MovieChat Forums > Les voleurs (1996) Discussion > what was this film for you?

what was this film for you?

posted 14 years ago by film_ophile
11 replies | jump to latest

I watched it for a 2nd time, last night, having seen it in the 90's when it came out. I did really like it but i'm trying to sort out what it was for me.i think what made it for me was the deneuve/auteuil connection. i didn't care about any of the other characters but scenes between these 2 riveted me and anchored my investment in the film. (Tonight i really dove into them, watching Ma Saison Preferee, their major tour de force and a much richer and more meaningful experience for me.)

Plse tell me your thoughts about the film.

The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.

[–] IMdb-IM 13 years ago

I'm afraid I watched it askance, not fully following the German text. The one lasting thing I took away from it was the coldness and egotism of all the relationships apart from the Deneuve/Cote scene in the bath. It may have been the slick glaciality of the dialogues, and the way they were delivered, but I'm not surprised the script didn't dwell on Auteuil's reaction to the death of Marie; any emotional reaction would have been unbelievable for the viewers. The boy was especially chilling. Auteuil was the best of the lot.

I came here to look for the name of that uplifting song in the soundtrack and during the end credits.
(Edit): And I've just found the answer in another thread: It's called Douha Alia by Cheb Mami.

[–] jacowium 12 years ago

I think there are many things to take away from this film - the previous poster mentioned some of those.

What held my interest was the kind of "tension" between circumstance and choice. Every character had to deal with his/her circumstances that could easily tie them down. All the characters seemed to strain against that, and most eventually succumbed to theirs - except for the three main characters.

Alex could have followed the rest of his family into the underworld - but opted to become a policeman. His nephew probably offers the best explanation for that: to piss his family off. Yet, he wasn't forced to become a cop, it was his own choice.

Juliette entered the story as a petty criminal (shoplifting perfume), and while she is also connected to the underworld, it is clear that she yearns for a different life. The events of that fateful night when Ivan is killed and she so nearly ends up in prison, ironically opens the door to her freedom.

Marie is a philosophy teacher, roaming intellectual plains, yet she also yearns for something else: simplicity. She is evidently intrigued when Juliette says that she "knows nothing, understands nothing". She finally opts out of her conflicted life by committing suicide - unusual behaviour for philosophy-folk, proving that she didn't feel comfortable in her skin.

The three main characters handled their backgrounds in different ways, and while none of them manage to retain their relationships with the others, they still exercise their own free wills, escaping from the "dark sides" in their lives. All the other characters get the same opportunities to make some kind of a difference to their own lives, but they finally choose to stick to the only lives they know. This is a theme that many people can relate to, I believe.

This is just a summary, but hopefully enough to explain my main ideas - though there are more avenues to explore in such a multi-layered film.

Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

[–] film_ophile 12 years ago

jac, i appreciate your thoughts and time. i have read them quickly and must reread them later and ponder. appreciate it.

The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Interesting post and I certainly relate to the ideas you have concerning the three main characters and the tension in life between circumstances and choice.

She finally opts out of her conflicted life by committing suicide - unusual behaviour for philosophy-folk, proving that she didn't feel comfortable in her skin.

I'm not so sure that this is such unusual behaviour for philosophy-folk. David Hume once remarked on his need to play boules and escape thinking, implying it was necessary for his (mental) health. I haven't yet teased out my thoughts and feelings on Marie's descent into depression and how it related to her attempt to bring the old into the past.

A man chases a woman until she catches him

[–] jacowium 12 years ago

Yes, good point. I have no sources or references to back up that specific suicide-claim, so I'm willing to be called out on it. I can't even remember why I wrote that, probably wanted to force the point a bit. Anyway, of all the main characters, Marie appeared to me to have a more steady head on her shoulders and having less internal conflicts than the others - yet it was she who opted for the extreme way out.

Then again, as you mentioned in your other post, it was Marie who commented on the difficulties of trying to stand in another person's shoes - so we're indeed wasting any time debating the merits of Marie's decision...because we can't possibly understand her, to begin with.

And I identify with this: "I'll have to watch this film again. There's a lot to ponder and digest." Indeed! :-)

Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

jacowium, what specific suicide claim were you referring to? I found your post helpful as well as interesting because you articulated a thematic frame within which to view the characters. I don't consider you wrong about Marie in terms of suicide although, as I suggest, I think philosophy-folk can be prone to the sort of melancholic reflection that generates despair.

Aside from her philosophy career, what would you make of someone who appeared steady like Marie yet opted for suicide? I'm not sure what I make of it, but it's an interesting observation.

Funnily enough it's her character's words that stayed with me after the film. Not sure what that says or means!

A man chases a woman until she catches him

[–] jacowium 12 years ago

Well, it's not so much a claim as speculation, but I referred to these few words in my first post: "committing suicide - unusual behaviour for philosophy-folk", which have no basis in fact. Sometimes I long for the days of pencil and eraser, so I can just wipe that off my post!

Aside from her philosophy career, what would you make of someone who appeared steady like Marie yet opted for suicide?

Not to digress, I've often wondered why people (in real life), who seemingly have it all together - meaning they have steady jobs, and on the surface lead a happy family life, etc. - sometimes commit the most atrocious acts, like intentionally wiping out their entire families, for instance. We read about such cases in news columns every now and then. Evidently, there are deep-seated issues which others are simply not aware of, and their actions take everybody by surprise. Yes, Marie was single and independent, but still fit the profile of those fulfilling their potential.

Like you, I find Marie's character very interesting. It is her job to provide some kind of guidance for others, and it is part of her professional demeanour to be a "rock" for others. In other words, her wisdom and powers of comprehension are supposed to provide security for others. And yet, she's as human as everybody else, and few realise that people in her position (academics, philosophers, psychologists, or anyone in a guiding/tutoring role) have the same needs to reach out and have somebody to look up to, and to be a beacon for them. They're not special as such. Who knows what really drives them to take their own lives, but for me the bottom line is that we too conveniently judge a book by its cover, way too often. The seemingly successful professional/intellectual may be just as unhappy or conflicted as the person who ends up in the dumps through circumstance or bad luck. Some of Marie's lines do hint at her struggles, or as I said before, perhaps she wasn't comfortable being in her own skin. Then again, we don't really know, because we can't know.

Taking myself as an example, I always take exception to anybody telling me they understand me - because no-one else does! I'm often a mystery to myself, to begin with.

And sorry, I couldn't really pay heed to the "aside from her philosophy career" in your question, but for me it's a bit hard to completely separate her social status with what occurred.

I believe that the characters of Alex, Marie and Juliette represent people we "know", or can relate to, in real life. (Not taking all the other characters into account here, only these three.) And I applaud director Techiné for having conveyed the humanity (warts and all) of three very different personalities who were somehow drawn to each other; whose orbits fell in synch, if only temporarily. If I can use my own experiences as a yardstick, I think it's an entirely realistic premise and their interactions never felt too forced in my opinion.

Anyway, Marie's suicide took me by surprise as I watched the film, but in hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have been. I now think "Thieves" is a good example of art imitating life.

Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Well if you had erased that line, which you could be editing your post, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Perhaps you would prefer that!

Your comment about Marie being a rock reminds me of the brief scene in which a student approaches her to ask for help because she's struggling with something philosophical and Marie doesn't help her but (rather unhelpfully I thought) reminds her that it's not meant to be easy! From watching the film - and only once so far - I never got behind Marie's cover. Her suicide was unexplained and just lay there. Not even shocking enough to get under my skin. A surface surprise. I suspect that her references to the philosophical past when she was teaching relate to her past that we don't know and if we did we might make more sense of her decision. But as you say and hopefully as the director intended, the film does not invite us into her past so that we might, rather tidily, understand her actions.

Don't you want to be understood by at least one person in this world? I believe it was Winnicott who said something along the lines of 'wonderful to hide, but terrible to never be found'. I don't believe that people when they arrive in the world wish to hide. Circumstances and the ability to separate and split interior life from external living means some choose to do so. Sometimes that choice is defensive rather than fully chosen in that the consequences are embraced.

Following on from this what do you make of the theme of being a thief? Or maybe I should say thievery as a metaphor/symbol within the film?

We don't see things as they are,
we see things as we are

[–] jacowium 12 years ago

Sorry for not replying yet, been manic here but please be patient, & thanks for the interesting responses!

Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

I've watched it for the first time just now. I don't know how I feel about the characters because I don't really understand many of them and Marie's line people aren't so transparent, they have feelings echoes with how opaque the main characters feel to me. My only emotional anchor in the film was the little boy Justin and his relationship to Alex, in particular, and in contrast to his relationship with Jimmy at the end. I felt empathic with him and that reminds me of another Marie line about the difficulties of empathy: standing in another's shoes is difficult when most people cannot stand in their own.

I'll have to watch this film again. There's a lot to ponder and digest.

Btw any thoughts on the theme of thieves? Alex describes his set up with Juliette as meeting like thieves and of course she was one, as were their respective brothers.

A man chases a woman until she catches him

[–] bob998 12 years ago

It is a film about choice. Ivan has chosen to follow his father in the criminal world. He could have been a legitimate businessman but the allure of money and violence is too much. Alex chooses the law because he instinctively rejects the chaos and glamour of Ivan's life (see what happens when the brothers meet at Ivan's new club: Ivan is full of bonhomie and swagger while Alex can't conceal his contempt for his brother's lifestyle.

Marie chooses the youth and vitality of Juliette over the staid traditional life of the university. She is probably going to retire fairly soon from her teaching post, she has already been a wife and mother, and Juliette represents freedom and opportunity. For a woman in her fifties, that's a powerful lure.

Juliette made a bad choice in joining Ivan's gang; she doesn't have the instincts of a car thief and her lack of savvy almost gets her killed. She is on safer ground with Marie, even though she is attracted to Alex too.