Im sorry but I find it hard to get passed the fact that one of the main actors in the movie only had the use of one arm.
I have no doubt of the skill of this actor but it just made the whole thing less believable.
"He lost his right arm at the age of 15 while playing near the railroad, he got caught by the train, the other boy he was playing with died."
IMDB Jamel Debbouze's Bio
That's not a joke by the filmmakers.
Maybe it just shows that the French would have taken any African who wanted to die for them, especially since the African soldiers were always in the front lines. As the first battle scene shows, they are sent ahead to be fired at by the Germans, so the French artillery can identify German positions. Who cares if the guy getting shot only has one arm? Certainly not the French officers.
sharedo you have any evidence for you saying that the French would have taken anybody and African troops were always in the front lines?
From what I have read of the French army in world war 11 they would have taken anybody from anywhere after 1940 to try to regain lost French pride.
I would accept that the medical standards for native troops would have been less for French troops,but find it hard to believe that they would take someone with one arm.
I liked this film but it was not great and I think the filmmakers were more interested in the political aspects than the miltary ones.
What percentage of african troops actually felt like the ones in the film? I think it is a bit of a re writing of history to show so many of them as nationalists.
I mean that the movie, as a work of art, tries to "show", "present", or "portray" the French army as willing to take in any "body" ready to fight for them in the front lines (primarily a physical "body", not a person to them). The character fits within the film in this way. Whether it is historically "demonstrable" with evidence that such would have been the case is different from whether it is believable within the limits of the film. We are discussing a work of art with a political aim, not a historical treatise.
shareOne of the reasons the Algerian War of Independence, which finally ended around 1962, was so violent is because France was so disloyal to the Algerians. France had colonized Algeria, settled it, turned many Algerians into indentured labor, ruthlessly put down any rebellion, but all the while "promised" Algerians (and other North Africans) that they would become full-fledged French citizens, vote, hold office, etc. They termed Algeria, for example, as a "department" (state) of mainland France, but then went back on all their promises an deven the smallest "reforms. Until the late 1940's and early 1950's many North Africans believed the French would make good on their promises and an entire class of North Africans supported France and considered themselves "French". So, yes, it is possible for many WWII veterans and veterans in Indochina to have considered that they were fighting for "their" country--France. France were able to "win" in WWII largely because of their North African and African troops, just as England used Indian and Gurkha troops in the Asian theater.
shareI completely agree. I think the main reason he's in the film is that he's France's most famous actor 'of colour'(Amelie, Angel-A). I don't think the French Army no matter how desperate they were for manpower would recruit someone who couldn't fire a rifle.
Notice also how no-one refers to his missing arm. I'd be interested to see if Jamel Debbouze was a co-producer on the film.
But God, this film was dull. And I like French movies!
Instead of wondering, you could look it up.
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0444182/
Jamel Debbouze .... co-producer
Note that he does carry a rifle - he just never uses it. In the only sequence where he is actually seen firing a weapon he uses a pistol.
shareYeah, gotta agree. There's probably a young G.I. or two missing a limb out there right now still proudly serving but in Finance, Logistics, Adjudant General, etc. but not as a Line Doggie. You could probably fight without an arm for awhile until shock and loss of blood take over or until you're medevaced out but you wouldn't start the battle without an arm. Guess co-producers get to bend the all important suspension-of-disbelief all out of shape. Otherwise, I thought the accuracy in uniforms and small arms was first rate.
POSSIBLE SPOILER
Is "Aicha" (sp.?) Arabic for "Francis?"
obscure reference to early 1980s film about men in uniform
Aisha means "alive" in Arabic. It was the name of one of Mohammed's wives.
Yo Roger
Not "Aisha" but something like "Aicha." In the movie, while off the line and back in barracks one goumier called the one armed goumier "Aicha" and old one arm freaked out and went at the other guy with a knife, holding it to his throat that seemed like a 'if ya call me Francis...I'll kill ya' moment.
He wasn't a goumier. Goumiers were irregulars who served in a scouting or guerrilla role, not ordinary infantrymen.
shareIn French, ch- is pronounced like sh- in English. Aïcha is the French spelling of Aisha. Yes, it is a reference to Mohammed's youngest wife.
shareHave to say, I hadn't noiced it in the beginning of the film.
About a third of the way in, I saw him with hand in pocket and started to wonder, 'what's up with that'?
Seeing him carrying an M1 at the balance point, cradled GI style, I thought he was just being lazy. I expected an explanation later on, but started to think he'd perhaps been shot earlier and I'd missed it or something.
I read that he wasn't missing a hand/arm, just that it was paralysed following an accident. But I've never heard of the actor before or even thought of him as disabled, so I guess it doesn't matter all that much as far as the film goes.
The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/
[deleted]
I logged on to IMDB specifically to see if anyone else was having trouble with the one-armed midget. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the movie and think all the actors involved did an excellent job - it was a top notch film. But the fact that they made no attempt to explain away the fact that he was missing a hand - in fact they actually show him at one point walking around with an M-1 Garand - as if he could fire and reload it!!!! It is a bit insulting to the person watching the film. Say he is there only to cary ammunition and issue him a pistol and grenades. Is that asking too much? Jesus Christ!
shareWell, given the sergeant talks about promoting him to private (unless the subtitles are really bad) maybe he's on the strength as a servant.
shareNot private..but Soldat 2.class I think..french rank system is VERY different..No Automated Promotions..you have to work hard for each rank above 2.class "private"(2years,and much hard work in those 2 years too!)
share[deleted]
Djamal Bouazze may be a good actor (though he didn't seem anything special to me) but to have a soldier with one hand is ludicrous! I know they tried to hide it by him having his hand in his pocket but it's so obvious!
Seriously mis-cast!
In case anybody watched the beginning of the movie, I quote a little latin "necessitas facit jus"... Enjoy.
emm
"to tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men"
But he's not supposed to be a soldier with one arm is he. He's acting the part of an able-bodied soldier.
If you find the fact that he has his hand in his pocket for much of the time so distracting, why don't you just imagine that he's a kid from North Africa fighting in the Italian mountains, snowy France and freezing Alsace - and so might have cold hands.
Do you often have problems telling the difference between reality and films?
They could at least have included a scene where it's revealed he had a deformed hand or something, and he joins up and tries to hide it.
shareActually, Jamel Debouze is one of the most popular stars in France. A movie on Africans who fought for France would have been unconceivable without Jamel (that's how we call him). I also think they should have done something to hide the fact he only has one arm.
shareOk the people who are talking about them recruiting one armed people into the front lines are just silly. OF COURSE they would not do this. The point is Said is supposed to have TWO perfectly fine arms (hence nothing being said about his deformity) and the director was trying to hide this fact (REALLY BADLY) by having him stick his fingers in his pockets the whole time. He could have hidden it using some clever camera angles and making him wear gloves and a prosthetic hand to make it less obvious.
But the point about whether the French army would recruit a one-armed African is pretty moot, because (its pretty obvious) he is supposed to have both hands.
"Even my parents called me Mulder"
Couldnt agree more, the redicilous sight of a one armed man rendered much of this otherwize excellent film laughable. What were they thinking?
share