MovieChat Forums > La Môme (2007) Discussion > What happened between 1939 and 1945?

What happened between 1939 and 1945?


Strangely, the WW2 years are completely ignored in this film. Does anybody know why?

reply

well, they probably weren't ignored, but they might not have been good enough to make the final cut. Remember, it's also possible scenes associated with WW2 might have been very costly to shoot. Stock footage would probably not fit the style of the rest of the film well, either.

I can't fault them for excluding WW2 years, the movie was about Piaf, not the war. The war might have been too much of a distraction from the fact that the movie was about Piaf.

reply

well, I disagree, I believe WW2 was very important period for her, quote Wikipedia:

During World War II, she was a frequent performer at German Forces social gatherings in occupied France, and many considered her a traitor; following the war she claimed to have been working for the French resistance. While there is no evidence of this per se, it does seem to be true that she was instrumental in helping a number of individuals (including at least one Jew) escape Nazi persecution. Throughout it all, amazingly, she remained a national and international favorite. Piaf dated a Jewish pianist during this time and co-wrote a subtle protest song with Monnot. According to one story, singing for high-ranking Germans at the One Two Two Club earned Piaf the right to pose for photographs with French prisoners of war, to boost their morale. The Frenchmen were supposedly able to cut out their photos and use them as forged passport photos, and some of them managed to escape.

reply

I think the war time was excluded for obvious reasons. If it had been included and not given enough time, people would be upset. If it were given too much time, it would change the entire focus of the movie.

We really can't know for sure exactly why this part of the movie was excluded, but I'm sure there was a very good reason for it.

reply

Piaf gave the Jewish composer of L'accordeoniste, Michel Emer, aka Michael Rosenstein, sufficient money to enable him to hide during the war. The film misrepresented the composer of the song. He was not a soldier leaving for the front. He was a Jew, desperate for a way out of the impending German occupation of Paris. I very much doubt that Piaf was in any way a traitor. The French do not forgive traitors and they have always adored her.

reply

I'm not sure you're right about the French not forgiving traitors, maybe they just sweep things under the carpet. Witness a photograph of François Mitterand and family having dunner in 1974 with René Bousquet a notorious deporter of Jews. There were many executions immediately after the war but they soon subsided and life returned to normal. Those who had committed war crimes who survived the first few months after the liberation went more or less unpunished. For more on this see Carmen Calil's book Bad Faith.

reply

I'm also quite curious as to why it was left out. Perhaps the director did not want to make it longer but imo it would have been interesting to watch.

reply

I can understand why the director would be afraid to get into those years, but I still would have loved to watch her reaction to those events. Someone as passionate, stubborn, and prideful as Edith dealing with the Nazi invasion---that would not have been fascinating?? Despite the risks, it absolutely should have been included. In fact that is why I gave the film a 9 rather than a 10, to be perfectly honest about it. It would have been a bold addition to the film, and it was definitely one of the most adaptive periods of her life. I just feel the director was afraid he couldnt find that balance between too much and too little about WWII, and dodged it entirely. The only bad choice for this film, imho.


"Are you righteous? Kind? Does your confidence lie in this? Are you loved by all? Know that I was, too. Do you imagine your suffering will be any less because you loved goodness and truth?" - Corporal Fife, in Malicks' philosophical masterpiece 'The Thin Red Line' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120863/)

reply

I thought the same thing - a strange decision to ignore such an important event, especially as has been pointed out, Edith was involved in several interesting events during those years...

reply

I too downgraded my rating because of this. Leaving out WW2 is the ssame as if they had left out WW2 in the Glenn Millar Story. It's still uncertain wherther she collaborated or not but the issue should have been addressed in the movie one way or the other.
Other than that, it's a fine film!

reply

very true. I agree with you.





Hello everybody!

reply

[deleted]

I've started a new topic, continuing this issue in a more general direction.

reply

[deleted]

There's a bit in the deleted scenes on the DVD of her mother trying to drunkenly sell some manky flowers to a load of German soldiers. But, I also thought it was a bit odd that WW2 seemed to just be ignored.

I just got done taming a wild honeymoon stallion for you guys.

reply

[deleted]



"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth." G. Marx

reply

[deleted]

If they showed Paris falling to the Germans, they would also have to show Paris being liberated by the Americans....too much to stomach for the French

I doubt it...but who knows, it was probably a budget issue, you need a LOT of extras and equipment to shoot anything war related

reply

If they showed Paris falling to the Germans, they would also have to show Paris being liberated by the Americans....too much to stomach for the French

The problem is that Paris was not liberated by the Americans, but by the French themselves. :-)
As incredible it may seem to you Americans didn't win the war alone. ;-)

reply

Oddly enough the French do not know enough about their behaviour during and after the war. A lot of French collaborated with the Germans (not only Vichy France) and De Gaulle was more a symbol than a real effective general. French resistance was -unfortunately- not very effective. Shame about the war years was quickly replaced by national pride. But well, perhaps for the better.

reply

And of course you think you know much more on the subject than we do.
Well, for your information, we are taught in great detail at school about what happened during WWII in our country. The good sides and the bad ones.

It has been said that 1 % of the French were resistants during the war and another 1 % were collaborators. The rest of the population was trying to survive under very harsh conditions.
To say that a vast proportion of the French population was supportive of the German occupiers or "collaborators" is simply not true. "Indifferent" would not be an accurate word either.
That the French legal authorities had a shameful behavior during WWII is alas correct. But on the the other hand, please remember that France ranks third at the Yad Vashem memorial for its high number of people who saved Jews during WWII (a figure easy to check on numerous websites, including the Yad Vashem website). The 3/4 of the Jews who lived in France were actually saved.
Moreover, it took actually quite a long time before London took the French resistance seriously. De Gaulle and Jean Moulin have had a hard time to make themselves heard.
Finally, Operation Torch (in Northern Africa) and Operation Overlord would never have been successful without the help and the support of the French Resistance.

"Shame about the war years was quickly replaced by national pride."
In the immediate years after the war, yes. But I would say it was only natural after what people had experienced and suffered. It's too easy to judge people when you are well-fed and comfortably sat behind your computer.
Although the occupation often remains a sensitive subject even today, contrary to some interpretations (especially in the USA), the French as a whole have acknowledged their past and no longer deny their conduct during the war.
(Further reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance and here http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568934_25/France.html
If you care for numbers, here is something very interesting : http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6142
More information on De Gaulle here (and the quaint attitude of Roosevelt and more especially Churchill towards him) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdegaulle.htm -- and this is a British website !)
Check also the page on this site on "The sorrow and the pity".)

I was only correcting the gross mistake made by the previous post, that Paris was not liberated by the Americans but by the French themselves. Americans tend frequently to think that they made everything happened.

reply

"The problem is that Paris was not liberated by the Americans, but by the French themselves. :-)
As incredible it may seem to you Americans didn't win the war alone. ;-)"

Wow I am the LEAST jingoistic American ever, and quite a Europhile, but seriously, are you that stupid? Everyone knows that Churchill and Roosevelt made a POLITICAL decision to let the French troops be the first to enter Paris. This is every WW2 history book or documentary. There were allied troops from free Poland, Free Netherlands, India, Australia, NZ, Canada, etc, etc, plus UK and US we all know. But the majority of the weapons and troops who liberated France in general and everything up to about a mile from the Paris city limits were American.

We also gave symbolic first entry to free Poles, Dutch, Danish, Norwegians etc., and we had Arab troops be the first to "free" Kuwait City. Etc.

But as to the WW2 stuff...It could have EASILY fit in the "...No Regret.." portion at the end. Where they just casually mention that she had a kid. A CHILD!!!! She could have had flashbacks to just a few things she did during the War. Five minutes is all it would have taken. Her thinking back on the good AND bad things she did then.


Defender of the weak, and enemy of the weak minded.

reply

When I wrote that the French troops liberated Paris,well they did. I didn't refer to any decision. What's wrong with you? You can put the facts on the way you like the best, still, French troops entered first in Paris in August and liberated it. Never said anymore than this.

Now, what I did learn in my school days went like this: Eisenhower never regarded Paris to be a primary objective. The target for the US Army and the British Army was rather Berlin than Paris, especially to be there before the Soviet Army. I don't see much of a political decision here, rather pragmatism.

reply

"When I wrote that the French troops liberated Paris,well they did."

You left a HUGE portion out, and CLEARLY implied that the Americans had nothing to do with it and the French did it themselves. It was basically a ceremonial "liberation" only made possible by the US and UK. There were more Canadians (!!!) than Free French troops involved in the liberation of France.


Defender of the weak, and enemy of the weak minded.

reply

You left a HUGE portion out, and CLEARLY implied that the Americans had nothing to do with it
Not at all. It is only YOUR perception. Can I just remind you that it wasn't exactly the point of this thread anyway? I don't think that anyone here was planning to give a lecture on year 1945 and everything which happened then.
Now, if you think that political decision=liberation, well, fine. Everybody is entitled to his/her ideas. I assume that fighting troops all over the world would love the idea.
And it was the same political decision that to this other fact, very glorious indeed: due to American pressure for a white-only liberation force, black French troops were excluded from the return to Paris on 25 August 1945. Thank you very much!

It was basically a ceremonial "liberation"
I am sure that the families of those who died during these few days in August 1945 would enjoy your comment. OK, it wasn't Stalingrad (by the way -- what if the Soviet troops hadn't held back Germans troops on the Eastern front?), but there was a battle and people died during these few days. Despise the French as much as you like, but show at least some respect to the dead. Not to mention the German casualties.

And you call yourself a Europhile? With a little less passion and more equanimity, you should be fine.

reply

You moron, I don't despise the FRENCH, I despise people who ignore reality. I started by saying I am the least jingoistic person there is. Yes, plenty of French troops dies at Normandy, etc. We all know this. I am speaking SPECIFICALLY of the liberation of Paris itself. Not the entire war. And yes, the Soviet Union also deserves way more credit than the French. In terms of lives lost, the Russians and Chinese both are way "ahead" of the US as well. In terms of percent of population lost in the war, quite a few countries are "ahead" of the US by this count.

So I am not chanting "USA! USA!" Nor am I saying France sucks. I am just placing the liberation of Paris in perspective.

Its you who came on here to flippantly say that the other person was wrong, that the French liberated Paris themselves, and you and I both know that's a fiction meant for PR purposes.


Defender of the weak, and enemy of the weak minded.

reply

When one comes to insults, it only reveals a lack of arguments. When people know what they're talking about, they don't feel to yell or insult other people. They come with strong arguments and stay calm.
Nothing more to say. Let people judge for themselves.

Then again, if you consider simply the original political decision (which may be more obscure than you think -- see below) and look down on a battle which lasted several days and costed several thousands of deaths, fine. I'm just saying that the fighting troops which were there would be glad to learn that no matter what they did, the liberation was simply not theirs. I'm just saying that the victory belongs to them too. We owe as much respect to the fighting troops than to those who led the war -- if not more. And yes, French troops liberated Paris, that's what I say from the very beginning. You can always argue that the moon is blue, it won't change its color.

And no, FYI, French military casualties in Normandy were scarce. Now, civilian casualties were quite high.

Finally, oddly enough, the BBC (you know, that notoriously pro-French media) seems to be in agreement with me: "The leader of the Free French forces, Charles de Gaulle, made it clear that he wanted his Frenchmen to lead the liberation of Paris... Allied High Command agreed, but only on one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers. [...] In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish. The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation even though many of the troops involved were North African or Syrian." (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm ).

Don't worry, I need much more than that to lose my composure. I just wish you could behave the same way, because I won't argue with you forever if you can't respect people.

reply



Uhhh, since I am BLACK and took "History of African Americans" in college i am quite aware that the US was racist (and still is in many ways.) Like I said four times already I am NOT saying "USA! USA!" STFU about your stupid notion that I am trying to "bash France" something.


Defender of the weak, and enemy of the weak minded.

reply