French Cinema Since 1945

Le Chagrin et la pitié

Dir. Marcel Opuls, 1971

Description

Opuls’s controversial documentary is regarded as one of the most powerful and important films about the Occupation of France. Commissioned by the ORTF (French television corporation) in 1969, it was refused a TV screening and premiered in cinemas instead. It had a major impact on perceptions of the period in question and opened the way for a series of revisionist histories. This is because of the way it replaced the certainties of the ‘mythe de la résistance’ with a far more complex, ambiguous, and (for many) unpalatable picture which included evidence of fairly widespread collaboration and anti-semitism. It also inaugurated a new type of documentary film method.

The film’s sub-title is ‘Chronique d’une ville française sous l’Occupation’. Over its 4½ hours it unfolds the story of a particular town in a particular period, producing a fascinating and compelling story. The town is Clermont-Ferrand, 50 kms south of Vichy the capital of France from 1940 to 1944.

The material is edited into a loose chronological structure - Part I: L’Effondrement (‘The Collapse’), and Part II: Le Choix - corresponding roughly to a progression from the defeat of France in 1940, through the years of collaboration and organised resistance, to the Liberation. Within this overall framework, the material is organised along forensic thematic lines rather than following any strict chronological or narrative lines.

In contrast to the personal documentary style of, say, Nuit et Brouillard, there is no voice-over and no commentary. Ophuls can be heard asking questions but hardly ever appears in shot. The film consists entirely of a montage of evidence: interviews, newsreels, photos, and recorded speeches. Notice the consistent treatment of interviewees. They are recorded in their own environment, not in a studio, and filmed from a relatively objective camera position (mostly medium close-up, intercut with establishing shots), and we always hear their own voices.

As with all historical films, the subject is not simply the period under scrutiny but also the way history is remembered (or mis-remembered) and recounted. This is highlighted by another key technique – the use of contrapuntal editing, in which one statement is illustrated, confirmed, or contradicted by what follows and precedes it. Rather than a single point of view, then, the film presents viewers with a steady accumulation of evidence, claims and conflicting counter-claims.

The film includes interviews with 34 witnesses - French, German, English. These survivors were all interviewed in the late 1960s. The fact that the stories are not always consistent highlights the ambiguity of history as well as reflecting the moral ambiguities of the period itself. The overall picture, however, is clearly at odds with the Gaullist myth of a France solidly united in its resistance to the German occupation and the Vichy puppet government.

French interviewees include:

Marcel Verdier, a Clermont pharmacist and member of the local resistance;

Christian de la Mazière, an aristocratic fascist volunteer in the Waffen SS;

Louis & Alexis Grave, peasant brothers and modest resistance heroes;

Pierre Mendès-France, the former prime minister (1960s) who discusses his experiences at the receiving end of French anti-semitism as a young civil servant;

Count René de Chambrun, son-in-law of Pierre Laval (the head of the Vich government) who whitewashes the collaborationist prime minister’s reputation by saying he did everything possible to defend the French Jews;

Madame Solange, a hairdresser who supported Pétain.

Among non-French interviewees are:

Helmut Tausend, captain in the Wehrmacht stationed in Clermont-Ferrand;

Denis Rake, British secret agent operating in occupied France;

Sir Antony Eden, member of Churchill’s war cabinet (and later British PM).

 

What critics have said

‘From the moment it was first released at a tiny Left Bank theater in Paris, this epic account of France under the occupation of the Nazi regime during World War II has been acclaimed as one of the most powerful and influential films of all time. Originally refused by French TV, the film garnered international success and acclaim - including an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary and a recurring homage in Woody Allen's Annie Hall - while shattering the myth of an undivided and universally resistant France under the Vichy government. Ophuls interviewed the residents of Clermont-Ferrand who remembered the time and would speak of it, as well as French, German, and British government officials, writers, farmers, artists, and German veterans. Here, in their own words, is the story of how ordinary citizens and leaders alike really behaved, and the words they used to rationalize it to themselves and others. The result is a staggeringly clear portrait of how real people conducted themselves under the most extreme of circumstances. Ophuls constantly invites us to put ourselves in the position of these witnesses: what would we have done in the same circumstances? A triumph of humanist filmmaking, The Sorrow and the Pity leaves us with a great awareness of the power and responsibility that each of us possess. By turns gripping, appalling, and exhilarating, is one of the most valuable achievements in the history of cinema.’

 

Dans Le Chagrin et la Pitié, grand classique du documentaire, Marcel Ophuls démonte admirablement, à travers la chronique de Clermont-Ferrand sous l'Occupation, les mécanismes du basculement de la France dans la collaboration et de l'idéologie pétainiste. Prix George Sadoul et nomination à l'Oscar du Meilleur film étranger en 1970.

Le fils du cinéaste Max Ophuls raconte, de façon libre et démystificatrice, une page sombre de l'histoire de Françe qui, selon lui, n'aurait pu se dérouler autrement. Pour dresser ce tableau sans concession, il s'aapuie sur les témoignages d'une une trentaine d'intervenants allemands, anglais et français représentant toutes les forces en présence à l'époque, des anciens SS français aux résistants, en passant par des habitants anonymes. On retrouve ainsi des personnalités historiques comme Pierre Mendès-France, ancien président du Conseil et capitaine du groupe Lorraine; Emmanuel d'Astier de la Vigerie, fondateur du mouvement de résistance "Libération", mort deux semaines après l'interview; Lord Avon, secrétaire d'Etat à la guerre de Churchill; Dr Paul Schmidt, interprète personnel d'Hitler.


Dans la première partie, Marcel Ophuls évoque tous les "ingrédients" qui expliquent pourquoi la France a basculé dans le pétainisme. Comme le dit Emmanuel d'Astier de la Vigerie, "si on avait organisé un référendum en 1940 (...), 90% des gens auraient pris parti pour Pétain et pour une occupation allemande modérée. [De Gaulle ] est donc allé contre le sens de l'histoire, et s'il n'a pas sauvé la France, du moins a-t-il sauvé l'image de la France !".

Après la déroute de l'armée française contre les troupes allemandes en juin 1940, le maréchal Pétain, vieux héros de la guerre de 1914-18, apparaît comme un homme rassurant, qui facilite le choix de la collaboration tout en donnant l'air de préserver les intérêts de la France occupée. Déjà, au départ, la sévérité et la rapidité de la déroute n'intimait pas la population française à "résister" contre les Allemands. Et chez les Français de droite, "la droite silencieuse", comme pour la majorité des chefs militaires français, l'idée qui prévalait était : "plutôt Hitler que le Front populaire". Enfin, le désaveu de l'allié britannique, résultant de la vieille haine séculaire de l'Angleterre et de l'incompréhension des Français face aux événements de Mers el-Kébir, port d'Algérie où les Britanniques détruirent une partie de la flotte française qui y était basée le 3 juillet 1940, de peur que les Allemands ne la réquisitionnent, contribua aussi à placer l'hexagone à la botte des nazis.’

http://www.planete.tm.fr