I have just enjoyed this great film but for three quarters of it I couldn't get an oddity out of my mind. When Jean-Francois Jardie takes the radio set to Paris he gets by the German searchers but is then stopped by 3 French policemen. He blithely announces he has a radio set in his suitcase - without them reacting. Are we supposed to make the unlikely assumption that all 3 policemen are resistance sympathisers?
3 policemen wanted to know if there were " black market" merchandising in his suitcase. There were nothing to eat during these times , and " black market" was forbidden.
sharehelaine - good point. However, I have just re-run the film and yes, the police were asking about black market goods, but he quite clearly opens his suitcase and SHOWS them his radio set. We ARE being asked to believe that all of the policemen (and there were actually more than 3) were prepared to turn a blind eye to a radio set - a fundamental tool of the resistance movement.
shareWell, you are right.maybe we would be better policemen (!). But it wasn t what they were looking for. Fortunately they were a little bit stupid, it was not a radio set to listen Radio-Paris which was a collaborationist program. For my own, I hardly believe when Gerbier escaped the firing squad but .. it is suposed to be a true story ( I don't know). Regards.
shareAfter he opens the suitcase in front of Mathilde, he moves a pile of clothes to reveal a second device. I assumed one was a standard radio and the other a contraband one.
shareThe BFI DVD commentary goes into this.
The police were looiking for black market goods. (See also the opening scenes where the police escorting Gerbier stop to pick up black market groceries). Police are often prone to miss things they are not specifically looking for. (Plus there is something of a tradition in French cinema of depicting the police as idiots).
And finally, the possibility is left open that these particular police are indeed sympathetic to the Resistance. (If the three worked together it is quite likely they were aware of each other's political views).
There is a lot of ambiguity like this in the film. (See also the woman with the child at the station, the debate over Mathilde). The idea of the army of the shadows extends to a need to take action based on incomplete information, make snap decisions about whether to trust people, etc.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
[deleted]
Oh, how very clever! Just what drives some people to make smart-ass remarks on IMDB to show how superior they are (or think they are).
For my part I am perfectly happy to consider deliberate ambiguities in fictional films and books, but in serious films and books based on fact, I don't wish to see the characters indulge in "with one bound he was free" antics more associated with super hero films (from Hollywood or anywhere else).
watching the film on dvd for the second time in one day.
The great commentary says that the scene shows that not all police,maybe not most police were happy obeying the orders of the Vichy government.
An important fact to know is that the French police officers were not allowed to quit during the occupation.
So what would you do if you were a French cop 1940-1944? would you do your job but not be keen on the government or would you work really hard and try to get promoted because the Germans were winning the war?
I think most police officers,indeed most French people were neither strong on collaboration or resistance and I don't blame them,we now know that the allies win the war but that was not the obvious outcome in 1940-1942.