Anyone else find that similarity odd? Especially when they meet fact to face? I kind of wish the director had one of them grow a beard, because some scenes it took a second to realize which character I was looking at.
shareTotally agree! Saw the trailer and thought Jean was playing two characters - good guy and bad guy! Can't quite decide if it was intentional but you surely couldn't find two French actors who look more alike - yet unrelated - than these two. Only the second film I've seen starring Dujardin - the other being the complete opposite The Artist - and I thought he gave a superb performance, portraying a character who had an addictive history himself, who's addiction then became bringing a drug dealer to justice. He showed determination, humour, sensitivity and aggression in the right levels without making the character predictable, the all round good guy. Good support too from the rest of the cast and thoroughly enjoyed the film. Would highly recommend it, especially to people who tend to avoid European language films or this genre.
shareJean Dujardin has cockier eyebrows than Gilles Lellouche, but you're certainly right that the two men look alike. That casting choice was intentional, I'm sure. The movie draws several parallels between the magistrate and the mob boss, after all; they're meant to be doppelgangers:
A) Both men are obsessed by their work, to the detriment of their families, though they both obviously love their families. The magistrate's wife makes the point that her husband's gambling addiction is the same as his addiction to his work. It's also true that Zampa is "addicted" to his work in that he needs drug money just as much as his clients need what he sells, and he is determined to stay in the business, come hell or high water. Both men have a drive to excel their fields.
B) The drug kingpin and the magistrate both see themselves as nurturers and providers. Michel thinks that he has to stop Zampa because the drug trade impacts innocent people like Lily, and could impact his own children. For his part, Zampa admits to Michel that he sees himself as a businessman who helps his friends through his business. He means it, too; Zampa grieves heavily when his friends are killed.
C) Zampa and Michel both exist to thwart the other. Because drugs are illegal, selling drugs means getting around the law. And because drugs are illegal, the law is sworn to thwart drug dealers.
D) The downfalls of both men happen at almost the same time. Once Michel figures out how to take down Zampa, he is killed. Once Michel is killed, Zampa is arrested. Both men bring about the other's downfall (even if Zampa didn't order the magistrate's murder, he was still responsible for that death in a round-about way.). There's a certain balance in the fact that both men brought each other down. After all, Michel is the perfect lawman and Zampa is the perfect criminal, and they are symbolic of the law and the criminal world, respectively. It makes perfect sense that when the law symbolically ceases to exist with the death of the magistrate, so does crime, and when crime is thwarted, symbolized by the arrest of Zampa, there is no need for the law.
I found it tougher to deal with when they were apart, for sure.
share