Sympathy for Joseph (spoliers) - Au revoir les enfants (1988) Discussion

[–] PennyForYourTots 13 years ago

I do admit that I felt sympathy for Joseph, especially when you see him crying and saying that he has no place to go. It was a bit extreme for the priest to send him out (he could have let him stay but punished him through other means--restricting him from certain activities or giving him extra chorese.)

I did, however, loate Joseph by the very end, after the reveal of his betrayal. I was furious that he would go so far and expose the Jews to the Germans (that was just inexcusable.)

"You're a woman, Harry"

reply

[–] murph24 13 years ago

I think it's impossible not to feel sympathy for Joseph when he's fired and turned away from school. Pere Jean knows that firing Joseph is unfair and he says so. But the difference between the two situations is glaring. Pere Jean is responsible for Joseph becoming (for the moment) unemployed and homeless; Joseph is responsible for sending four individuals to their deaths. All of France knew what the Gestapo was capable of, because they'd seen evidence of it during four years of German occupation. They'd heard about the death camps and seen people killed in the streets; it was the reason that Jean (Bonnet) Kippelstein was scared "all the time."

Joseph's actions, like those of Lucien in Lacombe Lucien, are baffling and inexplicable. In 1944, when everyone knew Germany's defeat was inevitable, they openly sided with the Germans. And their actions didn't just endanger the lives of others; they were essentially signing their own death warrants. The epuration sauvage was coming, and those who collaborated with the Gestapo were receiving tiny coffins in the mail. In the end, Lucien saves the lives of two Jews; Joseph, on the other hand, shows no remorse. "They're just Jews," he says unsympathetically.

Joseph, like Lucien, will have to deal with the consequences of his actions. He made a choice, just as the nun in the infirmary did. But it was a choice that many find impossible to condone.

reply

[–] trompos 13 years ago

What I would have done was gone to the priest, had a sit down and told him.

"Listen, there's a war going on, I stole a few food items, it's not the end of the world. I can't lose my job, there's no telling what I can do, like say, tell the Germans that you're hiding those Jewish boys here. I mean, they could get into a lot of trouble, and you, well, let's just say you'll be in a lot of trouble too. So how about we put this in our past and I make up for the stolen goods. I give you my word, it will never happen again. OK Father? <wink>."

And with that little bluff I would keep my job.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] murph24 13 years ago

Wait - let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Joseph should inform Pere Jean that unless he gets his job back, he will go to the Gestapo and let them know the school is sheltering Jewish children. Which means that in addition to being a bigot and a thief, Joseph would become a blackmailer as well. Hmmmm...

Au Revoir Les Enfants has already been made into an award-winning film, so there's not much we can to to change the plot. But if I were imagining a scenario for Joseph, it would be one in which he managed (perhaps with Pere Jean's help) to find the kind of job Lucien had in Lacombe Lucien - working as a hospital attendant for a small stipend, plus room and board. And hopefully, in his spare time, thinking hard about his anti-Semitism and doing what he could to overcome it.

reply

[–] trompos 13 years ago

"You're suggesting that Joseph should inform Pere Jean that unless he gets his job back, he will go to the Gestapo and let them know the school is sheltering Jewish children. Which means that in addition to being a bigot and a thief, Joseph would become a blackmailer as well. Hmmmm..."

I Loved the movie, and wouldn't dream of changing the plot at all. I'm simply playing what if. If I were Joseph, what would I have done? The movie is the movie and it is well made, if everyone is happy and Joseph doesn't become the villain there is no movie.

I would blackmail someone if it meant I have a place to sleep and food on the table, and I had few options as a cripple with a war going on. Wouldn't you?

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] murph24 13 years ago

I would blackmail someone if it meant I have a place to sleep and food on the table, and I had few options as a cripple with a war going on. Wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't. I would explore other options.

But since you're interested in "What if?" scenarios, and you also love Jesus Christ, let's move in that direction. Would Jesus Christ be cool with blackmail? Would Jesus Christ threaten to turn someone over to the Gestapo?

reply

[–] trompos 13 years ago

"But since you're interested in "What if?" scenarios, and you also love Jesus Christ, let's move in that direction. Would Jesus Christ be cool with blackmail? Would Jesus Christ threaten to turn someone over to the Gestapo?"

While, as a Christian I strive to be Christ-like, I also realizxe that I'm flawed, that I'm human, and when my stomach is rumbling, and I'm shivering in the French winters, I will probably do what I have to do. And guess what. You would too.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] murph24 13 years ago

While, as a Christian I strive to be Christ-like, I also realizxe that I'm flawed, that I'm human, and when my stomach is rumbling, and I'm shivering in the French winters, I will probably do what I have to do. And guess what. You would too.

As for how someone would behave in a given situation, all you know is what you would do. Don't for a moment presume that you know anything else.

Study the subject a bit more. You'll learn that while some people collaborated with the Nazis, many didn't - and they were hungry and shivering, too.

If you're looking for examples, there's Audrey Hepburn; she starved and shivered, but she never collaborated. Years later, she described her situation during the occupation -

"It was human misery at its starkest. Masses of refugees on the move; hundreds collapsing of hunger. We took in forty, but - there was literally nothing to eat....We saw young men put against the wall and shot, and they'd close the street and then open it and you could pass by again. Don't discount anything awful you hear or read about the Nazis. It's worse than you could ever imagine."

reply

[–] trompos 13 years ago

Hepburn was able to take people in, she had a family, a support system, wasnt't disabled. I'm just saying, let's not judge a man for doing what he felt he had to do. As a Christian I'm simply saying, judge not.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] murph24 13 years ago

I'm just saying, let's not judge a man for doing what he felt he had to do. As a Christian I'm simply saying, judge not.

And you also entitled this thread "Sympathy for Joseph." And if you felt sympathy for a Nazi collaborator - well, that's what you felt. Personally, my sympathies were with Bonnet, Negus, Dupre and Pere Jean.

I can sympathize with the plight of being homeless and hungry, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the horrific things Joseph did. My sympathy ends with Joseph's decision to collaborate with the Nazis and send four human beings to their death in concentration camps; my sympathy ends when he coldly rationalizes his actions with the words "They're just Jews."

There are ALWAYS choices in life, and collaboration with the Nazis was not the only choice Frenchmen (even those who were homeless and hungry) had during the occupation. And being "disabled" was certainly no excuse for collaboration; Jacques Lusseyran was a blind Frenchman who wasn't just part of the Resistance movement, he was one of its most inspirational leaders.

No one is saying you can't have sympathy for Joseph; it's just a shame Joseph didn't have the same sympathy for the four individuals who died because of his actions.

As for "judging" people like Joseph, that responsibility fell to the courts of liberated France.

reply

[–] trompos 13 years ago

I would like to go back to something you said before.

"As for how someone would behave in a given situation, all you know is what you would do. Don't for a moment presume that you know anything else."

The truth is I was wrong. And so are you. Neither of us has ever been in that situation (I assume you were never in a war torn nation and forced to make those choices) so I don't know what I would do, nor what you would do.

It may very well be that I am the one who doesn't collaborate with Nazis and it's you who does. We don't know what we could be driven to given the right circumstances. I might surprise myself, and you might disappoint yourself.

Or I may be right and end up collaborating, while you end up being a martyr. I can see why Joseph did what he did, it's not an excuse, but it is a reason, a reason anyone should certainly understand.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] murph24 13 years ago

I can see why Joseph did what he did, it's not an excuse, but it is a reason, a reason anyone should certainly understand.

Once again, you're laboring under the misapprehension that Joseph had no choice. Believe it or not, there were people in occupied France who, despite being cold, hungry and homeless, didn't resort to murder (nor were they complicit in someone's murder) simply because they needed money. The fact is, Joseph did have a choice, and so did the nun in the infirmary. And for all we know, they both may have considered themselves devout Catholics.

But their choices were horrendous; their choices made them partners in genocide.

And if you can't recognize that, there's nothing more I can say.

reply

[–] zappalover 13 years ago

We are defined by the choices we make, particularly in tough situations. Joseph was born into this world with a couple of strikes against him, was then tested big-time, and failed. This is understandable and heartbreaking. The caution here is that we all can be Josephs in our lifetime. Like Judas.

reply

[–] trompos 13 years ago

I think this sums up my point all along. I'm not saying Joseph was right, he did fail, but one can't exactly stare down their nose at him for having failed. It was one hard test that anyone could fail.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] zappalover 13 years ago

It's a heavier failure than what I think you're stating. His action was understandable, but still fundamentally wrong. We can sympathize without acceptance. It's not a matter of looking down on him, but looking hard at him and how it may reflect on ourselves. He chose to behave as he did -- revenge can be a very powerful motivator, particularly for those of us with low self-esteem and desperate -- but there were other actions he could have taken. Not only did he harm others, but his character suffered.

reply

[–] murph24 13 years ago

He chose to behave as he did -- revenge can be a very powerful motivator, particularly for those of us with low self-esteem and desperate -- but there were other actions he could have taken. Not only did he harm others, but his character suffered.

Very true.

We also have to remember the comment Joseph makes when he's trading stamps for jam, and Julien is driving a hard bargain: "You're a real Jew," he tells Julien. It's a quick moment, but it reveals an anti-Semitic side of Joseph's character; it also prepares the audience for his actions later in the film, and especially his indifference to the fates of Bonnet, Dupre and Lafarge - "They're just Jews," he says nonchalantly. The unfortunate fact is that more than a few Frenchmen had no problem with Nazi racial policies, and sometimes actively supported them. In the restaurant we hear a number of patrons denouncing the actions of the collaborating Milice, but we also hear one Frenchwoman loudly shouting "He's right! Send the Jews to Moscow!" Ultimately, the French citizens who collaborated with the Nazis were either anxious to better themselves or in full support of Hitler's "master race" policies.

Joseph's presence on school grounds during the air raid raises unanswered questions - what, exactly, was he doing there? We later learn the Gestapo found Resistance leaflets among Pere Jean's possessions. It's possible that Pere Jean was (beyond sheltering refugees) an active member of the Resistance, but it's also possible Joseph planted Resistance material among Pere Jean's belongings - which is, after all, what some Frenchmen did during the Occupation when they wanted to strike back at their enemies. I'm not saying Joseph actually did this, but it's a possibility that should be considered. If he wanted to make sure Pere Jean was severely punished, this would have been an excellent way to do it.

And this is what distinguished Louis Malle's two films about World War II (Au Revoir Les Enfants and Lacombe Lucien). When the stories focused on collaborators, he didn't turn them into mustache-twirling cliche villains; instead, he often made them sympathetic and likable. In other words, he made them human beings. But this was undoubtedly his point - that sympathetic and likable people can sometimes do the most appalling things.

reply

[–] zappalover 13 years ago

"sympathetic and likable people can sometimes do the most appalling things"

Many of us in the USA are not aware of the widespread support the Nazi's and Facist's had throughout much of western Europe during the 1930's and early 1940's. For example, in part because of the popularity of the Anne Frank story, we tend to believe or assume the Dutch were generally "good guys" when in fact a large proportion welcomed the Nazi ascendency during the 30's and the Reich's early victories. Any of us can take the wrong action when the chips are down. The harder the circumstances, the harder the choices, the bigger the test of our character/soul/being. For me, Louis Malle should have made the Joseph character even more likeable than he did.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

No, sorry, sending people to their deaths in order to get revenge plus some dough or food out of Nazis, is not just some run-of-the-mill "failure", it´s a sociopathic act of pure evil. And he should have been treated the same as extermination camp guards when judgement was passed after the war. I mean, I can understand breaking down and ratting people out at gun point, but Joseph was far from being within an inch of losing his life.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] gribfritz2 7 years ago

Wasn't he now homeless and wasn't there also now a curfew? Seems to me he may have been within an inch of losing his life (as a homeless person WITH a physical disability, he would have been sent to a camp). But more importantly, putting those facts together that there is a curfew and he will be homeless, the good brother that tossed him out would also be similarly complicit in murder by some people's standards on here (not to mention the obvious irony of sermonizing about charity and compassion and then showing absolutely none for Joseph, setting the events in motion).

reply

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

I can see an older man doing something like that but Joseph seemed shocked and upset at being caught. He may never have had the chance to have a word with the priest offering not to tell a few things to the Germans if he gets his job back. My guess is he spent a few days shocked, angry and in despair, then walked to the nearest Gestapo office with a story to tell. They may have given him Resistance leaflets to plant in the school, which is what he may have been doing during the air raid when the others see him.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

reply

[–] sillyhat 10 years ago

In 1944, when everyone knew Germany's defeat was inevitable, they openly sided with the Germans.

Not everyone necessarily knew this at the time. Remember, there was very strict censorship going on and a lot of pro-Nazi propaganda over the airwaves, as noted in the film ("Radio Paris tells German lies").

reply

[–] murph24 10 years ago

Not everyone necessarily knew this at the time. Remember, there was very strict censorship going on and a lot of pro-Nazi propaganda over the airwaves...

The continuance of censorship by the Vichy government didn't mean people weren't aware the end was near. If anything, the propaganda from Radio Paris became even more desperate BECAUSE the tide of war had clearly turned against the Nazi war machine. And we have to remember that occupied France wasn't listening solely to Radio Paris; people were also listening to Radio Londres, which the Free French were broadcasting from the BBC in London from 1940 to 1944. Those who picked it up listened to it clandestinely, but made sure the word got out regarding the progress of the Allies. This is why the children knew the information Radio Paris was broadcasting was untrue - and if the children knew they were hearing lies, it's hard to believe the adults weren't aware of it, too. Though the German Army was still able to inflict damage on Allied forces, they had been driven out of North Africa and were in retreat on the Eastern and Italian fronts. Remember how enraged Dr. Mueller became when he saw the map in the classroom that pinpointed advances by the American, British and Soviet forces? He yanked their flags off the map in a fit of anger; he knew the Reich no longer had the industrial strength and manpower to prevail and didn't want to be reminded of it.

So, yes - the population may not have known when Germany was going to be defeated, but they knew it was inevitable. Even a number of high-ranking Germans could see the writing on the wall; that's why a group of officers (led by Lt. Col. Claus von Stauffenberg) had been plotting Hitler's assassination since 1943.

reply

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

Apart from the censorship, in early 1944 things were not going great for the Germans, but they were still deep inside Soviet territory despite many defeats, were occupying much of Europe and the British and Americans only had a foothold in southern Italy and were still marooned south of Rome. By the end of 1944 the Soviets were in East Prussia and the Americans were in Aachen but that was not how the year had started.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

reply

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

Details of the Holocaust as well as the concentration camps were a Nazi state secret but some things leaked out, and Joseph would have known that people arrested by the Nazis, especially in this kind of round-up, would probably not be alive for much longer. It is quite likely that Joseph himself would have been dead by year's end, though, as he is now a known collaborator.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

reply

[–] stevekaczynski 7 years ago

I don't think the priest had any good options as regards Joseph. Even if he had kept him on, he might have told tales to the Germans if he thought it was in his interests to do so. Having someone like that around is dangerous, though putting him out the door also has dangers, as the film shows. Under pressure, a nun lets the Germans know something they shouldn't when they raid. Even if Joseph had not been fired and had still been working there if the Germans raided, fear or more likely his trademark opportunism might easily have led him to tell them, if questioned, a few things they want to know.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

reply