transform him. By dint of this little gesture, the country bumpkin -- with his clear skin, rich wavy dark hair, and strong bone structure -- instantly becomes a blasé movie star. Coming of age in this film means sexiness, transformation, danger. Malle's teenagers all live in adult worlds of moral transgression but retain the prettiness and innocence of youth. What comes next clinches the moral ambiguity of Lucien's role: he falls in love with the very Parisian but still Jewish daughter of Monsieur Horn.

Lucien wields his new power crudely -- he has no finesse, only self-confidence and a well-tailored suit -- but he is drawn to Horn as a substitute father and to the daughter because she -- who herself rejects her Jewishness -- represents urban sophistication as well as femininity. Why does the tellingly named France (Horn takes no political or moral stand himself, but does love the country) sleep with Lucien? There are half a dozen very good reasons.

Lucien may be more innocent and ignorant, as well as more brutish, than the average Frenchman of the occupation, but many French people must have fallen into collaboration like this. It's messy and confusing. Let's not forget even Horn is negotiating with with collaborators to get false papers and escape to Spain. In the end Lucien fails to save Horn, but takes off with France and her grandmother, whom he has called an "old witch" but now tenderly cares for. We don't know how that ends, but we're told by end titles that he was captured by the resistance court, tried, and executed. An uneasy, unforgettable classic, and an experience, like its two companion pieces in this new package, that troubles us and makes us weep.

For those who had not previously seen Lacombe Lucien like myself, the Criterion DVD is waiting.

Chris Knipp
08-16-2006, 06:04 AM
Disappointingly, the Criterion Lacombe Lucien, though it provides beautifully restored print and sound, has no bonus material other than the (rather clever) original trailer. However, the Criterion website does provide an essay (http://criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=329&eid=468&section=essay) by Pauline Kael which, not surprisingly, is very illuminating. An interesting fact that I didn't know is that the screenplay was originally written to be set in Mexico, but Malle couldn't shoot there, and so they rewrote the book and set events in France. Very surprising since the whole issue of treating a French collaborator sympathetically was something that came up later in the project. Kael argues that Lucien isn't sympathetic, that we're distanced from him from the begining, and that's true. She also describes how the young man playing Lucien, Pierre Blaise, because he had no previous acting experience, brings an opacity to his performance that is essential to our almost anthropological examination of the mysterious 'banality of evil' (in Arendt's phrase) that Lucien represents. But you should read the essay, if the film interests you--it considers the film from every conceivable angle. Of course one thing people fail to mention is that Blaise is quite cute; but Kael mentions that France is attracted in an animal way to him, among other things, and to see that is enough. I still think we are troubled, but Kael's understanding of the sheer incomprehensiblity of the collaborator, the evil doer who under other citcumstances might have been a solid citizen, a decent farmer, is far more clear and well developed than mine. After reading Kael's essay, I realize what an amateur I am both as a watcher of movies and a commentator on them.

oscar jubis
08-17-2006, 01:18 AM
I happen to think that both you and Kael do an excellent job of explaining why Lacombe, Lucien is a must-see film. In short, it has to do with why and how the protagonist becomes a nazi collaborator, which is the nucleus of the picture and it's developed with great subtlety and intelligence. The film had a great, formative impact on me when I watched it at age 13 (which doesn't mean I considered Lacombe, Lucien then or consider it now a film of the stature of Malle's Murmur of the Heart or Au Revoir, les Enfants).

I have two small disagreements with Kael's review (which, by the way, was reprinted on the dvd's insert):
1) She states "the screenplay tries not to dramatize". How can you create a fictional drama, albeit one based on an actual character, without "dramatizing"? It's certainly not a documentary, nor does it ever feel like one. To her credit, her review's last paragraph more accurately refers to "Malle's renunciation of conventional drama".
2) Kael keeps calling the protagonist a "hero" ("farm-boy hero", "Malle's hero", etc) when Lucien never behaves heroically. One might interpret Lucien saving France and her grandmother as heroic but Kael herself states: "It's perfectly apparent that, if the German had not pocketed the watch, Lucien would have stood by as France was taken away".

I have one small disagreement with your review:
France "who herself rejects her Jewishness". This interpretation has to be based on one line she utters. All she says is "I'm tired of being Jewish". This is said at a particularly stressful time by a Parisian with great potential as a musician after being forced to remain for years inside a house in the countryside, away from her environment, isolated from her peer group, and with her talent wasting away. Who knows what indignities she had to experience while still in Paris. She's bemoaning the consequences of being Jewish at a specific place and time not rejecting her Jewishness.

What's special about Kael's review is that, while calling Lacombe, Lucien a "major work", it manages to point out quite lucidly several of the film's flaws. Three of which stand out to me:
1) "there are ellipses that aren't easy to account for-principally in Horn's sudden, suicidal carelessness" (his befuddling visit to Gestapo headquarters). "Some stages of Horn's breakdown seem to be missing, and his later scenes are lamely directed. Holgen Lowenadler prepares Horn's character so carefully in the early scenes that it's puzzling when the later ones are truncated".
2) "Malle isn't skilled yet at merging scripted scenes with found material, and at times we feel that something has been left out. (What is France doing with those piled-up stones? Has her grandmother died?). In the scene of a Resistance doctor's arrest, when the doctor's son shows Lucien his model ship, it looks as if Malle couldn't control the elements, and chose to retain the scene because of the overtones in the boy's physical resemblance to Lucien, and despite the boy's unconvincing lack of interest in his father's fate". Come to think of it, France herself doesn't seem in any way agrieved by what's happened to her father. What's the matter with this film's teenagers? Are they stuck in some type of Freudian warp?
3) "The two scenes involving Lucien's affair with the hotel maid are glaringly unconvincing, and contradictory besides".

Chris Knipp
08-17-2006, 01:22 PM
To reply to your objection on my review first, I think you're perfectly justified in saying I concluded too much re France's attitude toward her Jewishness. At most I might have better said "after all, at one point she says 'I'm tired of being Jewish'" -- rather than to have made a sweeping conclusion from that one moment. And I don't even think this is important for my argument so I could have dropped it altogether. More important is that Lucien is probably attracted to France's Parisian origins, her urban sophistication -- a radical change from his humble "farm-boy" background.

As for Kael, I think your objections, while perfectly valid, are merely quibbles over terminology. Wonderful movie writer though she was, she was not always the most precise or graceful of stylists. What she did achieve was a colloquial vivedness.

1. When she says "the screenplay tries not to dramatize," she is using "dramatize" not in a literal sense but in a secondary sense of emphasizing or heavily outlining or highlighting. This isn't contradictory -- you can "dramatize" in the sense of turning a story into a play or a film, in a cool manner that lets the audience make their own judgments-- but she might have done better to have used synonmyms for "dramatize" there, since in you it caused a confusion.

2. Likewise she isn't using "hero" to mean admirable person or one who carries out great exploits, but in the more limited sense of "main character." "Protagonist" would be more precise in this case but is also a more cumbersome and academic-sounding term and so, writing for a general audience, she used the simple and routine "hero." Again if it caused confusion, a clarification would have helped, though I think one understands that "hero" sometimes means "anti-hero."

Otherwise, thanks for your careful readings and comments. At this point I'd be reluctant to "rate" Malle's three male coming-of-age films in this package relative to each other. They're quite different, and each is a classic, remarkable in its own right. Despite the flaws that Kael is right to note, Lacombe Lucien I think is a masterpiece. But I love the other two, especially the deeply touching Au revoir les enfants.

Minor note: In French (as you'll find on AlloCiné) the two titles Lacombe Lucien and Au revoir les enfants are without commas, following standard French usage in each case.

oscar jubis
08-27-2006, 12:12 PM
A very thoughtful and well-written reply, Chris. It's taken me a while to respond because I wanted to confirm my objections about Au Revoir Les Enfants by watching it again before stating them. Before I do that, I'll say that in my opinion there are two films of Malle I would call masterpieces and they are Le Feu Follet (1963) and Murmur of the Heart. My opinion is fairly firm because I've watched most of Malle's films several times (except for minor ones like May Fools and Viva Maria which I won't see again).

Actually I have a single major objection about the otherwise excellent Au Revoir Les Enfants, Malle's most personal film and a summation of his career and major themes. It's the characterization of one of the two main characters: Jean Bonnet (whose veiled last name is Kippelstein). Jean is a thoroughly idealized character. It's not that he doesn't fight back when taunted, mocked, harrased and ridiculed by the other boys. Jean's face never register any emotion, he doesn't utter a word of complaint, not even to himself! He's a math wiz, a voracious reader of all the right books, and he plays Schubert beautifully. He's the best at everything but one never detects a hint of snobbishness, a bit of show-off, not even a whiff of pride. Raphael Fejto's performance has an invariably blanked-out, stupefied quality. He is otherworldly, more or less than a fleshed out real kid. Even the admiring essay (by Philip Kemp) printed in the insert of the Criterion dvd states "Just occasionally, the film verges on stereotype; as in Lacombe Lucien, Jewishness automatically equals cultural superiority". A bit of an understatement, in my opinion. On the other hand, the Washington Post review goes too far in the opposite direction: "Malle's screenplay says au revoir to deep characterization".

Chris Knipp
08-27-2006, 01:57 PM
I equally appreicate your thoughtful response earlier. As I said, I cannot choose between these Malle classics, and the fact that Au revoir les enfants has "flaws" in terms of one of the characterizations, at least according to the critics and you, doesn't keep it from being masterful and a great favorite of mine. I might simply suggest that in idealizing the portrait of "Jean Bonnet," Malle is being true to his childhood memories. As a child, one idealizes some of one's contemporaries, demonizes others, and that feeling grows in the memory. This is very true to my own memories -- and very true of my own experiences of Jews in my life when I was young! I see no harm in a youth being "otherworldly" or not registering an emotion; he is beautiful and one feels for him, he doesn't have to register a lot of emotions, and this too seems appropriate both to idealization and to a boy who, underneath, is no doubt petrified and hence afraid to reveal any feeling. That said, I must add that I'm not trying to say this is a perfect film, if there is such a thing. I'm less moved by it, but Lacombe Lucien for me is even more interesting in that it's a closeup look at an unsympathetic character, and a film that's very bold in treating a repellant situation and individual with coolness and even some sympathy. Lucien is a young anti-hero that you can't ever forget. I can't comment on Murmur of the Heart at the moment because it's been years since I've seen it, but however good it may be, I tend to doubt that it would be as moving or as interesting as the other two, to me. In my recollection, it's more a conventional coming-of-age piece, with the very notable exception of the incest element. Lea Massari certainly makes a, I guess suitably (again quite idealized in this) sexy mom. The themes of Lacombe and Au revoir are more particular, otherwise. Both are curiously moving, but Au revoir more so, of course. Thanks for your comments.