MovieChat Forums > Le chagrin et la pitié (1972) Discussion > Is this not Monday Morning Quarterbackin...

Is this not Monday Morning Quarterbacking by the director?


I see a lot of people in here are talking like it's a fair non judge-mental view from the director but somehow I don't get that. Maybe I'm just guessing but it seems like there is a little shame towards his country from director Marcel Ophüls after the outcome is known. People can look back at France and now say they were collaborating with the Nazis but really what choice did they have? They were invaded by a Country with no help in sight so what would you do? After things shook out and France was liberated the finger pointing took place. The people who pointed the longest fingers probably did the least and hid the most. It's easy to say that people should of stood up but...... that's what that is easy. At the time France was outclassed by the German army and did what the could too survive. The finger pointing gets nobody anywhere.

reply

[deleted]

agreed. I especially hated that resistance member who was informed on, or the one who's wife was taken by the Vichy, had her nipples cut off, a broom shoved up her vag, whipped into a comma and then buried alive. Get over it already!

reply

For the benefit of us poor ignorant non-Americans - what the hell is Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

*******************************************
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that sting

reply

[deleted]

It means to argue after the fact about what should have been done, when you have the benefit of hindsight. (It's a reference to American football, where professional games are played on Sundays.)

reply

You are probably right to some extent. However, you are not looking at the movie within the context of the time. The movie was a reply to the Monday mourning quaterbacking done by the French people who denied their relations to the Germans. It is not that people "did what they had to" that Ophuls is calling into question, rather it is the denial that they did anything at all that he is showing as hypocritical. I am reminded of the scene in which the former resistance leader talks of the Frenchman who claimed to have done so much for the resistance by having a gun in his draw which he swore he would use and never did. That is what Ophuls is objecting too, and in that way it is the exact opposite of what you are complaining about.

reply

Ditto.

I TRULY MISS STEVIE RAY VAUGHAN!

reply

Well, there's open defiance (or the appearance of open defiance), then there's sabotage from within (make the Nazis your being a nice French collaborator while either taking part in Doing things to assist the resistance), and then there's the opposite of open defiance, which is unquestioning collaboration, refusing to put yourself (and/or your family) at risk at all for your country.

I dozed in and out last night (4 hour films are rough for me to catch in one sitting), but I have it on DVR, and I'm interested to find out if the film shows any doubt about people who claim to have resisted but are accused of collaboration...

reply