MovieChat Forums > Le boucher (1971) Discussion > One of the greatest movies about manhood

One of the greatest movies about manhood


The Butcher has stuck with me longer than many movies have and I always felt like it touched on something very important, but it is not until now that I've been able to put my finger on it.
In short, I think the movie is about men's failure to adapt to a society in which women no longer need a strong, violent man to protect them.

For most of history, the ability to kill was one of the greatest traits a man could possess. To be able to kill meant that one could a)protect a woman from danger and b)hunt animals to give her food.

From this vantage point, The Butcher is actually quite simple: a man tries to impress a woman with his killing skills, but she doesn't need that, and so he goes insane from loneliness.

But Chabrol complicates it even further:

1)Paul does not even like to kill. He has just done it - in his father's butchershop and in the army - because he saw no other option for a man of his stature. We can also presume that he believed serving that role would find him a mate.
2)Helene is actually attracted to him. It appears, for some time, that she is merely not attracted to him and is making excuses, and, since he already provides her with meat, she feels no need to take any extra steps to gain his approval. But, in the end, it becomes clear that she did have feelings for him.

For the most part, Paul appears to be the fool because he still operates on the outdated belief that if he kills for a woman, she will be attracted to him. But it also hints that Helene, too, is a fool, for believing that she actually has no attraction to Paul.

In short, The Butcher is a brilliant take on how men can fail to see that they're not wired to be butchers, women can fail to see that they are wired to be lovers, and how we as humans often fail to see our true natures.

Debate, anyone?

"Under strengths... You just put 'Accounts.' That's just your job." ~David Brent, The Office

reply

[deleted]

I think that's a pretty damn good theory, and it's reinforced by the school trip scene in which Helene is talking about Cro-magnon man and how ideas above substinence are aspirations, she could easily have been talking about Popaul (not literally of course, but in terms of cinema verite that scene sums up the point of the film).

What's that? You just called me a bastard didn't you!

reply

I found it a very interesting film particularly trying to read what was going on in her mind when she discovered he was the killer. I certainly agree with the OP that she must have loved him. When she closed her eyes after he produced the knife I felt it was not a resignation or acceptance that he was going to kill her it appeared to give her some sort of gratification sexual or otherwise. I got to thinking about what must have happened in her relationship of 10 years earlier that may have made her so determined to avoid emotional entanglements. I think she had been in a relationship where she had been controlled physically and/or mentally. The way I perceived it was that she was now a schoolmistress who was used to being in control. There were two scenes where she was sat in her room with Popaul and he was on a chair that was below her eye level giving the impression she was in control. Also the two scenes where he is peering in from a window outside her room gives the impression of control in a territorial sense. In the final scenes I think the roles are reversed and for a split second he is in control. I think this is something she has not experienced for years and she takes some weird gratification from it. It's anyone's guess what Chabrol was actually presenting and it's quite proper for people to draw their own conclusions but this was the way I saw it.

reply

I think everyone above has absolutely nailed it.

My tuppence, for what it's worth:

Helene is attempting to become a modern, progressive woman, but she isn't quite the full package yet. This is illustrated by how she holidays in Paris whilst the Parisians are vacationing in rural villages like hers. She is intelligent and astute but remains in transition.

After a previous poor relationship, in which she got hurt, she's now acutely aware of how she is attracted to dominant, masculine types and how they bring out the submissive in her. So, like a recovering alcoholic avoids the drink, she intends to abstain from relationships with men as she feels they are unhealthy for her. Her schoolchildren will act as surrogate offspring; fulfilling her mothering instinct without the need for procreation, therefore negating the need for a man. Logical perhaps, but most human beings don't really run that well on logic alone...as Popaul and others keep reminding us throughout the film.

Popaul from the outset is constantly trying to impress her with offerings of meat and tales of his army exploits. He is at once embarrassed at how the bloodletting sickens him whilst at the same time proud of his proficiency and ability to overcome his anxiety in order to supposedly provide for and protect his woman. He too, in his own less intellectual way, is trying to become more progressive.

She takes the dominant position in almost every instance when they are together; smoking in the street; preparing the meat whilst he makes a salad; driving them to the cinema &c. He accepts this with good grace, but it bothers him. I think she might buy him the lighter so that he can light his, and maybe sometimes even her, cigarettes. A symbolic gesture perhaps.

Her decision to conceal the evidence in order to protect Popaul is borne part from her attraction to him but also from an intuition that it could be partly her fault. Her tears of relief when she discover's he still has her lighter arise from the guilty realisation that her reasoning was incorrect; he's not a violent man and more importantly she's not attracted to them. Turns out she was wrong, on both accounts.

Apart they would have led lonely lives in which no one got hurt. However, once together their inability to reconcile their respective roles in an uncertain and changing social landscape led to a violent outbreak of cognitive dissonance.

It would appear that whilst Chabrol admits that gender relations needed to progress, his take on the hardline feminist revolution that was in ascendence around 1970 is that it may not have been beneficial for either party. Or at least that it was perhaps not the ideal way for everyone to live. I think he also felt that if it were to have continued along this path, and men were to feel increasingly redundant and emasculated that it may have eventually resulted in increasing levels of violent misogyny.

In some ways he was right; hence, amongst other developments, the more moderate form of post-feminism that exists today and the realisation that men and women do have certain roles to play in relationships but they are in no way fixed.

Evolving above our base instincts is a tricky ol' business.

I'd also like to mention how Chabrol nails a kind of stylistic realism lacking in the somewhat over-composed shots of his contemporaries. The minimal economy (tautology?) deployed in every aspect of this movie belies it's beauty and depth.

Also, I'm assuming that the previous posts in this thread were from people who caught this fine flick on BBC4 the other night in light of Chabrol's recent death. La Femme Infidel was on Film4 last night but I missed it due to being out. I hope they show it again.

reply

Dondi0, excellent post. Yes I saw the film on BBC4. Luckily I managed to Sky + La Femme Infidel. In addition, Film4 also transmitted Que la Bete Meure last night. I haven't seen either film yet but have high expectations after Le boucher.

reply

Cheers. It's always a bonus when other peoples' insights synch up with your own.

I might try and tighten it up into a proper review of sorts. Although, I'm always wary about reading too much in to movies. Chabrol himself once remarked to Derek Malcolm about a certain British critic with an intellectual bent; "Give my regards to ****. He invents my films so beautifully."

I'n definitely on a Chabrol kick right now. I'm actually a bit embarrassed that it took his death to entice me in. Funnily enough David Thompson said in his obit that; "Chabrol is the kind of figure who could be reclaimed after death – there are some films that might look much better years later." On the basis of the two I've seen he's up there with Malle and the tragically cut short Clouzot (this great doc aired on Sky Arts the other month, look out for a repeat: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1433528/) for me already. He had a really wry sense of inky black humour that tempered the edges what appeared to be a fairly large slab of misanthropic cynicism. My kinda guy.

Watched The Beast Must Die last night. Another great flick. Definitely more obviously cynically satirical and very funny in places too. Paul Decourt knocks it outta the park as the titular beast. Not sure I completely 'got it' on first viewing if you know what I mean. Reminded me a bit of Patricia Highsmith via Renoir for some reason..

Just hoping that Film4 re-show La Femme.. now. I'm not holding my breath.

reply

Sorry to ruin the lovefest, guys, but I don't have the same appreciation for the film that you seem to (and I love Chabrol). I understand what he was going for, don't get me wrong, but it just didn't click with me. I guess the acting was intentionally understated, but that didn't really help me get into the characters like I thought I would when the film began and we were introduced to them at the entertaining wedding reception.

Now, I've read various comments from people who claimed to be on the edge of their seat due to the tension. What tension? The brief tension towards the end when Popaul got into the house? Even still, I kind of liked it...up until Helen kissed him in the hospital, that is. I don't know, it seemed too unrealistic, and just a way for the director to shock the audience. Yes, there was a little chemistry between the leads, but definitely not enough to justify that ending.

As a huge Hitchcock fan, I'm kinda baffled (and disappointed) that there are actual comparisons between his work and this film. In short, love Chabrol, but this wasn't his best effort. This Man Must Die was infinitely better. Just one man's opinion, though :)

reply

No problem. Opinions are what movies are all about.
If it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work.

The whole thing slow burned with social discomfort and a sense of impending dread for me. The camera work around the quiet village really put me in mind of Carpenter's work on Halloween for starters. I could see how some could find it dry and lacking in knife edge thrills though.

I'm curious to get your opinion on what it was in The Beast Must Die that you preferred. Or any insights you might have. I thought it was a great film but for me it lacked the complexity and completeness of Le Boucher. However, I could be missing something. I often am.

reply

The Beast Must Die, first off, had a more interesting, visceral story: man loses child in a hit and run, then goes off looking for the killer. From the very beginning you're thoroughly invested in the action; you desperately want the father to locate his son's murderer and avenge his death. Then he finds himself romantically involved with a relation of the killer, which adds another twist. Le Boucher's tension can't hold a candle (in my opinion, of course) to the tension in this film, which takes you on a rollercoaster ride of emotions. Will he find him/her? What will he do when he does? Will his new love interest dissuade him from his goal? I won't ruin it for those who haven't seen it yet, but halfway through, the film introduces us a to a very bizarre family, and that's the point when things really pick up. Oh, and the boat scene: is anything in Le Boucher as good?

Story, acting, locations, and an ending that leaves you questioning things all make The Beast Must Die an overall more enjoyable film. This is the picture Hitchcock would have been proud of.

reply

You're right, though, not everyone can agree on everything, and that's what makes art great. As far as Chabrol goes, I definitely like his work more than Godard's, though not as much as Truffaut's. La Rupture and Le Boucher were the only films of his I didn't like...and only because of the endings. I'd say Rupture was worse...the ridiculousness of the ending left me wanting to throw the dvd out the window, haha.

reply

When Popaul produced the knife and flicked it open my first thought was of an erect penis. So I would agree there is something sexual ocurring between the two in that moment. After he had turned out the lights no less.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

reply

Whoa!! Quite the visual!!

I enjoyed this, though thought La Fleur du Mal was better and The Unfaithful Wife better still, especially from the 'suspense' aspect. However, no knives were involved.



reply

Whoa!! Quite the visual!!
That was my immediate thought when I saw it.

OK I'll have to get The Unfaithful Wife then. Thanks for the rec. I loved the village life and picture quality of Le Boucher and how the viewer could stay on the lustrous surface of the film if they wished because the under currents were so, so subtle.
To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

reply

Helene is talking about Cro-magnon man and how ideas above substinence are aspirations, she could easily have been talking about Popaul
Yes and, she could be talking about herself too.
I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

reply

I also think that the field trip to the Cro-Magnon cave site shows that Chabrol might be touching on a view of humanity that is quite older than Homo Sapien, and codes of conduct between men and women would be radically different.

"I would prefer not to...."

reply

What makes this film a gigantic turd is the fact that all of the stuff in your post gets basically screamed into your face with a megaphone for an hour and a half. It's about as subtle as it think it isn't, which is very not subtle indeed. It's just boring for most of its running time but all those ashen faced cuts (pun!) at the end just punch it through to a whole new plateau of craptitude. A bag of pish, then.

reply

Read this for the first time in a while.

Wish I had put a question mark at the end of the title of the post.

Also wish I hadn't looked like I implied women were wired to be lovers as if men were not.

What I was trying to imply but hadn't thought too much about was that both men and women are lovers. In the end, I think that is the movie's "message." A bit hippy dippy in a way. But the way Chabrol eliminates his "make love" message is just by showing how awkward things get without it- how doomed Paul is after a lifetime of denying that he is not a killer and how doomed Helene is after years of closing herself off to men.

On one hand, it's a behaviorist movie... it suggests two people who are products of their damaging modern environments. But, on another hand, it's anti-behaviorist in the way that it suggests, via its historical/archaeological references, that there are other, older forces that we fail to comprehend.

"Under strengths... You just put 'Accounts.' That's just your job." ~David Brent, The Office

reply

I have just read the original post, and I think I gleamed your intention before this reply. I frankly thought it was an unusually good IMDb post. Partly I think the quality of responses, generally lacking in the typical simple seething and desire to be profane, show that you made a strong point, and quite well.

reply

Thanks, Toucan Kid. That's what I was going for and I'm glad for all the responses.

"Under strengths... You just put 'Accounts.' That's just your job." ~David Brent, The Office

reply

I frankly thought it was an unusually good IMDb post. Partly I think the quality of responses, generally lacking in the typical simple seething and desire to be profane, show that you made a strong point,


oh yes, if only all imdb posts consisted of banal thematic observations salvaged from the crumpled film studies essays of a mediocre undergraduate. heaven save us from seething brevity

reply