MovieChat Forums > Le chagrin et la pitié (1972) Discussion > Excellent historical investigation

Excellent historical investigation


"The Sorrow and the Pity," while long at 4 hours, is one of the best examples I've seen of documentarians truly trying to listen to as many perspectives on a topic as possible. I admire the filmmakers' ability to listen respectfully to each of their subjects, even when it must have been terribly difficult for them to abstain from getting into arguments. Though the editing is strategic, the filmmakers essentially allow the subjects to speak for themselves and tell their own stories.

reply

"one of the best examples I've seen of documentarians truly trying to listen to as many perspectives on a topic as possible"

General de Gaulle and the Gaullists are virtually absent from the documentary, I'd say that's a massive obmission to understanding the Occupation - only "half of the truth", even.

reply

> General de Gaulle and the Gaullists are virtually absent from the documentary,

But many people say that the Gaullist actually didn't play an important role during occupation in France, they just played an important role in allied propaganda.

It's just after war that everybody in France claimed that he belonged to the resistance, like everybody in Germany claimed they always were against the nazis.

That's just human nature.

reply

De Gaulle was a petulant, chauvinist ingrate who absolutely did not care what happened to any of his 'Allies' and sublimated every interest to what he perceived as the French interest. "France has no interests outside France". He was quite happy to throw a spanner in any of the works if he felt impugned or insulted (he tried to remove the French liaison officers after they embarked with their D-Day assault units because he felt slighted over the role of French soldiers in 4 Commando - Churchill ordered him to be taken instantly to North Africa "in chains if necessary" as he thought Patton or Monty would kill him if it came out).

All over the place but seldom around when there was any trouble he told American journalists in 1940 that the British were worse than the Nazis and told British journalists that the Americans were the armies of satan. He was known in France as TinTin, continued to make almost as much trouble after the war ended as he had while it was being fought and was thrown out into the long grass at the end of 1946.

His impact on France during the Occupation is overrated and his reputation is mostly dependent on his political career after France turned to him after the North African colonies fought their way loose.

reply

Well, you've offered one side of the story. What you left out was that neither Roosevelt nor Churchill wanted the assistance of De Gaulle because they believed, incorrectly, that Pétain could be persuaded to leave the German camp, and so they were wary of befriending a "traitor" to his regime. Perhaps it should not be surprising that he felt little affection for two leaders who gave him the cold shoulder for most of the war.

How much impact De Gaulle had on the internal Resistance is debatable, but there is no denying that, by urging France to keep up the fight during its darkest hour (in his Appeal of 18 June 1940), he became an inspirational figure. And he was very skillful at integrating the various Resistance factions together following the Liberation, when they could have easily turned against each other (some of the Communist-led factions discussed launching a revolution after the war).

Also, France didn't turn to him "after the North African colonies fought their way loose," but right in the middle of that conflict, in 1958. He is basically the reason France avoided civil war then. He alone had the credibility with the French people, on both sides of the Mediterranean, to urge them not to tear the country apart. He had his flaws, and was often a difficult person to deal with, but he is justifiably a national hero for France.

reply

You seem to be very knowledgeable on the 20th century history of France. Now tell me, is this documentary worth watching, is it an unbiased one or rather an attempt at sensational journalism?

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply