MovieChat Forums > Le Havre (2011) Discussion > Question about the detective near the en...

Question about the detective near the end *SPOILERS*


<SPOILERS>
After Marcel and Idrissa make it onto the boat to take him to England, the detective Monet finds them but lies to his officers that he isn't there, so ends up letting the boy escape.

This turn in the story initially really bugged me at first and almost ruined the film because it seemed so incongruous with Monet's determination to find the boy, and all of a sudden he lets him go almost without any warning or development in that scene.

My only explanation was that he thought what Marcel was doing a commendable thing after they talked with one another in Marcel's house only a few moments earlier, and so decided to let the boy go. Also because that scene attempts to show Monet as a real person with a heart.

Although I am still not convinced by my explanation, and even sure if there is a real answer. What do you think?

reply

Monet has given Marcel a couple of tip-offs already in the film, so this piece of grande bonhomie comes as no surprise. Is Kaurismaki saying that helping an illegal immigrant is much less of a crime than the usual stuff that Monet deals with? Well, the initial (offscreen) whacking apart, we don't really get to see what Monet usually deals with.

reply

Interesting. I thought the relationship between Marcel and Monet was a bit like a cat and mouse game, playing on each others wits and bluff (as you say tip-off), a friendly rivalrly of sorts.

Perhaps Monet has softened a little since encountering Marcel and Idrissa. And I like your point about the film reflecting Kauriskmaki's stance on the subject (represented by Monet).
Or maybe I was expecting a more concrete and diegetic explanation.

reply

I'm not sure a character analysis gets us very far in this film. The characters are drawn thinly, child-like. Marx has been a bit of a rogue (we are told, but barely shown), and Monet is world-weary about the role of the police in French society (we are told, but not really shown). In fact, Kaurismaki's entire method runs counter to the UK-US character-development or dramatic plot tradition. We are left with a wholly unreal sugar-sweet confection, but delivered flat and deadpan ("I'm the albino in the family"). It is an alternative world, where illegal immigrants transported in a locked container emerge smart, well-fed, and polite; where the makeshift camps are peopled by friendly, welcoming folk who offer the correct information instantly; and where the local policeman tips off our hero and then makes damn sure the uniformed flics don't mess up the story.

The question is surely, to what end does Kaurismaki offer us this alternative world? It's entirely possible to present 'good' characters who have real problems to face, and who overcome them, given a little help from the screenwriter. (Try Ceylan's Once Upon a Time in Anatolia for a good example of this, or almost anything by Mike Leigh.) But Marx has no problems. No money - hire a pop singer. Pop singer won't sing - persuade his wife to return. Put on a concert - money easily raised. Idrissa half submerged in harbour - no pneumonia there. Idrissa gets to hospital - no questions asked. And so on. Why?

reply

Sorry for the delay in reply, I was thinking quite a bit about your post.

I get the feeling from your reply that you find Kaurismaki 's world perhaps contrived and simply saccharine fantasy, unworthy of the real issues presented in the film. That the story simplifies the real consequences for the characters.

I saw your other post RE dramatic tension and I think you have to take the film for what it is.
Of course you and I both know it is a fictional world, the question is does it all fit within context? I think Kaurismaki is a bit more subversive, presenting the tale as a fable, where the balance of righteous and villains are exaggerated to highlight the triumph or moral decency. Taking the decisions of his charcters too literally ignores the bigger picture, tthe grater good of what ahppens to his charcters.

I think is characters exist in their own world, seprate from ours in a way exhibitng the worst aspects of our modren life yet advocating the best traits of human tenacity and decency. I think this is seen in the anachronistic decor and the soundtrack present in most of his films.

Funny you mention Mike Leigh and Nuri Bilge Ceylan, both of whom I love and watching a lot of recently. Whereas I think Leigh is closer is style to the humour of Kaurismaki yet much more obvious and less dry, bordeing on caracaricture; and Ceylan: hyper-reality / social realist style. They are fascinating character studies, but I find his characters themselves somewhat repulsive to an extent.

reply

> Is Kaurismaki saying that helping an illegal immigrant is much less of a crime
> than the usual stuff that Monet deals with?

Of course he's saying that. Monet comes right out and says to Marx that his job is to chase real criminals. He says he hates malefactors, not illegal immigrants. He has to make a show of chasing Idrissa because his boss has told him to, but it's obvious for a long time that he's not going to arrest him. Right at the start he ignored the initial phone call to the police when a neighbor saw Idrissa enter Marx's house, he ignores another chance to grab Idrissa when he visits the neighborhood and chats to the baker and grocer. They assured him that Marx was a good man and Monet decided not to hurt him by arresting Idrissa.

reply

Thanks, It makes much more sense now, I can't believe I missed some of those clues earlier in the film; Monet's delivery of the scene is sometimes so dry, you're not quite sure what his motives are.

I'm also reminded how Kaurismaki's characters are drawn so linearly, without any doubt of their moral intentions yet without making them ending up caricaturistic or melodramatic, yet while making them relatable human characters.

As mentioned before, you never really see what Monet has to deal with so getting a sense of his morals and motives are a little unclear, he is an inherently an enigmatic character, in comparison to Marx where you see every detail of his impoverished yet humble life, and easily sympathisise with him.

reply

I thought Monet's character could have done with maybe a bit more development; he does after all have the main character arc in the film. We see a real reversal in his actions by the end.

reply

It didn't surprise me, because when they first found the refugees and the boy ran, Monet told them to stop because he was a child. I think he was only doing his job throughout, but wanted to protect the boy, in a way, as Marcel did.

reply